Quote of the Day: Let them eat Republican voters!

From Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens:

“I most certainly will not vote for Donald Trump...I will vote for the least left-wing opponent to Donald Trump and I want to make a vote to make sure that he has — that he is the biggest loser in presidential history since, I don’t know, Alf Landon or going back further. It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents — this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form. So they have to learn a lesson in the way perhaps Democrats learned from McGovern in ’72. George Will said let’s have him lose in 50 states. Why not Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, too?”

Whoa. Hate Trump much?

That almost reads like a Marie Antoinette quote: "How dare the commoners think to choose such populist rubbish for a Republican presidential candidate! One might think they thought they own the party! Muffy, grab me another tea while you're in the kitchen please?"

While I am no fan of Trump, I don't take it out on his followers. I think they are genuinely good people looking for an answer to the country's problems, and unfortunately hitching their wagon to the wrong guy. But at least they are trying, instead of looking for solutions in Obama-lite candidates like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. But to ask for them to be "punished" so they will learn a lesson? That's just elitist spitefulness.

Mr. Stephens, you need to get out of your editorial office and take a walk on the streets. Clearly, your Wall Street Journal office is at such a lofty height, you aren't getting enough air up there.

The Democrats New Mascot

(The fruit of my mad photoshopping "skillz".)

The Democratic Party's new mascot should be a prisoner instead of a donkey. Why? According to a Rasmussen poll:

Among Democratic voters, 71% believe [Hillary] Clinton should keep running [even if she is indicted on felony charges], a view shared by only 30% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

While I am the first to state that anyone is innocent until proven guilty, running for president doesn't require such lofty requirements. To be honest, I am of the strong suspicion that Hillary is guilty, mainly because she has NOT denied any of the pertinent facts of the case: She had a private email server and she used it for her communications as secretary of state. In fact, the way she has danced around the accusations makes her look like she thinks she is entitled to special treatment.

Entitlement? Sounds like a lot of other people who affiliate with the Democratic Party, aka the party of moochers and looters.

European Union Vows "No More Free Speech!"

This is incredible to me. From Bloomberg:

U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists. 

Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

Note the EU governments aren't vowing to get out of the Middle East after spending over a decade of killing innocent civilians there, leading to the rise of such extremist groups as ISIS. No, it is much easier to limit free speech rights.

Basically, the message is this: "Just shut up while I'm killing these Muslims, ok?" Mind you, even if they managed to kill every Muslim on Earth, your free speech rights wouldn't return.

Have a nice day. Just don't talk so loud.

Gorilla Lives Matter

Harambe was a gorilla, living a quiet life in the Cincinnati Zoo.

While a gorilla is capable of making enemies, Harambe never had much of a chance to do that, living in an enclosed prison for the better part of his life. His only crime was being a gorilla.

Still, no one would call him "gentle".

Certainly not the 4-year old boy who fell 15 feet into Harambe's enclosure, and got dragged through the water by Harambe.

Regardless, some experts have said Harambe clearly did not intend harm to the boy. If anything, he was protecting the boy, in the only way gorillas know how. In the wild, you don't protect the young with half measures. There are no "child-proof gates", or anti-bacterial toys, or baby room radios, or any of the crap we humans take for granted. To a gorilla, protecting the young means keeping them with you, even dragging them along if they give you a hard time. A gorilla protects young by keeping himself between the child and the outside world.

Gorillas don't have the luxury of checking their Facebook, or taking photos, or ignoring one child for another. They have to watch their offspring 24/7/365. If they don't, there are plenty of predators that will happily feed on their offspring. Also, gorillas have to be strong enough to fend off things like jungle cats. But they also have to be gentle enough not to damage their own children even as they try to protect them.

Harambe had not yet reached reproductive maturity, being only one day short of 17 years old. But he did as well as could be expected of a stranger who came across a young child in his enclosure. He let his instincts kick in, and he stood guard over the child. He moved the child when he felt threatened by the unusual screams coming from scared humans (if you think gorillas don't have a healthy fear of humans, think again). At no time did Harambe feel threatened by the boy.

Harambe wasn't the child's father, but he followed nature's law to always respect the young of others. One can argue that Harambe's strength was a danger to the boy, but never his motive.

For this, Harambe was shot and killed. Not for what he did, but for what he MIGHT do, even unintentionally.

I write this not to lay blame on the parents, or the zookeepers, or anyone. I am not trying to suggest there was a better action in hindsight. But don't try to sell me that this was the gorilla's fault. Harambe came across an innocent child, and tried to protect him the only way a gorilla knows how.

And we murdered him.

Voting and the Holy Grail

"Why Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is a Waste of Your Vote" is the title of a well-reasoned essay at Reason.com (pun intended, as always), by Jeffrey A. Singer. In it, Dr. Singer makes the case that when you are voting against a candidate, and not FOR a candidate, voting for the lesser of two evils (aka one of the two major party candidates) is actually a bad idea:

...Choosing not to vote is always an option. But I prefer to express my opinion in a less passive manner. Not voting certainly provides the satisfaction of knowing that I did not sanction or legitimize the offerings of the two major parties. But that satisfaction is only personal and private. I want to more actively make my views known. Using the following chain of logic, I have found a positive way to express myself through, what I believe, is the most effective allocation of my vote in November: 

1) According to Professor Ilya Somin in Democracy and Political Ignorance,my vote has, on average, a roughly 1 in 60 million chance of being the decisive vote in the Presidential election. (It might be a great as 1 in 10 million in my relatively small state of Arizona. It would have a roughly 1 in a billion chance of being decisive if I lived in California.) 

2) If I vote for the lesser of evils and hold my nose, my vote is blended in with millions of others—there is no way to register my dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given me. There is no way to separate those who voted for a lesser of two evils from those who voted because they actually LIKED the candidate. 

3) If I vote for the Libertarian party candidate, I am directly affecting the vote total of that candidate. Because that candidate will get fewer total votes than the major party candidates, when all votes are totaled up, I will have had a greater effect on raising the total percentage of votes for the Libertarian candidate. If the Libertarian candidate garners say, 5 percent of the vote as opposed to 1 percent, then my vote made a greater impact in making a statement than it would have if it was folded in with the 40 or 50 million voters who voted for a major party candidate. 

4) If the Libertarian candidate gets say, 5 percent of the vote, then that clearly means that 5 percent of the voters chose a candidate that they KNEW had absolutely no chance of winning, rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. What's more, they chose the candidate with the most pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights program. That sends a clear message.  

One other thing: What happens when the Libertarian candidate gets 5+% of the votes? I guaranty the major party who loses by less than 5+% of the vote will take note for the next election, and try to figure out how to get those votes they left on the table. That is what the Republicans did in the 1994 midterms, after Ross Perot basically stole the election from George H.W. Bush.

I am reminded of the following scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:



How often have we voted for a candidate as a "lesser evil", only to realize later that we "chose poorly"? One thing I have learned over the years is that even a "lesser evil" is still evil, still a bad choice. It is better to vote for a third party candidate than waste your vote on the two majors, where it will just get blended in with all those people voting stupidly FOR the candidates. If you don't have a third party candidate, even staying home is a better option, in my opinion.

"I think voting for the lesser of two evils in game theory will always lead to more evil."--Penn Jillette

Choose wisely.

Sea Levels Going Down

There is a nice article with plenty of graphs and numbers over at WUWT, which shows "The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York".

If you recall the Global Warming hysteria claims of rising sea levels, this tends to debunk the so-called "settled science", which is one of those phrases like "military intelligence" which don't make much sense on the surface.

Science doesn't usually get settled in one lifetime. Anyone remember the 1970's Global Cooling scare? How long was it from Galileo's championing of heliocentrism before it became "settled science"? It wasn't during Galileo's lifetime, because he spent the rest of his life under house arrest for his theories.

There is a valid reason for not calling science "settled" within your own lifetime: We live in a period with it's own politics. To call a scientific theory "settled" is only to say that it matches political goals of this period of time. This is a dangerous confluence, causing science to tell politicians what they want to hear.

You may ask, "Why would politicians want Global Warming?" I will refer you to the phrase from Rahm Emanuel:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.

Although Emanuel talks about the more idealistic side of big problems, politicians view big problems through the lens of their own rational self-interest. And what does a person in a position of power want? More power, of course! So big problems inevitably become big power grabs. "I will need to take these rights from you, in order to save you from this big problem." Needless to say, you never get your rights back, even after the problem has passed. However, for politicians, problems NEVER pass.

A problem like Global Warming is ideal for politicians, because it is so long-term that it never has to go away. "The temperature may not have gone up this year, but it will in 10-20-100 years from now, if we don't take action!" At what point do we realize President/Senator/Congressman Chicken Little doesn't really care if the sky is falling? He is using this for his own gain.

No Oversight at State Department During Clinton Tenure

This is one of those things you don't hear much about, from Fox News:

[Howard Krongard, a George W. Bush administration appointee who served as the State Department inspector general from April 2005 to January 2008] noted that during Clinton’s four-year term, from January 2009 to January 2013, there was no Senate-confirmed inspector general in place. Suggesting the Clintons show a pattern of avoiding oversight, Krongard indicated that Hillary Clinton benefited from the fact there was no IG during her term.

This makes sense, since Obama would consider oversight as less important. He is a looter after all, surrounded by his fellow Democratic Party looters.

Note that during the beginning of that period, Obama had a friendly Democratic House and Senate, and could have appointed nearly anyone to the inspector general position and gotten it through. But it was far more important for the government to take control of healthcare and to bailout Wall Street.

And one other thing:

The State Department’s former top watchdog, in an interview with Fox News, rejected Hillary Clinton’s repeated claims that her personal email use was in line with her predecessors’ – while saying he would have immediately opened an investigation if he caught wind of a secretary of state using such an account. 

Howard Krongard, a George W. Bush administration appointee who served as the State Department inspector general from April 2005 to January 2008, cited his own experience in challenging Clinton’s insistence that her practices were nothing out of the ordinary. 

“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” said Krongard, who served during Rice’s tenure.  

Further, he said, “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.” 

"Crooked Hillary" indeed.

Then again...

Krongard resigned from the IG position in December 2007 after accusations he blocked Iraq-related investigations, charges he denied. 

I think we may need a fourth branch of government that just provides oversight to the other three branches, because clearly the checks aren't balancing.

Just when I think I will support Gary Johnson...

...he goes and does this. From Liberty Hangout:

[Libertarian presidential candidate John] McAfee neglected to endorse Gary Johnson, but Austin Petersen made it clear from the beginning of his campaign that he would endorse whichever candidate the LP elected. While Petersen and Gary often had testy moments with each other in the debates, Austin stood by his word by endorsing Johnson after he won the candidacy. 

As a token of good faith, Austin gave Johnson a replica of George Washington’s flintlock pistol, to let him know that he has Austin’s full support in the general election. Tearing up on the front stage of the convention floor, Austin said to Gary as he presented him with the pistol, “You have my sword, and you have my gun.” 

Hours later, a number of delegates were reporting on social media that Johnson was seen tossing Austin’s pistol in the garbage. A husband and wife witnessed Johnson throwing out the pistol and retrieved it from the garbage. The pistol has since been returned to Austin Petersen and remains in his possession.

What Petersen did was classy. Johnson proved himself less than crass with his response.

To be honest, I see what Johnson did as a slap in the face to all Petersen supporters. November is still a long way away...

Libertarians Make Safe Choice

How can a political party seeking radical change make a safe choice for president?

Ask the Libertarians, who selected their own version of Mitt Romney. They selected former Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson as their presidential candidate. You only have to look back at every Republican nominee dating back to 1992 to find a party making more safe choices.

Of course, current Republican nominee Donald Trump is excluded from the list of GOP safe choices. I find it amazing the Republicans have turned radical with their choice, as the Libertarians went dull? Maybe it has something to do with how many Republicans have turned Libertarian lately?

I confess to being disappointed. I will support Johnson, and vote for him, but don't expect excitement from me. Austin Petersen was the best presidential choice since Reagan in 1984. Going from Petersen to Johnson was like going from a Lamborghini to a used minivan. The minivan may be more practical, but...Lamborghini, man?!

  
But the Libertarians still have to get from point A to point B. Can the uninspiring Johnson get them there?

This is the ride selected by Libertarians. I suppose it is better than the Republican tricycle and the Democrat's getaway car...

Weekend Closing Post: Dave Edmunds

Another week comes to a close, but let's take a quick look at an often overlooked musical treasure, Dave Edmunds.

His peak came in the 1970's and early 80's, although he only had one big hit in the U.S.: I Hear You Knocking, from 1970:



His career went better in the U.K., charting with several songs during the 1970's. But his next real hit in the U.S. wasn't until 1983, when he reached number 7 on the Billboard Rock Chart with Slipping Away, which I consider his best song ever:




Have a great long weekend folks, and I will return Tuesday with more TRUTH.

TRUTH Endorsement: Austin Petersen for President

With the Libertarian Convention this weekend, I have decided to go out on a limb and issue my endorsement for presidential candidate early: I endorse Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen.

Previously, I had stated I would be endorsing Libertarian Gary Johnson. Then I watched two embarrassing debate performances by Johnson, and two outstanding performances by Petersen. If the Libertarian Party's goal is to get on the debate stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, then the LP can not afford the luxury of a dull candidate like Johnson. The candidate must be able to scrap with Trump, which Johnson is far too nice. At the same time, he must be able to counter Hillary's wonky talking points with both logic and wit (she has a severe lack of wit), which Johnson might be able to match her for logic but his wit is dull. At best, Johnson might match well with Hillary, but Trump will walk all over both of them. That results in Trump wins, and uninspired Libertarians stay home.

But let's talk about something more important: Why support Austin Petersen?

The man is not flawless, and if you search the internet, you can find examples of where he has lost his temper in the past, and said things in anger which he regrets now. I believe any married man can sympathize with that. But he isn't a serial philanderer like Bill Clinton was, even before Clinton's first election. Petersen was a Media guy, working as a producer as well as a talking head. Not political experience, which one might argue is a plus on Petersen's side. Both Bush and Obama had plenty of political experience, and we see what that got us.

It doesn't take much to define Petersen as the "lesser of three evils" in this election. Pulse? Check. Does he seem honest? Check. But Gary Johnson can pass those tests (ok, maybe not the pulse part).

Here is where Austin Petersen stands on the issues (taken from his website):

1. Taxes & Spending:

"Reduce economic inequality by lowering barriers to entry in the marketplace, licensing, taxation, and fees. Urge congress to adopt the “Penny Plan,” across the board spending cuts of 1% per program. Abolish the existing, complicated tax code that discriminates against the most productive Americans, and replace it with a simple, flat tax at the lowest rate necessary to support the core functions of government. Seek voluntary ways to fund public services where possible, lotteries, tolls, etc."

This is what "fiscal conservatism" looks like. Republicans, take notes. Democrats, your punch bowl is being taken away.

2. National Defense & Military

"Strengthen national security by reducing/ending foreign aid to nations hostile to the USA. Reconsider overseas troop deployments in areas not important to US national security, and audit the Pentagon. Reform the Veteran’s Affairs administration. 

"The American people have sacrificed enough blood and treasure in the Middle East. No more nation building. Obey the Constitution, and only go to war if it’s declared by congress. Consider constitutional Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with terrorists."

Petersen takes a practical approach to national defense, ending the wars of imperialism we have been fighting for over a decade. Don't expect Trump or Clinton to do this.

3. Free Trade (and Energy)

"Lower barriers to trade with foreign nations, and allow American companies the leeway they need to develop domestic energy production, in order to create good paying jobs at home."

I especially like his energy policy, because it combines perfectly with a "get our military out of the Middle East" foreign policy while making us energy independent at the same time. This policy is extremely good for America.

4. Monetary Policy

"Audit the Federal Reserve first. End it through competition last. Institute a Monetary Commission devoted to studying the implications of replacing central banking with “Free Banking,” and abolishing laws of legal tender. Allow gold and silver to circulate as a currency, removing them from the commodity list, and make precious metal coins free of taxation. Let digital currencies compete against Federal Reserve notes."

Now that the Federal Reserve has blown through over $4 trillion of taxpayer money (which we didn't have to begin with) supporting Wall Street with Bernanke's hare-brained idea of quantitative easing (Read: Giving the Wall Street gamblers back the money they blew on the housing market), isn't it time we audit the Fed? But more than that, Austin has an idea how to fix the problem of the Fed. Will his idea work? I don't know, but the Fed's idea of blowing asset bubbles and then have a recession every 7 or so years isn't working all that great.

5. Immigration

"Streamline our immigration system by following updated “Ellis Island” styled protocols. Security check. Disease check. Done." 

This is so much better than Obama's "ignore the law and let 'em all in!" policy.

6. Constitutional Priorities

"Work with congress to institute new protocols that will protect national security while placing the balance of weight towards due process and individual rights. Rein in the NSA, and demand accountability in our security agencies so as to protect our 4th Amendment rights."

What makes this nice is it works perfectly with his plans to get us out of the Middle East. It is so rare to see a candidate whose policy solutions actually work together. By reducing U.S. involvement in Islamic nations, he will also be reducing the long-term terrorist threat (why terrorize the U.S. when they aren't doing anything to you?). This also creates less of a need for the NSA spying on Americans to prevent "terrorism", even though the truth is they aren't just doing it for terrorism, and we know it.

7. Crime & Punishment

"Reclassify the war on drugs as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Deschedule all drugs at the federal level and end the federal War on Drugs once and for all."

How many people have to die, and how many lives have to be ruined for minor drug infractions, before we wake up and realize the truth in the statement above?

8. Reforming Entitlements

"Allow young people to opt out of Social Security."

Naturally, the Democrats will scream, "He's taking away your Social Security!" Yes, he is allowing your grandchildren to have a better system if they want it. Any system not controlled by politicians is a better system by default. Get over it, gramps. You'll be dead by the time they retire anyway.

9. Restoring Health Freedom

"Overturn Obamacare. Seek out market alternatives to problems of health and wellness."

Austin doesn't say it, although I hope this means replacing third party payer systems with a responsible first party payer system. Regardless, removing Obamacare is still a step in the right direction.

10. Defending Life

"Encourage a culture of life, and adoption, and educate Americans about the “consistent pro-life ethic,” which also means abolishing the death penalty."

Say what you will about Petersen, he is the most pro-life candidate I think I have ever seen, as he denounces both abortion and the death penalty. Personally, I consider his views here as a welcome addition to the Libertarian Party philosophy.

In summary, Austin Petersen is a candidate whom I can wholeheartedly support without holding my nose, or making a "lesser of evils" choice. This is the best plan I have seen for the federal government from any candidate in my lifetime, and that includes Ronald Reagan. This is why I endorse Austin Petersen for president of the United States.

Obama and Nukes

So Obama became the first U.S. president to visit Hiroshima today. If only his actions could match his words...

Consider this (from Reuters):

"We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past," Obama said after laying a wreath at a Hiroshima peace memorial. 

"We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans and a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us." 

Before laying the wreath, Obama visited a museum where haunting displays include photographs of badly burned victims, the tattered and stained clothes they wore and statues depicting people with flesh melting from their limbs. 

"We have known the agony of war," he wrote in the guest book. "Let us now find the courage, together, to spread peace, and pursue a world without nuclear weapons."

What a lovely thought, especially from the president who lied about the Iran nuke deal just to get it through Congress. You know the deal, the one which does nothing to stop Iran from getting nukes?

And let us not forget that Obama has reduced the U.S. nuclear stockpile less than any other American president.

Instead of saying what he did at Hiroshima, maybe he should have said, "If you like your nuclear stockpile, you can keep it!"

Trump wasn't evil, but he might have been stupid

There is a great article over at Yahoo Finance about Donald Trump and the housing bust:

You’re likely to hear this a lot during the next several months: Donald Trump “rooted for the real-estate crash” that caused a foreclosure epidemic and forced 5 million families from their homes. 

Trump’s likely Democratic rival in the presidential election, Hillary Clinton, recently produced an ominous 44-second video that makes Trump seem like Voldemort preying on hapless middle-class families for his own gain. And Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren ignited a tweet war with Trump when she said in a recent speech, “What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their house?” 

The controversy stems from these comments Trump made in an obscure audiobook in 2006: 

“I sort of hope that [a real-estate bust] happens because then people like me would go in and buy. If this is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can go in and make a lot of money.” 

Trump made those remarks around the time the bubble was fully inflated, with home prices near their peaks.

There are two problems with the allegations made by Democrats.

First:

Trump is a commercial real-estate developer, and like any investor, he hopes to take advantage of cycles to buy low and sell high. That’s the same thing ordinary home buyers hope to do, and there’s nothing wrong with it. 

Plus, as a commercial developer, Trump was probably thinking of ways he might capitalize on a drop in the price of office, resort and apartment buildings, not homes that would have to be abandoned by middle-class families. Markets ebb and flow all the time, with buyers and sellers constantly losing at each other’s expense. Usually, there’s no perfidy involved.

How dare Trump try and take advantage of a corporate real estate bust that kicks corporations out of their homes! Go ahead Democrats, say that please?

Anyway, the second problem:

It appears Trump never actually bought into real estate as it sank toward a bottom in 2009 and 2010. In fact, he bet the wrong way on housing in 2006 by launching Trump Mortgage, a firm meant to sell residential and commercial loans. “I think it’s a great time to start a mortgage company,” Trump told CNBC at the time. “The real estate market is going to be very strong for a long time to come.” He was dead wrong and Trump Mortgage turned out to be an embarrassment that closed the following year. 

In investing terms, Trump "bought at the top".

Picture Trump defending himself against this in a debate: "I was never trying to kick people out of their homes as Crooked Hillary alleges. In fact, I actually had my own mortgage company, which I created at the peak of the bubble. If anything, I got kicked out of their homes! I took a bath on this one, and you're blaming me?"

Crooked Hillary and Faux-Cahontis need to try another attack. This one makes Trump sound a lot smarter than he actually was.

"Star Wars" Mystery: Who are Rey's parents?

(Possible spoilers ahead, although this is all just speculation.)

One of the big mysteries in the latest Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens, is about the lead character Rey's parentage. Director J.J. Abrams just gave a big clue (from CNN Money):

Speaking at New York's Tribeca Film Festival on Friday night, the director of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens, said that the parents of the film's heroine, Rey, were not in the hit Disney (DIS) film. 

"Rey's parents are not in Episode VII," Abrams said to the audience. "So I can't possibly at this moment tell you who they are."

This eliminates such iconic characters as Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa, Han Solo, or even Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker (his mask made an appearance, plus he is unlikely after the events of Star Wars III). So who is left?

1. New characters. Her parents might be characters that haven't been introduced. I tend to doubt this only because it would be a big letdown. In most Star Wars canon, the Force tends to travel in certain bloodlines.

2. Obi-Wan Kenobi. This is one of the favorite possibilities among people speculating. He is a much-beloved character, although such a possibility would be in violation of his Jedi training, as Jedi are not supposed to give into passion. It leads to the Dark Side. But it may have been a youthful indiscretion?

On top of this, the fact she grew up on the desert planet Jakku gives a second answer to why Kenobi was on Tatooine, also a desert planet. Perhaps Kenobi knew his daughter had been left on a desert planet, and he chose Tatooine mistakenly? However, this is also why I tend to doubt this idea: Wouldn't a Jedi master like Kenobi have sensed his own Force-strong daughter?

3. Darth Sidious aka Emperor Palpatine. Not much is known about the Emperor's personal relations, so this is plausible, albeit not particularly satisfying. However, it does carry with it some irony. Anakin's son was hidden on a desert planet, and the Emperor's daughter could also be hidden on one.

4. Boba Fett. This makes sense because he is one of the most beloved of the minor Star Wars characters. He was a vengeful bounty hunter, whose story intertwines nicely with the main story of the Star Wars universe. This one is my pick, as it explains why he was popping up repeatedly during the original series.

5. Another minor Jedi or Sith character. Count Dooku? Darth Maul? Qui-Gon Jinn? Mace Windu? Keep in mind, if you go back to the characters who died in Episodes 1-III, then you are probably calling Rey their granddaughter. Not impossible, but this seems like an uninteresting stretch. I would rate this as highly improbable.

Tweet of the Day

Hillary, like syphilis, is the gift that keeps on giving. pic.twitter.com/iBE0oGn3OW

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) May 26, 2016

Judge Napolitano for VP?

@john1gun @AP4LP @Judgenap I've been racking my brain trying to think of the best VP pick for Austin, and the Judge is it.

— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) May 26, 2016

The above exchange on Twitter between Johnny and me is more interesting for what it doesn't show.
I got one "like" on my comment, from Austin Petersen himself.

The "Judge" we were referring to is Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News Judicial Analyst, whose show used to be produced by none other than Austin Petersen. They clearly know each other, so Austin's "like" might have been just a friendly jab at the Judge.

On the other hand, maybe he is trying to get the Judge as his vice president? Presidents will frequently choose veeps whom they know and respect: Obama's Joe Biden and Bush's Dick Cheney are just two recent examples.

On the third hand, perhaps the Napolitano pick is a done deal already, and Petersen is just waiting for the right moment to announce it? Maybe Napolitano told Petersen that he would agree to be Petersen's veep only if Petersen won the Libertarian nomination?

On the left foot (I ran out of hands), maybe Napolitano is only willing to be SCOTUS nominee for Petersen? Personally, I cannot think of a better replacement for Scalia than Napolitano.

On the right foot, maybe Napolitano is more interested in the Attorney General role? If that were his main interest, I have no doubt Petersen would accommodate him.

Napolitano has always been a constitutionalist/libertarian. The opportunity to work in the first Libertarian administration would be awfully tempting for him. I personally hope that Petersen offers him a job, and that Napolitano accepts.

On a side note, Napolitano is a MUCH better choice than William Weld! Napolitano comes with a lot more libertarian (small "L") credibility than Weld.

Glenn Beck for Austin Petersen?

I find it rather telling that during Glenn Beck's appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show last night, that Beck did the following:

1. He said he'd never vote for Hillary Clinton.
2. He said he was against Donald Trump, saying he might vote for Trump if he gets hooked on heroin by November.
3. He would not say who he is voting for, although he did mention Austin Petersen as one candidate he is considering. He did not mention any other candidates by name,

My guess is Beck is waiting until after the Libertarian Convention this weekend, before announcing any kind of endorsement.

The Trump-Sanders Debate?

Sometimes, it is really hard to tell when Donald Trump is kidding.

Such was the case with his proposal to debate Bernie Sanders for charity. From Politico:

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity. 

Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.

Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016

So Trump will debate the Democratic Party's loser, but will he debate the Libertarian Party's winner?

All seriousness aside, but Trump-Sanders is almost like a Hitler-Stalin debate. Tough call, but my money is on Hitler in this one.

"No fail" is an epic fail

My wasted youth. Why didn't I just sue my schools and demand no failing grades?

If this sounds silly to you, read this story from The Week:

Students at Oberlin College are asking the school to put academics on the back burner so they can better turn their attention to activism. More than 1,300 students at the Midwestern liberal arts college have now signed a petition asking that the college get rid of any grade below a C for the semester, and some students are requesting alternatives to the standard written midterm examination, such as a conversation with a professor in lieu of an essay. 

The students say that between their activism work and their heavy course load, finding success within the usual grading parameters is increasingly difficult. "A lot of us worked alongside community members in Cleveland who were protesting," Megan Bautista, a co-liaison in Oberlin's student government, said, referring to the protests surrounding the shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice by a police officer in 2014. "But we needed to organize on campus as well — it wasn't sustainable to keep driving 40 minutes away. A lot of us started suffering academically."

If you can still read through your tears of laughter, it gets better:

"You know, we're paying for a service. We're paying for our attendance here. We need to be able to get what we need in a way that we can actually consume it," student Zakiya Acey told The New Yorker. "Because I'm dealing with having been arrested on campus, or having to deal with the things that my family are going through because of larger systems — having to deal with all of that, I can't produce the work that they want me to do. But I understand the material, and I can give it to you in different ways." 

"I can give it to you in different ways"? Yes, I am sure you can Zakiya, and I suggest you get used to using that phrase in your next career...

Hillary is NOT being investigated

Time to get real. Hillary Clinton is NOT being investigated by the FBI for her involvement in the email scandal.

In spite of the fact she used an email server in her own home, and in violation of government law that would have gotten any of us "little people" arrested, the FBI has not questioned her yet. The only conclusion to draw from this is "the fix is in". They aren't running a serious investigation.

Consider the following:

A State Department Inspector General report released this morning said Clinton disregarded guidelines when she set up the server in her home and revealed that she never sought approval for the arrangement.

Had she asked senior information officers for permission, the request would have been denied, the independent watchdog agency said, because the set up presented a security risk.

And this:

The FBI has already interviewed top Clinton State Department aides, including Huma Abedin, who now works on Clinton's campaign and is often seen at her boss' side. 

But why would they interview "top Clinton State Department aides" and not hillary herself? There are several possibilities:

1. Looking for a scapegoat. God help her poor lackey who did something without authorization. They are toast. Of course, the fact remains: the server was in Hillary's home. It is real hard to claim "I didn't know" when it is sitting in your house.

2. The FBI has such an airtight case against Hillary, they don't need to interview her. The only time the FBI does this is when they are trying to catch someone in the act. In this case, the criminal act was already done. However, it is possible they suspect Hillary of a much greater crime...

3. The FBI is conducting a much broader investigation of the Clintons than previously announced. Considering there is already evidence of Hillary being bribed by the Russians for favors, the FBI may be running surveillance on her to get more evidence of collaboration between the Clintons and the Russians, or perhaps other foreign agents.

The cynic in me says #3 above is the only possible "positive", and it is unlikely.

Obama protects his friends. I would expect the following to happen: The FBI investigation will be carried out until after the election. Regardless of what happens, Obama will pardon her before he leaves office.

Move along folks. The criminals are running the country now.

Austin Petersen on the Glen Beck Show

This one speaks for itself. Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen was on the Glenn Beck show yesterday:

The Libertarian Establishment Problem

Every political party has an establishment problem. Parties are run by an establishment, which is made up of each party's "movers and shakers": Money people, successful politicians, and other people with connections.

When a party is having success, their "base" voters tend to give the establishment the benefit of the doubt. For example, Hillary Clinton (the establishment candidate) has managed to win over the Democratic Party's base, even though the Obama administration's success has been dubious, at best. (Hence the odd success but ultimate failure of Bernie Sanders.)

On the other hand, the Republicans had bought into their establishment's presidential picks in the last two elections, and got soundly beaten by one of the worst candidates in history (Obama). When your establishment can't pick someone to beat a candidate with Obama's glaring weaknesses, eventually there will be a price to pay. That price is Donald Trump.

On the third hand, even the Libertarian Party has it's establishment problem. Their establishment is represented by Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico and Libertarian candidate for president in 2012, who managed to get a Libertarian record of...wait for it...1% OF THE VOTE!

From all accounts, it sounds like Johnson is the leading candidate going into this weekend's Libertarian Party convention in Orlando, Florida. While I generally agree with Johnson's ideology, he suffers from the same problem Mitt Romney had in 2012: Both were their party's "establishment" candidate, and neither had what it takes to win.

Here is how to win an election, and why Gary Johnson can't win:

1. First, the candidate has to take up positions that clearly oppose the other candidate(s). Nuanced positions will not fly. Nuance is what killed John Kerry in 2004 and Mitt Romney in 2012. John McCain in 2008 never even bothered with nuance, as he never had a position he wouldn't change. If there is no real difference between you and the opponent(s), then why would we vote for you? This is especially important for a Libertarian candidate, who is starting from behind at the very beginning of the race. We will see if Johnson can pull this off, but when he was challenged by Austin Petersen in the debates, Johnson started to get that "Mike Wallace interviewee" look on his face.

2. Second, the candidate needs to be able to articulate why his opposing positions are superior. This can be done in multiple ways, from being able to sell the voters on your views, or just showing the voters that your opponent's ideas won't work, or even just showing the voters your opponent is incapable of what they are promising. Tossing out catchphrases as responses all the time is a very bad sign, and voters do catch onto this. This might have hurt Obama in the last two elections, except his opponents couldn't get past stage one. For this one, I am also reminded of Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis. Both of them wanted to raise taxes, but could never make a clear argument as to why it was needed. They were demolished in their respective elections.

This is where Gary Johnson's biggest failing is. Johnson is like a grocery store cashier: If you weren't already in his line, he would never sell you a thing.

But he is comfortable, and polls of Libertarians show they favor him over other Libertarian candidates. This is a mistake. This is where we need a Jedi to come along, wave his hand and tell Libertarians, "This is not the candidate you are looking for..."

The Libertarian establishment, which consists of Libertarians going back God knows how far, needs to quit looking for the Republican Party rejects like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, and quit looking for "safe" picks like the Republicans are fond of doing.

They need to pick someone like Austin Petersen for a change. Petersen is articulate, yet knows how to spar verbally. He is the kind of guy who can walk onto a debate stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and present the Libertarian case eloquently (enough to beat Hillary who will try to "out-wonk" him) yet with enough fervor (enough to match up with Trump in conviction) to walk away the victor.

Earlier today, I posted a quote from Babe Ruth:

"I swing big, with everything I've got. I hit big or I miss big. I like to live as big as I can."

This is what the Libertarians HAVE to do. We don't need a singles hitter (read 1%) like Johnson. We need someone who can hit big. We need Austin Petersen.

Libertarianism isn't a country club

Over at the Washington Post, Aaron Ross Powell chews out the fair weather Republicans for daring to jump onto the Libertarian bandwagon. The nerve of those people for wanting to vote for us!

Who says all the elitists are just Republicrats and Democans?

Austin Petersen's reply was priceless:

@JediRayjay @TXPeter @ARossP This attitude of exclusion changes when I lead my party in this year's general election.

— Austin Petersen (@AP4LP) May 25, 2016

But this is what Powell says to justify his exclusionary ideas:

If all that these [#NeverTrump Republicans] see is a safe house where they can ride out the storm, they’re missing the point: The libertarian ideal and the Libertarian Party stand as reminders that neither of the two major parties is committed to the principle that individuals are superior to the state. And in this election year, if fear of a President Trump results in libertarianism morphing into Republicanism-lite, it would cease to serve that purpose.  

Great idea Powell! Let's flip all Republicans the bird for daring to vote for us, just because we want ideological purity!

That'll get us elected...

But then he goes on to explain:

While I’m not active in Libertarian Party politics, as a small-“L” libertarian, I want no part of diluting this core principle just to boost electoral success. 

Time for "Political Parties 101". The purpose of  a political party is to get elected to public office, in order to advance a political idea or ideals via use of the tools of government power.

Basically, Powell is saying he is an ideologue with no interest in advancing his ideology.

Finally, he says:

My concern isn’t ex-Republicans voting for Libertarian candidates. I’d welcome that.

Then he continues with his ideological purity b.s. He would have been fine stopping there.

Look Powell, I have nothing against ideological purity. But that is an issue for talking heads. Libertarianism (big "L") isn't a country club being overrun by hobos. If anything, it's an inner city alleyway getting overrun by country clubbers. Personally, I am hoping for enough handouts to get some Thunderbird tonight...

Wednesday Wisdom: Babe Ruth

"I swing as hard as I can, and I try to swing right through the ball. In boxing, your fist usually stops when you hit a man, but its possible to hit so hard that your fist doesn't stop. I try to follow through in the same way. The harder you grip the bat, the more you can swing it through the ball, and the farther the ball will go. I swing big, with everything I've got. I hit big or I miss big. I like to live as big as I can."--Babe Ruth

"Why ‘Hillary Is Even Worse’ Doesn’t Cut It"

At the National Review, Charles Murray has written the editorial that is the political talk today: "Why ‘Hillary Is Even Worse’ Doesn’t Cut It".

Murray starts by defining "Establishmentarians":

I am part of the tiny fraction of the population that deals professionally in public policy from the right. In influence, we are all over the map, from talk-show hosts with audiences of millions (Limbaugh, Hannity) to politicians who directly shape policy (Ryan, McConnell) to academics who write technical papers read exclusively by their peers. We have been dubbed the “Republican Establishment” during this campaign season — bemusing to those like me who have trivial influence and are not even Republicans — but I’ll use Establishmentarians as a convenient label for who we are. This note is addressed to my fellow Establishmentarians, from the Hannities and Ryans to my fellow ink-stained wretches.

But then he goes on:

Barring a startling turn of events, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican presidential nominee. There are good reasons to question his fitness to occupy the presidency, because of both his policy positions and for reasons of character. The standard response among the Establishmentarians who have announced they will vote for Trump is that “Hillary is even worse.” That’s acceptable for people whose only obligation is to cast a vote. Having to choose the lesser of two evils is common in American voting booths. But that shouldn’t be good enough for Establishmentarians.

If we’re going to presume to lecture others about public policy and good governance — as all of us have made a career of doing in one way or another — we need to put our views about Donald Trump on the table now, before the nomination and election. That’s especially true of the False Priests and the Closet #NeverTrumpers — labels that I owe to Jonah Goldberg.

The False Priests are the columnists, media pundits, public intellectuals, and politicians who have presented themselves as principled conservatives or libertarians but now have announced they will vote for a man who, by multiple measures, represents the opposite of the beliefs they have been espousing throughout their careers. We’ve already heard you say “Hillary is even worse.” Tell us, please, without using the words “Hillary Clinton” even once, your assessment of Donald Trump, using as a template your published or broadcast positions about right policy and requisite character for a president of the United States. Put yourself on the record: Are you voting for a man whom your principles require you to despise, or have you modified your principles? In what ways were you wrong before? We require explanation beyond “Hillary is even worse.”

He proceeds to do exactly that.

While he does not suggest they should vote for Hillary, he is effectively asking them to praise or damn Trump on his own merits/demerits. He pulls the "Hillary is worse" carpet excuse right out from under them.

My own response to Murray's argument: I reject both major candidates. To place either of them above the other is comparable to deciding which limb is preferable to have amputated. At this point, both parties have jumped the shark: They have both selected evils so bad, that any lesser of two evils argument is silly. If the American people could select "none of the above" in November, they would.

Faux-Cahontis Strikes Again! The Return of Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren, aka "Chief Speaking Bull", is taking on Donald Trump? 

According to this Washington Post article, she decided to broadside Trump over his role in the housing crisis, which was to swoop in and buy property at deflated values, which is actually what smart investors do.

Trump's reply to Faux-Cahontis:

“I am a businessman, and I have made a lot of money in down markets,” he said in a statement distributed to reporters. “In some cases, as much as I’ve made when markets are good. Frankly, this is the kind of thinking our country needs, understanding how to get a good result out of a very bad and sad situation.”

I already covered Warren in this post from April, but now she is bringing new material:

“Donald Trump is worried about helping poor little Wall Street?” Warren asked. “Let me find the world’s smallest violin to play a sad, sad song.” 

“Can Donald Trump even name three things that Dodd-Frank does? Seriously, someone ask him,” she added.

First, let's ask Warren if she actually read Dodd-Frank? American legislators are already notorious for not reading legislation.

Second, even if she did, ask Warren if the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks are gone? Reduced in size? Broken up? Anything?

When Dodd-Frank was signed into law in July, 2010, JPMorgan Chase had total assets over $2.0 trillion. As of March, 2016, their assets totaled over $2.4 trillion. Mind you, their assets were as high as $2.57 trillion in March, 2015.

The fact is the legislation did NOTHING to the TBTF banks, who are even bigger than before. Dodd-Frank was bought and paid for by the TBTF banks before it was even conceived. If Warren is serious about fixing Wall Street, maybe she needs to quit going along with her party's establishment, which is already owned by Wall Street. Just ask Hillary Clinton who her sugar daddy is.

Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 in June, 2013, and again (twice) in October 2013, for a grand total of $775,000. For Hillary Clinton's next campaign ad, there should a be a disclaimer at the end: "I am Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

I won't hold my breath waiting for Liz Warren to hold Hillary accountable.

Clinton's Sex Acts Finally Come Home to Roost

This MSNBC host's Freudian slip could become a Donald Trump talking point any day now:



What is funny is the Media spent the 1990's overlooking Bill Clinton's infidelities (as well as his rape of Juanita Broaddrick), but now the audience is different. We will see how the Millenials react to this news, because this is stuff they didn't know. The progressive public schools don't teach what happened in the 1990's, and the progressive Media won't talk about it...unless Trump brings it up.

Remember, young people aren't invested in the culture wars. So when they see a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, they will call the spade a spade, even if they agree with his politics.

If you don't believe me, consider the 1960's. The baby boomer generation agreed with Lyndon Johnson when it came to civil rights, but they had no problem turning on him over the Vietnam War.

Young people have the incredible ability to parse people's actions, picking out both the good and bad (as they define it) and calling them to account for such actions. So even though feminists of the 1990's conveniently overlooked Clinton's callous treatment of women, young people today have nothing invested in Bill Clinton's political success or failure.

The Left has spent the educational career of these young people clearly defining sexual abuse for them. This is a good thing, especially now that it will come back to roost on the Left's head, and expose the hypocrisy of the Left on the issue of Bill Clinton.

When Progressives Attack

We all know about the violence at Donald Trump's events, and the violence at Bernie Sanders' events, but here is a new twist: Anti-Trump protests turning violent. From Fox News:

Police in riot gear and mounted patrol units faced off against a violent crowd of protesters outside a Donald Trump campaign event in Albuquerque Tuesday night.  

Hours after Trump and some 4,000 of his supporters left the Albuquerque Convention Center, approximately 100 demonstrators remained in downtown. Smoke grenades were used in an effort to disperse the crowd, while protesters threw rocks, plastic bottles, burning T-shirts and other items at officers.  

Albuquerque police said on Twitter late Tuesday that "several" officers were being treated for injuries as a result of being hit by rocks. At least one person was arrested. 

Inside the Trump rally, demonstrators shouted, held up banners and resisted removal by security officers. The banners included the messages "Trump is Fascist" and "We've heard enough."

But I give Trump credit. He gave it back:

Trump responded with his usual bluster, mocking the protesters by telling them to "Go home to mommy." 

He responded to one demonstrator by asking, "How old is this kid?" Then he provided his own answer: "Still wearing diapers."

Back to the point: This is typical leftist behavior. When you say something they don't like, they get violent. They try to shut down your free speech rights. If they can, they will even use government for this purpose (see Europe for examples). If they can't use government, bring out the angry protesters.

With a weak economy, and a lot of angry youth either underemployed or out of work, expect more violent demonstrations. You see they can't complain about the failures of their leftist government, so now they are starting to lash out in the most dysfunctional way possible.

Mind you, I don't support Trump. In the political discourse, he is only slightly more honest than Hillary Clinton and the leftists. And that makes Trump a "low down dirty liar" on the honesty scale.

Crooked Hillary

Michael Walsh of the New York Post has the definitive essay on "Crooked Hillary" Clinton and her speaking fees, which ends in an absurdly long list of her speaking fees collected from April 2013 to March 2015, totaling over $21 million.

Remember, this is money that went into HER pocket. Can you say "legalized bribery"?

Here is the New York Post article. Make sure you scroll down the list of Hillary Clinton's owners. Emphasis on the phrase "scroll down": It's long.

Mary Matalin Endorses Austin Petersen

In a self-written article at the Libertarian Republic, famed conservative commentator and former Republican Mary Matalin endorsed Austin Petersen for president.

It was stunning enough when Matalin abandoned her Republican registration for the Libertarian Party recently, but now her endorsement of Austin Petersen (who is also my preferred candidate) comes as a breath of fresh air, right before the Libertarian Party convention this weekend.

Here is what she said:

After a considered review of the 2016 candidates’ philosophies and positions, I am proud to endorse Austin Petersen for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States. 

Petersen has had a distinguished and dedicated career in advocacy for the principles upon which this unique country was founded and under which it has thrived.

Read the rest of her endorsement here.

Voting from the Grave

I got a kick out of this story from CBS in Los Angeles:

A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County.

...CBS2 compared millions of voting records from the California Secretary of State’s office with death records from the Social Security Administration and found hundreds of so-called dead voters. 

Specifically, 265 in Southern California and a vast majority of them, 215, in Los Angeles County alone. 

The numbers come from state records that show votes were cast in that person’s name after they died. In some cases, Goldstein discovered that they voted year after year.

But we shouldn't require voter ID's, right? That would be discrimination against dead people! Or should I call them "heartbeat-challenged" people?

When they said,"get out the vote", did they mean get it out of the grave?

If a dead person shows up at a polling place, what do we do? Offer them brains?

Maybe we need more polling places at cemeteries?

Should we require mortuaries to ask, "Now that your loved one is dead, will he/she be maintaining their voter registration?" If the answer is "yes", then the mortician should be required to notify the local board of elections. Also, the corpse should be buried with their voter ID. We wouldn't want the wrong corpse to be voting, right?

Of course, this brings up a whole slew of questions about whether dead people should be a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But is a non-functioning heart really a disability? I will leave that to the lawyers to figure out.

I guess this opens up a ground of worms...

More Hashtagging Fun: #Slogans4Hillary

I wasn't sure whether to put this under the "hashtagging fun" category, or give it a separate post. Anyway, here goes:

"Leadership you can buy!"
"Hillary can show you how to turn $1,000 into $100,000!"
"Transparent government via email!"
"Hillary will keep us out of Benghazi!"
"That '90's Show"
"This time around, too old for sex scandals"
"I'm not Trump"
*cough cough cough cough cough*

The Inevitability of Trump

Anis Shivani has an interesting theory on why Donald Trump will win in November: Basically, he speaks to the "market". Anis's theory is almost an "economics as politics" theory. I don't disagree with this, although I prefer the broader "democracy evolving" history-based theory.

I mentioned this last week:

Henning Webb Prentis once said this about democracy: "The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more." We are in the middle of the dependency/welfare state stage. Are we ready to return to bondage/fascism?

It occurred to me that calling Trump this was not only unfair, but not 100% historically accurate. Consider the Ancient Roman Republic.

Julius Caesar came along during a period of much turmoil in the Ancient Roman Republic. He was a much-beloved general, who made himself king in all but title (although it is suspected he wanted the title too, but it was just too unpopular). It wasn't until Octavian (better known as Augustus today) had consolidated power after Julius's assassination that Rome truly became a dictatorship.

However, the differences between America and pre-Julian Rome are striking: The upheavals within the power structure of Ancient Rome were generally more violent in nature than anything seen in America today. I might attribute that to general differences between modern civilization and ancient civilization.

To me, the closer historical analogy might be to the Ancient Roman dictator Sulla. From Wikipedia:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (/ˈsʌlə/; c. 138 BC – 78 BC), known commonly as Sulla, was a Roman general and statesman. He had the distinction of holding the office of consul twice, as well as reviving the dictatorship. Sulla was awarded a grass crown, the most prestigious Roman military honor, during the Social War. Sulla was a skilful general, achieving numerous successes in wars against different opponents, both foreign and Roman...  

Sulla's dictatorship came during a high point in the struggle between optimates and populares, the former seeking to maintain the Senate's oligarchy, and the latter espousing populism. In a dispute over the eastern army command (initially awarded to Sulla by the Senate but reneged at Marius's intrigues) Sulla unconstitutionally marched his armies into Rome and defeated Marius in battle. After his second march on Rome, he revived the office of dictator which had been inactive since the Second Punic War over a century before, and used his powers to enact a series of reforms to the Roman Constitution, meant to restore the primacy of the Senate and limit tribune power. Sulla's ascension was also marked by political purges in proscriptions. After seeking election to and holding a second consulship, he retired to private life and died shortly after. Sulla's decision to seize power - ironically enabled by his rival's military reforms that bound the army's loyalty with the general rather than to Rome - permanently destabilized the Roman power structure. Later leaders like Julius Caesar would follow his precedent in attaining political power through force. 

Note that Sulla's dictatorship came near the end of the Ancient Roman Republic. Sulla didn't kill the Republic, but he did create precedents that led to it's downfall.

The time difference between Sulla's reign (81 B.C.) and Octavian's reign (beginning in 27 B.C.) was probably due to Roman reluctance to have a dictator, not unlike Americans today.

In America, we are only beginning to see the kind of upheavals that led to Ancient Romans welcoming a dictatorship. Trump may or may not be a "fascist dictator", but don't be surprised if he lays the groundwork for the inevitable end of democracy in America.

Jury Failure

I always get a kick watching people miss the point of the problem.

The latest case is this Supreme Court case where the SCOTUS overturned a 29 year-old conviction of a death row inmate. Here's the story from CNN:

Timothy Tyrone Foster, an African-American, is on death row in Georgia for the 1987 murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White. The jury that convicted him was all white. Twenty years after his sentence his attorneys obtained notes the prosecution team took while it was engaged in picking a jury, including marking potential jurors who were black had a "b" written by their name. 

"The focus on race in the prosecution's file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter. 

The 7-1 decision comes as a welcome relief to critics who say racial discrimination in jury selection persists across the country some 30 years after the Supreme Court ruled potential jurors cannot be struck because of race.

Naturally, everyone is playing "lynch the black guy" for not being politically correct. While I disagree with Thomas's opinion, I also disagree with the majority opinion too.

The problem is the jury selection system. This is an absurd waste of time and taxpayer money so lawyers can stack juries in their own favor, as they did here. Only judges should be allowed to exempt jurors, not lawyers, and they should only be exempted because they cannot be impartial, or they cannot serve for good reasons. We all know the game the lawyers are playing, and it needs to end.

Given the choice, I would either have professional jurors, or just require people on unemployment to serve. But if we are going to be pulling voters in to do it, at least quit wasting their time with this legal game of jury-rigging.

The Chewbacca Mask Lady

I ran across this video last weekend, and it is hilarious! I don't know who this woman is, but her laugh is infectious. I would love to write stand-up comedy for her, because I know her delivery would be sensational!

Without further ado, here is...the Chewbacca mask lady!

Obama retreats from Middle East

At the Federalist, Tom Nichols is whining about the Iranian nuke deal. As the headline and subtitle say:

The Iran Deal Wasn’t About Nukes At AllThe Obama administration decided early on that the only way to get the United States out of the Middle East was to replace it with Russia and Iran.

If this is true, then why is the U.S. involved today in air bombing strikes to assist the Iraqi military against ISIS in Fallujah?

Admittedly, the process of retreating from the Middle East could be a long one. And I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Obama explained this strategy to his European buds: "Yeah, we're leaving the Middle East completely. Handing it over to the Russians and Iranians. Oh, you buy oil from there? Good luck with that. Sayonara suckers, and thanks for all the support! HAH!"

But I guess the key for Obama pulling this off is to do it without anyone realizing what he is doing. Kind of like what he did with Obamacare?

(hat tip to Political Demotivation for the pic)

Trump's Fails versus American Fails

For this article, I am going to create a strawman. I am calling this strawman America. Obviously, he does not represent every single American, but he does represent the amalgam of what America has been doing for quite some time, in the areas of government, politics, and culture. America represents both Democrats and a majority of Republicans, as well as many who do not vote at all.

I do this because of the Business Insider article, "10 things every politician who endorses Donald Trump should be forced to defend". If we are going to attack Trump on these issues, the rest of the country should be able to stand up to scrutiny, right? Mind you, I am not defending Trump, only pointing out that some issues aren't nearly as cut and dried as this opinion piece makes them seem.

Let's take a look at the list...

1. Banning Muslims. Last fall, Trump issued a series of escalating statements against Muslims. He spoke of tracking them through a database and closing mosques. 

He claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey had appeared on television celebrating 9/11, and he persisted in this libel despite his failure to produce evidence. Then, on Dec. 7, he called for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

It is quite convenient to look at this in a vacuum, as we ignore the Bush/Obama "Crusades Against Islam". If the U.S. is going to carry out wars all over the Islamic world, then what Trump proposes makes sense. Political correctness in a time of war is folly.

2. Sowing distrust of Christian minorities.

I am going to skip right past this one. Attacking Trump for his "insinuating tone" and calling it a "cynical appeal to prejudice" is lame. While it may be true, this is just a political game and has nothing to do with what anyone believes. I suspect this was added at the last minute to make the article long enough, or worse to get the list to a nice round 10 items.

3. Dog-whistling against Cuban Americans.

Yet another political game. Moving right along...

4. Stereotyping Latinos. When Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, he said that some undocumented immigrants from Mexico were drug mules or rapists, but others were “good people.” 

Then he sank into pure tribalism. Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, unfriendly Latinos—they were all suspect. 

What Trump did here was wrong. On the other hand, what America does is wrong too, in assuming that all Latinos are above reproach. How else do you explain Obama's open borders? Republican's various amnesty plans?

At what point do we look at the rule of law, and either defend it or change it? But don't tell me that tens of millions of illegal immigrants are good or bad. At the least, they are here illegally, which is a strike against them. If you want to have an open borders policy, then change the laws to make it easier for immigrants to come here.

While I believe there are better ways of dealing with the issue, I believe both sides on this issue get it wrong.

5. Practicing group blame against blacks. The worst anti-black statements attributed to Trump are 25-year-old hearsay. But in what he’s written more recently, you can see resentment. 

In December 2011, he tweeted about Kwanzaa, a nonreligious African-American holiday: “What a convenient mistake: @BarackObama issued a statement for Kwanza but failed to issue one for Christmas.” (The charge was false.) 

In November 2014, during riots in Ferguson, Missouri, Trump tweeted: “Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won’t see another black president for generations!” A few hours later, Trump complained, “President Obama has absolutely no control (or respect) over the African American community.” And in April 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray, Trump tweeted, “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!”

Trump makes valid points against Obama here, in spite of the article's allegations they are some kind of greater anti-black thing.

America is having a convenient memory lapse with Obama: He was elected as some kind of great unifier of peoples. Unfortunately, blacks have done worse under his presidency than they have under most presidents for quite awhile. Between "Black Lives Matter", race riots, black unemployment, and elevated levels of black incarceration (Thanks Tom Cotton!), Obama may be the best snake oil salesman of our time.

I wonder if they will ever realize that Obama wasn't black? He was just another political whore for Wall Street.

6. Blaming sexual assault in the military on the integration of women...Even if you...give Trump a pass for his crude language about some women, it’s hard to explain two tweets he posted on May 7, 2013. First he wrote: “26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?” (The typo was his.) Nine minutes later, he added: “The Generals and top military brass never wanted a mixer but were forced to do it by very dumb politicians who wanted to be politically C!”

I have to classify this one as a "Trumpfail". America is right here, because there is no valid reason to keep the military segregated. (Although I do believe any women who serve should have to face the same physical requirements as men.)

7. Advocating torture. Many Republicans defend waterboarding on the grounds that it isn’t really torture and that it could save lives by extracting timely intelligence. Trump rejects these constraints. He told an audience in South Carolina that even if waterboarding were torture, it would be “absolutely fine,” and “we should go much stronger.” In Ohio, he said that even if waterboarding didn’t extract useful information, he would approve it and even harsher measures, because “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing to us.” That’s a policy of torture, without limits, as sheer retribution. 

Trump is such a good little Nazi! But the rest of America is almost as bad, tolerating waterboarding as if it is some kind of humanitarian torture technique.

I won't say "never torture" anyone. Instead, why don't we avoid putting ourselves in a position where we might need to torture someone? Remove the incentive for people to want to kill us. I won't say nobody will ever try, but killing 210,000 civilians in Islamic nations is a sure-fire way to get them to want to kill us!

Which leads us to...

8. Targeting civilians. On Dec. 2, Trump announced a new target in the war on terror: “With the terrorists, you have to take out their families.” In a follow-up interview, he was asked whether that meant deliberately killing family members. “They would suffer,” he said. “There has to be retribution.” On Dec. 6, he explained that because terrorists “want their families left alone,” these families could be targeted as a deterrent against future attacks. On Dec. 15, he elaborated: “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” The next day, Bill O’Reilly asked Trump: “You’re not going to assassinate them, are you?” Trump replied, “I don’t know what I’d do.”

Ok, we already have Trump down...

But America is no better, as the Bush/Obama administrations have blazed a merciless path of destruction in the Middle East and Asia, killing an ungodly number of civilians in their "War on Terror". But I give Trump credit: At least he is honest about this issue.

9. Rationalizing plunder. Trump says his strategy against ISIS is to “take their oil.” But as Jim Geraghty points out in National Review, Trump has preached oil confiscation since 2011—long before ISIS, in its present form, existed. Trump has said we should seize oil from Iraq, Libya, or any other oil-rich country we invade. It’s “not stealing,” Trump argues, since we’d just be “reimbursing ourselves.” The reimbursement starts with $1 million for the family of every American soldier killed in the target country, plus extra cash to “take care of other countries that helped us” in the war. The Geneva Conventions forbid such plunder, but Trump doesn’t care. He explicitly invokes the ancient rule of conquest: “To the victor belong the spoils.”

I have to give Trump credit here: If you are going to be carrying out wars of imperialism, why not plunder? As opposed to the American system, whereby we go there, kill a lot of people, AND pay the bill for it all, as if paying the bill makes it ok.

Mind you, I am not saying Trump is right. Just that if we continue with the American policy of attacking these Islamic countries, his idea makes more sense. In truth, we shouldn't do either.

10. Inciting violence. Trump has repeatedly encouraged violence at his rallies. On Nov. 22, he defended supporters who beat a protester at one of his events in Alabama. “Maybe he should have been roughed up,” Trump said of the protester. On Feb. 1, he told a crowd in Iowa: “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” On Feb. 22, when a demonstrator interrupted his speech in Las Vegas, Trump told the audience, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” Trump went on: “I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.” On March 13, after a Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester at a rally in North Carolina, Trump said he had “instructed my people to look into” paying the supporter’s legal fees.

After seeing Trump's war plans, this is almost minor. But this is definitely not the American way of politics. Even Bernie Sanders has caught grief for this. For now, I will give America the win on this.

Final score: 2 political games, 5 joint losses for both Trump and America, 1 solo Trump win, 2 solo Trump fails, 2 solo America wins, 1 solo America fail . Overall, America is only up by 1 on Trump. That isn't a lot of room to be pointing fingers, especially when you consider the 6 American fails.