Harsanyi drops the free trade ball

The Federalist's David Harsanyi was doing so very well lately with his editorials, but he dropped the ball in today's editorial about Donald Trump and free trade, where Harsanyi made this observation:

...it’s worth mentioning that “globalization” is now one of those catchall insults which, like “neocon” or “elitist,” has lost any practical meaning. It’s far more likely you’ll see a Republican twisting himself into intellectual knots defending the party’s nominee than defending free trade. No one wants to be a globalist. 

Let's look at the Dictionary.com definition of "globalism":

"the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

Are there globalists in the world? Correct me if you think I am wrong, but I think people who were against the Brexit tended to be globalists, and by that I mean they believed that countries working together are superior to countries working apart. Generally, people who think that way also tend to believe in the ultimate extension of that theory, which is a "one world government", or "new world order" as some have called it (most notably George H.W. Bush).

Globalism isn't about free trade. As we have seen in Europe and in the U.S., where both large governments have piled endless regulations on top of their "free trade", a single world government is unlikely to be about free trade. While you might be able to move products from one region to another "freely" under one world government, that doesn't mean you won't have buckets of red tape before you leave, and after you get there.

When discussing globalism and free trade, it needs to be remembered these are two very different subjects. Combining them does a serious disservice to the idea of free trade, while ignoring the kind of damage globalism can do to trade, usually through blind regulatory overreach.

Review: The Libertarian Republic

Anyone who knows me will know that I am a serious fan of Austin Petersen. That is NOT what I am talking about here. Rather, I am talking about his website, The Libertarian Republic. For such an incredible presidential candidate, Austin's website is leaning towards "major suckage" on the website scale. I would rate my own website higher than his, and I am just one person with a two-bit opinion.

Speaking of my two-bit opinion, I have one here: I think The Libertarian Republic could be an awesome news source. For independents and libertarians (both "big L" and "little L" varieties), this could be the news source we have needed for a long time. There is serious potential that just seems wasted. Back to the review...

When you first open up The Libertarian Republic, there is an almost Tumblr-like page with all the latest posts from the various sections, which are shown along the top: Headline News, Free Style, Abuse of Authority, Political Opinion, and Community. The organization of this website is scattershot.

From what I can gather from all of it, everything is opinion pieces in this website. So why is there a "Headline News" category? For opinion pieces about current events, of course! No, that is just wrong. If you are going to have a Headline News category, why not do some kind of headline news reporting? Even a Drudge-like page would be a good idea. But if all you are doing is opinion pieces, this category needs to be dropped.

"Abuse of Authority" should be under "Political Opinion". While I am sure Austin would define abuse of authority as a separate category unto itself (God bless him!), it really does come under "Political Opinion". One man's abuse is another man's justice. I'm not suggesting abuse is a good thing, or even a right thing. But it needs to be labeled as opinion to separate it from news stories.

The subheadings are a complete mess. For example, under Headline News, there is a subheading "Right to Bear Arms". But what if someone was just doing a Political Opinion piece on the right to bear arms? You won't find it under Political Opinion. The subheadings look like they made it up as they went along.

Let's not forget the last category, "Community". This is the category for most every subheading on the website. The last post here was two weeks ago.

That fact is intriguing since the website's "About" shows 21 people with various responsibilities around the website. By the way, today is June 30th, and the last post of any kind is dated June 29th. It may only be 8:43 am EST, but really? Among 21 of you people, not one of you has anything to say by now? I have already done 4 posts this morning, and 21 of you can't write one thing?

If that isn't lame enough, check out this "Contact Us" page:

CONTACT US

[contact-form-7 id=”23740″ title=”Contact Us”]
Mail to:
19615 S. State Rt. J
Peculiar, MO 64078
Phone
(202)903-9113

Ignoring the HTML glitch at the top, the only way to contact The Libertarian Republic is by snail mail or phone. How 20th century! Guys, have you heard about this new thing called "email". I'd tell you to google it, but you might not know what I meant...

Fortunately, they do have Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts, so they aren't entirely stuck in the 20th century.

Remember the name for the cast of Saturday Night Live? They were the "Not Ready For Prime Time Players". That would also be an apt description of The Libertarian Republic. I love you Austin, but your website needs a serious overhaul.

UPDATE: A response from Austin Petersen:

@1EMcGon1 Concerns all noted! We are currently in the middle of an upgrade. Look for a new improved UX in summer. Now I have time for it. ;)

— Austin Petersen (@AP4LP) June 30, 2016

As always, Mr. Petersen is a class act. I look forward to seeing the upgrade.

Today's News June 30, 2016: National Bias Day

Today is National Bias Day! All I am doing is putting up the main headlines today:

Drudge Report:
FEC SECRET VOTE TO PUNISH FOXNEWS

which links to this story:

Washington Examiner:
Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship

Fox News:
FEC Democrats voted to punish Fox News over debate changes

And on the other side...

CNN:
Turkish forces detain 22 in Ataturk Airport terror attack

MSNBC:
Turkey Arrests 13 Over Istanbul Airport Attack: State Media

NBC News:
Maryvale Shootings: Is a Serial Killer Stalking Phoenix?

Don't get me wrong. I think these are all important news stories. In choosing a "main" headline, each news editor has to make their own choice. However, I think NBC News went a little too local with their Phoenix serial killer. NBC's failure is ironic, since MSNBC linked to NBC's story about the Istanbul attack.

But the better question: How did each side do with the other side's main story? (I am ignoring the NBC Phoenix serial killer story for this consideration.)

On the Right, Drudge did include links to stories about the Istanbul attack, and Fox News did cover it right below their main headline.

The Washington Examiner gets a big fail on this one, as they covered how the White House responded differently to the Istanbul attack, versus how they responded to other attacks in Europe. As the Examiner did that, they failed to cover the aftermath of the attacks today.

On the Left, if they covered the FEC story at all, it is so buried in their websites, I can't find it.

Just a thought, but if the FEC was punishing Hillary Clinton unfairly, do you think the Leftist Media would be reporting on Istanbul today?

More Hashtag Fun: #RuinShakespeare

I haven't done this for awhile, but this hashtag was too irresistable: #RuinShakespeare.

ROMEO AND JULIET:
"But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the cops, and I am on the run."
(Note: This actually works better than Shakespeare's original second line, by reducing the meter to 10 beats on the second line, thereby matching the first line. Admittedly, that was not his intent, as he varied the meter throughout the monologue.)

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM:
"Trump, what fools these voters be!"

RICHARD III:
The definition of the 2008 economic collapse, by Shakespeare:
"A house! a house! my kingdom for a house!"
And so we did...

The new Gary Johnson campaign ad

Are #youin? Check out our new video -- and spread it around. #election2016 #TeamGov pic.twitter.com/9X6iNNzZW2

— Gov. Gary Johnson (@GovGaryJohnson) June 30, 2016

Initial impressions: It was ok, although the faux rock music did leave me with the impression I was watching a business motivation video. Aside from that, they said some good things, and they seemed to work well together.

The opening was good, showing them handing off lines between each other.

Then we get to one of their important themes: "A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO CLINTRUMP". This leads into both men talking about what they did as governors. I am sure someone can talk about what they did wrong as governors, but that belongs in a fact checkers column, which this is not.

The next theme: "THEY THINK LIKE AMERICA THINKS". Here is what they list:

1. Johnson supports marriage equality. (Any husband will tell you there's no such thing.)
2. Weld supports a woman's right to choose. (Screw the fetus's right to live.)
3. Johnson supports term limits. (Newt Gingrich couldn't get that through DC with a popular mandate. Good luck with that.)
4. Weld supports internet freedom. (Yay!)
5. Johnson supports "intelligent" immigration reform. (As opposed to what?)
6. Weld supports small efficient government that "treats the American people like family instead of livestock". (Weld also believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.)
7. Johnson believes in personal freedom. (Unless you're a congressman running for a tenth term...)
8. Weld supports getting the government out of your pocketbooks. (Sadly, there are 535 legislators on  Capital Hill who disagree.)
9. Weld supports getting the government out of your bedroom. (I'd settle for getting Wall Street out of the government's bedroom.)
10. Johnson wants to "end the wars and use those dollars here at home". (Gary, you don't have to actually spend the money you save, right?)

And the next theme: "TWO OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL GOVERNORS WORKING TOGETHER FOR A BETTER AMERICA". This one leads to Gary Johnson's "money back guaranty", where he asks the American people to give them 4 years, and if they aren't satisfied, they can always vote a Trump or Hillary "back into office". This is interesting since neither Trump nor Hillary were ever actually "in" the office of the presidency before. I wonder if that was why Weld rolled his eyes when Gary said that?

The final theme: "GOOD GOVERNMENT IS EASY...WATCH". Then they give their tag line: "What say America? You in?" And then the last Powerpoint slides: "CREDIBLE. PROVEN. CAPABLE. HONEST. ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES IN 2016." Coming to an election near you!

Overall, there are plenty of holes, and that feeling of watching a business motivation film never really leaves after the tenth viewing. However, it does work as a good introduction to Johnson and Weld, making them look affable, while hitting on a lot of hot button topics in a popular way, even if the cheap production shows. GRADE: B.

When smart people say dumb things

Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) June 29, 2016

"Weight of evidence" is a dangerous term.

"Weight of evidence" can put an innocent man in jail. In some places, he can get the death penalty.

"Weight of evidence" can overlook more important facts that get introduced later. Ask Galileo.

"Weight of evidence" defers to emotions when there is no evidence.

"Weight of evidence" gets defined by those in power, who are in turn subject to the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." If "weight of evidence" determines policy, and those in power determine the "weight of evidence", then "he who has the gold" will determine who is in power, which in turn will allow "he who has the gold to make the rules".

What Mr. Tyson forgets is that no matter how you create policy, eventually a human will be responsible for it.

Is Hillary best for liberty?

Former Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen has a new podcast with an intriguing thought: Is electing Hillary Clinton better for liberty than Donald Trump?

Here is the podcast:



Allow me to extrapolate his thinking here:

1. Austin equates growth of government inversely with the diminishment of people's liberty. This may not be an exact truth, but it is close enough for "government work". (pun intended)

2. Neither Trump nor Hillary, by themselves, is good for liberty. Agreed, since they are both basically big government types (fascist and communist, respectively).

3. Austin is voting for Gary Johnson, but he does not think Johnson can win, although he doesn't explicitly say that.

4. Historically, a Democratic president with a Republican-led Congress is best for limiting government growth. It doesn't stop government growth, but it does limit it extensively.

Ergo, Hillary being elected president, along with a Republican majority Congress, is the best we can get for the next 4 years. This is like the old saying about superstar football players: "You can't stop him; you can only hope to contain him."

Anyhow, I take the opposite view: If a democracy must inevitably end up as a dictatorship, wouldn't it be best to go ahead and elect Trump to get that out of the way?

Pride Day

On Twitter, the hashtag #HeterosexualPrideDay is trending, as today is somebody's idea for yet another stupid holiday. Unfortunately, too many people concentrate on the "heterosexual" part of the day, and ignore the really bad part: Pride.

There is a reason pride is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Wikipedia describes it this way:

...it is identified as dangerously corrupt selfishness, the putting of one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of people. 

In even more destructive cases, it is possessing the irrational belief that one is automatically and essentially better or more important than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal image or self (especially forgetting one's own lack of divinity, and refusing to acknowledge one's own limits, faults, or wrongs as a human being).

So what is "Heterosexual Pride"? Heterosexuality is a basic part of nature for all mammals, so it isn't even something uniquely human. Of course, there is homosexuality in nature too, so that isn't special either, yet we still have multiple "Gay Pride" days/months. The truth is that sexuality is a fairly silly thing to celebrate. It's like having a "People with Big Noses Day".

Then there is the counter argument: But gay people have been oppressed for centuries! Heterosexual people haven't been oppressed? I have been news for the oppressed gay people of the world: Every kind of human imaginable has been oppressed at one time or another in history, and for any number of reasons. You ain't as special as you may think. Whatever specific physical trait you have that has caused your recent oppression is merely the result of small-minded people trying to make themselves feel better at your expense. So celebrating pride in your "quality" is only your way to get back at those small-minded people. In other words, you are doing unto them what they did unto you.

This leads us back to Heterosexual Pride Day, which should come as a wake-up call to the homosexuals that they are over-celebrating their touchdown. You won your civil rights victory, now it's time to go back to the sidelines and prepare for the next play, because you are NOT just a homosexual: You may be a man or a woman, a black or a white or an Asian, young or old, or something else altogether. But you ARE human, and as such you have both rights and responsibilities as a human, along with all the rights and responsibilities you have for every other aspect of your human identity.

Wednesday Wisdom

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Ben Franklin

The Mount Rushmore of Editorialists: Ben Franklin

I am running a series on the great American editorialists This is part two. Part one is here.

"A great editorialist can be many things: insightful, sometimes witty, frequently pithy, prudent, and most of all perceptive."

The second face to go on the Mount Rushmore of editorialists was far more than just an editorialist, but his writing fits all the qualities of a great editorialist: insightful, sometimes witty, frequently pithy, prudent, and most of all perceptive. He was the original American superstar, Ben Franklin.

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

I won't cover Franklin's biography, which whole books have failed to actually capture him. Even when applying a label to him, it usually fails to capture his dominance in the field. For example, he was also a musician. According to his Wikipedia entry:

Franklin is known to have played the violin, the harp, and the guitar. He also composed music, notably a string quartet in early classical style. He developed a much-improved version of the glass harmonica, in which the glasses rotate on a shaft, with the player's fingers held steady, instead of the other way around; this version soon found its way to Europe.

How many people learn to play a musical instrument, let alone take it and improve upon the design?

And so he did with the concept of the newspaper. One might argue that Franklin created the editorial, or at least was the first to make it worth reading. His work as a writer for his own newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, undoubtedly helped his later work on Poor Richard's Almanack, for which he will be forever known, as it helped shape the culture of the early American republic.

But here are some examples of his early work with The Pennsylvania Gazette:

Ambition has its disappointments to sour us, but never the good fortune to satisfy us.

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Admittedly, Poor Richard's Almanack was Franklin's literary tour de force. Even though it was only an annual publication, Franklin's pithy sayings helped make it the best seller it was. While "almanacks" were common for the time, Franklin's was the best seller, and here are some reasons why:

Love your Enemies, for they tell you your Faults.  

It would be thought a hard Government that should tax its People one-tenth Part of their Time, to be employed in its Service. 

Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead.

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise. 

Fish & Visitors stink in 3 days.

God helps them that help themselves. 

Don't throw stones at your neighbours, if your own windows are glass. 

A good Lawyer is a bad Neighbour.

Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self?

Wink at small faults; remember thou hast great ones.

To err is human, to repent divine, to persist devilish. 

He's a Fool that cannot conceal his Wisdom. 

On that last note, I guess I need to shut up now. But being the fool I am...

Seriously, the modern lesson of Ben Franklin is: Wisdom doesn't always require a blog, when a tweet will do.

Today's News June 29, 2016: Say goodnight, terrorists

The big story today is the terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport which left somewhere from 36 people dead to 41 people dead. Your mileage may vary, depending on your news source.

As you can tell from my last comment, I am not taking this attack seriously. To the people directly affected by this act, your grief is an appropriate response. However, you need to remember that terrorism is about scaring far more people than just the ones killed. For those unaffected, such as myself, grieving for people I don't know is exactly what the terrorists want. I am not giving in to that any more. It is time to give the terrorists as little mileage for their murder as possible.

We need to move on, immediately.

However, if you wish to ruminate on this topic, ask yourself why we are still involved militarily in Islamic nations?

On to other news...

CNN:
Poll: Clinton and Trump run neck-and-neck

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump by just two points, 42% to 40%, a much closer race than other recent surveys have shown. 

With third-party candidates included, Clinton leads 39% to 37%, with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 8% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 4%.

A thought for you Libertarians out there: If Gary Johnson gets 8% of the vote in November, will you nominate him again in 2020, just because he did better than any Libertarian ever?

New York Times:
Could This Be the End of Paul Simon’s Rhymin’?

Paul Simon says he is ready to give up making and playing music, 61 years after he started as a 13-year-old. “You’re coming towards the end,” he said in an interview this week, discussing the mysterious epiphanies that delivered some of his greatest songs, the toxic qualities of fame, and his yearning to explore questions of spirituality and neuroscience. 

“Showbiz doesn’t hold any interest for me,” Mr. Simon said. “None.”

I was saddened to read this, because I consider Simon to be one of the greatest songwriters and performers of the 20th century.

His song Wristband from his latest album Stranger to Stranger shows that he still has the gift:



The story behind Wristband:

“I was having dinner with Paul Muldoon, the poet, and I said, I had this title I don’t know whether I want to keep it, ‘Wristband,’” Mr. Simon said. “He said, ‘It’s a good title. You could go a lot of places with that title, you should keep it.’”

Sometime later, he got stuck while working on a lyric that involved a musician who steps into an alley behind a club and finds himself locked out, unable to regain entry without a wristband. He wasn’t sure what would happen in the song.

“From out of nowhere, I said, wristband, it’s just a metaphor for, ‘You can’t get in. You don’t have what’s required,’” Mr. Simon said. “And that’s what’s going on. That battle is being fought right now, the haves and have-nots. “

It sounds a lot like Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth, although that song is a bit more of a period piece from the 1960's, whereas Wristband is far more contemporary, which is pretty impressive coming from a guy who got his start in 1957.

RIP Buddy Ryan

I quit watching football a few years ago. It just wasn't as much fun as the game I grew up watching.

Part of that game was Buddy Ryan, former assistant coach for the Chicago Bears, and later a head coach with the Philadelphia Eagles and Arizona Cardinals. Ryan was as fun as he was innovative.

What Bill Walsh was to offense, Ryan was to defense. Ryan's 46 defense, which he ran to perfection as an assistant with the Chicago Bears, was arguably one of the greatest defensive innovations in the past half century. When any team played against those Bears, their offensive fear was almost palpable. The Super Bowl Champion 1985 Bears are still considered one of the greatest teams in NFL history.

When Ryan later became head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, "Buddy Ball" was born. Those Eagles may not have been champions, but they were sure fun to watch! With crazy Randall Cunningham at quarterback, Keith Byars at running back, and Mike Quick and Cris "He only catches touchdowns" Carter at wide receiver, they were as fun to watch as their defense, which was pretty marvelous with Reggie White, Clyde Simmons, and Jerome Brown, arguably one of the greatest defensive lines ever.

When Ryan was fired by Philadelphia, he spent one year with Houston as an assistant, and then ended up in Arizona as head coach. Sadly, that team was a bad fit for him, and he left football after the Cardinals gave up on him.

Buddy Ryan is dead today. I will miss you Buddy. Football has missed you for a long time already.

(hat tip to CBS Philly for the pic)

The Mount Rushmore of Editorialists: H.L. Mencken

This week, I am starting a series on the great American editorialists This is part one.

A great editorialist can be many things: insightful, sometimes witty, frequently pithy, prudent, and most of all perceptive. Back in the days of newspapers, after scanning the front page for news, and maybe after reading the comics, the editorialist was one of the most frequently sought after pages (usually in the back of the front section of the newspaper). But a great editorialist is the one who puts a smile on your face just seeing they have a column in today's newspaper. The equivalent for children of the internet age might be going to your favorite news website and noticing a certain editorialist has posted his "column" today. Regardless, we know a great editorialist when we see one, and he/she makes us happy just to know we get to read them today.

But if there was to be a Mount Rushmore of editorialists, whose faces would go up there?

The fist face should be Henry Louis Mencken, better known as H.L. Mencken.

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

Mencken started out as a writer for the Morning Herald in 1899, which became the Baltimore Morning Herald in 1900. and which eventually became the The Baltimore Sun, where he wrote until 1948, after suffering a stroke.

As any great editorialist, Mencken had controversial views on many of the topics of his era: He opposed both World Wars, as well as President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. Mencken once said of Roosevelt in 1936:

If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he needs so sorely, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House yard come Wednesday.

Although Mencken was anti-semitic, he also attacked Roosevelt for refusing to admit Jewish refugees into the U.S.:

There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn't the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them?

Add racist to adjectives of Mencken, yet he showed contradictions there too. He was openly opposed to lynchings. He once said of a lynching in Maryland:

Not a single bigwig came forward in the emergency, though the whole town knew what was afoot. Any one of a score of such bigwigs might have halted the crime, if only by threatening to denounce its perpetrators, but none spoke. So Williams was duly hanged, burned and mutilated.

Mencken opposed segregation, while at the same time felt blacks were inferior.

But Mencken's flawed views were typical of his era. Where Mencken truly shined was in his open disregard for democracy, where his various editorials still ring true today:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights. 

The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good. The Harrison Act, despite its cruel provisions, has not diminished drug addiction in the slightest. The Mormons, after years of persecution, are still Mormons, and one of them is now a power in the Senate. Socialism in the United States was not laid by the Espionage Act; it was laid by the fact that the socialists, during the war, got their fair share of the loot. Nor was the stately progress of osteopathy and chiropractic halted by the early efforts to put them down. Oppressive laws do not destroy minorities; they simply make bootleggers.

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. 

No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. 

Mencken did not write to praise the common man, but rather to remind us of his many failings. In the American democracy, the common man was the majority tyrant, and Mencken was only doing what so many great editorialists do: He was speaking truth to power, even if that power was looking back at us from our mirrors.  

Today's News June 28, 2016: Democrats gone wild!

After the Civil Rights era, the Democratic Party ran off the rails and became the Progressively Stupid and Criminal Party. Today's news shows what the Democrats have become:

Daily Caller: 
Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.

WND:
Idaho 'rape': Obama prosecutor 'silencing Americans with threats of arrest'

Reaction to threatening comments from President Obama’s U.S. attorney in Idaho following the release of two Muslim boys accused of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl have been swift and severe.

Wendy J. Olson, the U.S. attorney for Idaho, indicated in a statement Friday that Idahoans who spread “false or inflammatory information” about the alleged Muslim perpetrators may be subject to prosecution. The boys accused are ages 14, 10 and 7, and their families have been evicted from the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, where the assault allegedly took place.

The two older boys are immigrants from Sudan and the youngest is from Iraq. They are believed to be refugees but the government has yet to say exactly how they entered the country, only that they have come “within the last two years.”

The Olson statement that is drawing fire from First Amendment advocates is as follows:

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law.”

These are just the latest incidents that show how the Democrats plan to use the levers of power: Using threats of arrest and/or prosecution to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them, or says things they don't like. This is authoritarianism by definition.

And this doesn't even touch on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, or President Obama's and Elizabeth Warren's lies. I am still looking for why anyone would vote for these liars and criminals. Nowadays, the only virtue of Republicans seems to be they aren't Democrats, but that is an awfully low bar to hold an opposition party accountable.

On to other news...

Daily Mail:
Has Britain avoided a ‘European superstate’? France and Germany ‘draw up plans to morph EU countries into one with control over members’ armies and economies’

I touched on this story in a joking post yesterday, but it does show what the European elites have had in mind all along:

Plans for 'a closer European Union' have been branded an attempt to create a 'European superstate'.

Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault today presented a proposal for closer EU integration based on three key areas - internal and external security, the migrant crisis, and economic cooperation.

But the plans have been described as an 'ultimatum' in Poland, with claims it would mean countries transfer their armies, economic systems and border controls to the EU.

You can almost imagine the conversation in Europe:

BORIS: The Brits have figured out our plans!
NATASHA: We will have to accelerate our timeline!
BORIS: Activate Operation "Sieg Heil"!
NATASHA: I hate that name.
BORIS: Would you prefer "Napoleon"?
NATASHA: Yes.
BORIS: Too bad. He who has the gold makes the rules, and operation names.

Election 2016: Another point for Trump

Even though I don't support or even like Donald Trump, he is totally owning the Democrats in the war of words leading up to this coming presidential election.

Case in point, from Marketwatch:

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren made her first campaign appearance on behalf of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in an event aimed at showcasing party unity ahead of the fall general election. 

...Warren attacked Trump as an “small, insecure money-grubber,” a “nasty man who will never become president of the United States” and a “thin-skinned bully” who wears “goofy” hats.

The Trump response, from Politico:

On the same day Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) appeared alongside Hillary Clinton to savage Donald Trump for his past statements, not to mention his "goofy hat," the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign fired back with another word for the liberal firebrand senator: "sellout."

"As Clinton tries to salvage support among the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has become a turncoat for the causes she supposedly supports," the campaign said in a statement with the subject line "Sellout Warren."

Noting that Warren has said Wall Street businesses have too much influence in Washington by paying "barely disguised bribes" as campaign contributions, the Trump campaign said Clinton has accepted more than $41 million during the presidential cycle from financial interests.

"Warren is also campaigning for the author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal she has routinely slammed," the statement continues, although Clinton has said she no longer supports the trade deal despite having backed it in principle. "This is a trade deal that Clinton has expressed support for in over 45 public speeches. Warren’s campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced."

Gary Johnson's response:


Trump totally owned that exchange! Warren's "goofy hat" comment looked something like this:

(hat tip to Reaction GIFs for the gif)

That puts Trump in the lead, with the score:

TRUMP 2
CLINTON/WARREN 0
JOHNSON/WELD 0

A message to our European customers

Dear Customers of the European Superstore,

Recently, some of our English-speaking customers complained about the lack of service they were getting from our store. Normally, we would respond with much diplomatic and bureaucratic doublespeak. However, since they decided to leave and never return to our store, we have decided to implement a new program for our most loyal customers.

Beginning soon, we will eliminate all of our exits! From then on, we will all be in this store together. No more separate rules for the Greek department or the German department. One set of Brussels rules for everybody!

Just think: What Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler could not accomplish, just might be accomplished by some modern European bureaucrats!

Sincerely,
The Overlords of the European Superstore

George Will nails Trump

I think George Will may have given the best comeback to Donald Trump since Trump started running for president. 

From CNN:

George Will, the conservative commentator and columnist, said Sunday that he changed his voter registration to "unaffiliated" 23 days ago and has left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump. 

"After Trump went after the 'Mexican' judge from northern Indiana then (House Speaker) Paul Ryan endorsed him, I decided that in fact this was not my party anymore," Will said on "Fox News Sunday."

Then Trump attacked Will on Twitter:

George Will, one of the most overrated political pundits (who lost his way long ago), has left the Republican Party.He's made many bad calls

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2016

Will's response:

Will responded on "Fox News Sunday," saying: "He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can't."

Brutal!

For this one, I have decided to give George Will the first ever "Verbal Hulk Award", cause this is what he just did to Trump:

Today's News June 27,2016: Globalism

Since the Brexit last week, we are starting to see the world review the whole globalism idea, of which the European Union was just the first step. Let the Chicken Littles crow!

New York Times:
Britain Rattles Postwar Order and Its Place as Pillar of Stability

Britain’s choice to retreat into what some critics of the vote suggest is a “Little England” status is just one among many loosely linked developments suggesting the potential for a reordering of power, economic relationships, borders and ideologies around the globe.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but not to the NY Times:

Slow economic growth has undercut confidence in traditional liberal economics, especially in the face of the dislocations caused by trade and surging immigration. Populism has sprouted throughout the West. Borders in the Middle East are being erased amid a rise in sectarianism. China is growing more assertive and Russia more adventurous. Refugees from poor and war-torn places are crossing land and sea in record numbers to get to the better lives shown to them by modern communications. 

Accompanied by an upending of politics and middle-class assumptions in both the developed and the developing worlds, these forces are combining as never before to challenge the Western institutions and alliances that were established after World War II and that have largely held global sway ever since. 

Have you got all that nonsense? Britain is tossing all the alliances aside which have been formed since World War II! Incredible, even though the Maastricht Treaty didn't happen until 1992 (it went into effect in 1993), with other aspects of the EU happening later (for example, it wasn't until 2002 that the euro became the currency of 12 of the EU member states).

Even better, the article's writers go on to talk about every major country except Britain for most of the article. Then it reaches this classic line:

In the wake of Britain’s choice, Europe faces the parallel challenges of holding itself together and of retaining its global influence.

Huh? Europe has been nothing but a pain in the rear end since before the two world wars, which were naturally caused by European politics. Ask the Native Americans, the Africans, the Indians, and the Chinese how they feel about Europe: All of them were either dislocated or colonized by Europeans. Then we got two world wars (thanks Europe!), after which we rebuilt Europe into the mother of all welfare queens: The EU accounts for at least 50 percent of all of the welfare spending in the world.

This is the model that globalists would have us follow. Unfortunately, there isn't enough money in the world for the rest of us to live like Europeans do. Forgive me for not shedding tears for this alleged catastrophe.

CNN:
Brexit: UK government calls for calm; Labour leader addresses crisis

Amid predictions of a post-Brexit economic tsunami, the UK government is trying to limit the damage of the country's pending withdrawal from the European Union, as leaders prepare for the first round of talks. 

Meanwhile, opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is dealing with his own Brexit meltdown. On Monday he announced 10 new shadow cabinet positions after a flurry of resignations over the weekend. The exodus came after he sacked a key shadow minister accused of plotting a coup.

Oh no! Britain will fall! What will we do?

More globalist Chicken Little-ism. Britain will be just fine. The resignations are just disappointed globalists having a "ragequit".

One of the things Britain did right was never getting into the euro currency. Keeping the British pound will save them a ton of headaches in both the short and long run:

Early Monday morning, ahead of European market openings, UK Treasury chief George Osborne said that Brexit would hurt the British economy and government finances, but that he accepted the outcome of the referendum and would work towards a smooth transition. 

He said that the economy remained "fundamentally strong" and added that the government would not rush the exit procedure. 

"No one should doubt our resolve to maintain the fiscal stability we have delivered for this country. And to companies, large and small, I would say this: the British economy is fundamentally strong, highly competitive and we are open for business."

I don't know if I would go quite as far as Osborne did. The British economy isn't all that spectacular. However, it is a very developed economy and will take a lot more than this to topple it. For you investors out there, it might be a good time to look for British bargains. Tally ho!

Fox News:
Clinton says 'experienced leadership' needed to avoid troubles Britain faces

Back in the USA...

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Sunday spoke for the first time publicly about Britain’s vote to exit the European Union and took a jab at the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in the process. 

Without mentioning him by name, Clinton, speaking at the annual gathering of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Indianapolis, said “steady experienced leadership” is what the U.S. needs to avoid the kinds of troubles Britain now faces. 

"We need leaders ... who understand how to work with other leaders to manage risks, who understand that bombastic comments in turbulent times can actually cause more turbulence and who put the interest of the American people ahead of their personal business interests," Clinton said.

We need leaders who know how to sacrifice consulates to terrorists, while simultaneously pointing fingers at anti-Islam filmmakers to hold them accountable! Uh no...

We need leaders who get us involved in Syrian civil wars, where both sides hate America! Uh no...

We need leaders who wouldn't know an unsecured email account if they were using one to transfer classified information! Uh no...

Speaking of Hillary...

Breitbart:
Hank ‘Meltdown’ Paulson Cites Hillary’s Globalist Platform as Reason for Endorsement 

Hank Paulson, George W. Bush’s treasury secretary, who presided over both the meltdown of the U.S. economy and the subsequent bailout of his close friends and associates, has endorsed Hillary Clinton — citing his belief that she’d be more likely to enact globalist policies on trade and immigration as part of the reason for his endorsement. 

Paulson also posits that Clinton would be more likely to cut Americans’ medicare and social security, which Paulson cites as a top priority following the financial collapse he helped to create.

I bring up this article not to discuss the election so much, but rather to suggest that Hillary might be the "candidate of the globalists" in America. Hank Paulson is the final piece of the puzzle, linking failed globalists' policies with Hillary Clinton. He isn't an aberration either. Other famous neoconservative globalists are supporting her, according to this CNN article:

Paulson's support comes days after Brent Scowcroft, a top national security adviser to Republican presidents dating back to Gerald Ford, similarly backed Clinton, and Robert Kagan, a prominent Republican neoconservative, is headlining a fundraiser for Clinton, Foreign Policy reported on Thursday. Last week, Richard Armitage, who served in the State and Defense Departments under Bush and President Ronald Reagan, announced he will vote for Clinton.

If Britain is any kind of preview of the American elections in November, I would expect Clinton to lose by a small margin. However, she is currently leading in the polls (by as much as 1 to 10 points, when third party candidates are included).

Globalism, in it's present form, simply does not work. We learned that during the 2008 economic crisis. It is far too corrupted by big business influence to possibly work. Just consider what world governments did to fix the economic crisis: They threw a LOT of money at too-big-to-fail banks. Now, the banks are richer, but nothing has really been fixed.

The Brexit was a "globalism is dead" wake-up call. The globalists don't seem to have gotten the message yet. They are still in denial/anger. I am just curious what they will offer when they get to the bargaining stage?

Weekend Closing Post: Phil Harris

For this weekend's closing post, I offer a musical interlude featuring actor Phil Harris.

Although Harris is better known for his acting, he started out as a drummer, eventually becoming a bandleader and singer. During a stint on the Jack Benny radio show, Harris showed a knack for witty banter, and so his acting career was born.

In the 1960's-70's, Harris's career got another life doing voice acting for Disney films. But speaking for myself, the one thing I will always know him for is The Bare Necessities from the movie The Jungle Book:




Enjoy your weekend folks. Before I go, I just want to say, the world is not ending because Britain left the EU. Ignore the hyperbole.

Trump beats Obama/Clinton on Brexit

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted the British exit from the European Union correctly, unlike both President Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But even more, Trump sounded more presidential on the topic than either of the two Democrats.

First, consider what Obama said:

"Let me be clear: ultimately this is something the British voters have to decide for themselves.

"As part of our special relationship, part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think, and speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the US, because it affects our prosperity as well."

But then he also said that Britain would move to the "back of the queue" in trade deals with the U.S. if it voted to leave the EU. That was almost a thuggish-sounding, "Nice country you got there. Shame if anything happened to it."

For her part, Hillary Clinton backed the President, basically saying the same thing, except for the "queue" thing, which she didn't mention.

On the other hand, Trump's comments on the subject were both more diplomatic and kinder to Britain, even as he suggested the Brexit was a good idea:

Trump, who happens to be in Scotland to open a golf resort, promised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

While I doubt these three Americans had any say in what actually happened in the Brexit vote, it is clear to me which of the three of them stands beside our friends in times of trouble, and which one uses threats to try and get what they want.

Tweet of the Day

In the last 24 hrs I've watched American politicians demand secret watch lists and British citizens demand their independence. What a world.

— Kevin Creighton (@ExurbanKevin) June 24, 2016

That is the irony: Democrats are trying to lead us into the abyss of a European-style political system, just as Britain has figured out the flaws of it.

BREXIT!

It is official: Britain is leaving the European Union. By a vote of 52-48%, the Brits decided to downsize the EU.

Naturally, Prime Minister David Cameron is resigning from his position, stepping down in October. In a show of a typically British, understated temper tantrum, he is leaving office rather than having to deal with the "will of the British people", as he described it. Translated, his message to the Brits was, "You want to leave the EU? Fine, but I'm leaving you."

Contrary to what many Leftists think, the world will be better off with smaller countries, and hence smaller governments. My hat is off to the Brits. I think they did the right thing for themselves, and for the EU.

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the flag pic)

The Democratic Message

The message from the Democratic Party is quite clear today: Only government can protect you.

If you are gay, or black, or a woman, or any minority, only government can protect you from guns. Other people being armed, or being armed yourself, can never protect you.

But how was the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, stopped? By police using guns.

But Democrats are NOT trying to disarm the police, who murdered Mateen. They are trying to disarm the citizenry, which includes the gay community which suffered the most from Mateen's violence. Government shooting people is ok, citizens shooting people is not ok. How many black people have been shot by cops in the past year, yet not a peep about disarming cops from the Democrats, who are allegedly the party of the black community. Only to a big government Democrat can this make sense.

So let us call it what it is: This is Democrats trying to create a totalitarian hell in America. They want a nice sheep-like population they can exploit and control for their own benefit. They want their police to be the ones with the guns, and not the people.

If the Democrats really cared about people, they would pass a law allowing for club bouncers and bartenders to be trained and armed with guns. Just imagine if a bouncer and the bartenders were armed with guns that night in Orlando. We would not have had 49 deaths.

If the Democrats really cared about blacks, they would loosen up gun restrictions in large cities across America, like Chicago and Detroit, so that largely black communities could protect themselves against criminals who are mercilessly gunning down the innocent people obeying the misguided gun laws.

The truth is the Democrats are only using this as part of their long-term play for power. Opportunism like this is shameless, but mostly it is evil.

How many people need to die in mass shootings before we stand up to the Democrats?

How many people need to die in inner city shootings, before we allow the citizenry to arm themselves?

How many minorities have to be killed by gun violence before the minorities stand up to their Democratic "friends" and say "Enough!"?

Quote of the Day

David Harsanyi hits another one out of the park, this time talking about Rugratocrats...er, Democrats having their sit-in:

It takes a special kind of duplicity, though, to anoint oneself defender of civil liberties while pushing an authoritarian measure that would deny millions of Americans some of their most basic constitutional rights.

Read the entire editorial here.

Ed's Healthcare Plan

The Republicans have their Obamacare replacement plan now. There's some good, some bad, and plenty of "why bother" in it. But I am not here to go over their plan, which will work a little better than Obamacare, but still fail for the same reason.

My big complaint about healthcare has always been the third party payer problem: When people don't pay their own expenses, those expenses rise under the "tragedy of the commons" economic theory. People overuse services they don't have to pay for, creating more demand, and thereby creating higher costs. We have seen it in everything from healthcare to education. As long as government, or an insurance company, or my employer, or anyone else pays for it, we as individuals don't care how much we use or how much it costs. Why should we care?

Anyone with a lick of sense will know the answer: Inevitably, we pay the costs ourselves, through tax dollars, insurance premiums, lower salaries, and various other means economies extract value from us.

We WILL pay for healthcare ourselves, eventually. But for the stupid people amongst us, we need that cost to be as direct as possible, because they otherwise won't understand they have to pay for it. Ironically, the age old "you pay the doctor when you see the doctor" is the best method. And that should be the primary payment means now.

Of course, there are some medical procedures which are too costly for most people to pay out-of-pocket. There are two simple solutions for all of these:

1. Health Savings Account: I still believe this is one of the best ideas ever. In fact, I would love to see it treated like an Individual Retirement Account, where the money can be saved tax-free (although I'd prefer dumping the income tax system anyway) and even invested over a life time, but still allowed for out-of-pocket medical costs at any time during your life. I will note that it is the one part of the Republicans' plan I like. 

2. Health Insurance: By "health insurance", I mean REAL insurance, and not the third party, check-writing service that health insurance has become. Health insurance should only cover catastrophic health events, such as major surgery needed to either save one's life, or save one's quality of life (i.e. hip replacement). It should have a minimum $5,000 per event, or $10,000 per year deductible, and it should work in conjunction with the HSA. If $10,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses is exceeded in a year, the health insurance should automatically kick in. For specific medical events, that should be dealt with between the doctor and the insurance company. By the way, these limits should increase every year based on inflation.

This should be the standard for both public (Medicare/Medicaid) and private health insurance. Any other "situations" (such as long and short term disability) should be handled separately from public or private health insurance, or handled within the system as is.

In addition...

3. No more tax deductions: I am against income taxes anyway, but why should we allow tax deductions for healthcare? You do realize that wealthy people can afford more and better healthcare than poor people, regardless of insurance? Allowing tax deductions for healthcare is just another way the rich get out of paying taxes. While we are at it, let's end the corporate deduction for health insurance also (sorry, but you have to pay for your own health insurance, like you pay for your own groceries). 

4. Coverage crosses state lines: All health insurance is accepted at all doctors and hospitals. With the HSA/health insurance combo, all you have to do is present a special debit card at the doctor's office/hospital. No longer do doctors or hospitals need extensive staffs to process insurance claims. One credit card reader will do the trick. It saves money for both doctors and patients. 

5. States only license doctors and regulate businesses: States can only license doctors and regulate doctors and hospitals as they would any business. They CANNOT target doctors and hospitals with regulations that do not apply to other businesses within the state. Also, medical licensing cannot be prohibitively expensive. In other words, no more protecting existing medical practices at the expense of doctor availability to the public, which helps keep costs high for existing doctors.  

6. More new doctors: The more doctors we have, the lower medical costs go. Eliminate any regulations which cap the number of doctors graduated from medical schools.  

Admittedly, there are plenty of other good ideas that could be added to this (medical malpractice reform anyone?), but I consider this a good start. I don't expect this to be wildly popular, but I consider this a valid compromise between libertarian and more statist ideologies, while still allowing for a more free market approach to healthcare.

The Rugrat Democrats

There is a fine line between having a sit-in to defend civil rights, and a sit-in to take civil rights away from people. The Democrats have just crossed that line.

The Congressional Democrats' sit-in to deprive people of gun rights is more like a temper tantrum from a spoiled child, than any kind of noble protest. Fortunately, the Republicans ignored the ploy. Even more fortunately, the "obstructionist" Republicans are in control of the Congress, so we don't have to worry about the Rugratocrats getting their way.

Here is the kind of argument we get from the Left:

.@davidharsanyi @AriMelber How many children do we have to sacrifice on the alter of the 2nd Amend to satisfy the gun gods?

— Figment (@Figment_Imagine) June 23, 2016

This is absurd. If you want to protect children, why not get a gun and protect them? Oh wait, the Rugratocrats would rather have the nanny-state government do it. Forgive me if I don't trust your pathetic nanny-state government to protect our children. Heck, it can't even educate them properly!

On top of that, I love how the Rugratocrats roll out John Lewis ("who had participated in the civil rights sit-ins in the South in the 1960s") as if he were Martin Luther King Jr. News flash for the Rugratocrats: There were actually some stupid people at civil rights protests in the 1960's. If you don't believe me, just ask John Lewis, because he was one of them. Attending a civil rights protest in the 1960's is NOT a "get out of stupid" card.

So when you see Democrats like this:

(hat tip to CNN for the photo)

Just remember that rugrats tend to play on the floor.

Wednesday Wisdom: Wilhelm von Humboldt

Wilhelm von Humboldt was born today in 1767. And he was a pretty smart guy:

"Diejenige Regierung ist die beste, die sich überflüssing macht."--Wilhelm von Humboldt 

Translation:

"That government is best which makes itself unnecessary."

A few more of his quotes:

"To inquire and to create;—these are the grand centres around which all human pursuits revolve, or at least to these objects do they all more or less directly refer."

"Governmental regulations all carry coercion to some degree, and even where they don't, they habituate man to expect teaching, guidance and help outside himself, instead of formulating his own." 

"Freedom exalts power; and, as is always the collateral effect of increasing strength, tends to induce a spirit of liberality. Coercion stifles power, and engenders all selfish desires, and all the mean artifices of weakness. Coercion may prevent many transgressions; but it robs even actions which are legal of a portion of their beauty. Freedom may lead to many transgressions, but it lends even to vices a less ignoble form."

Fed Funny

This article from Reuters gave me a great chuckle:

The U.S. Federal Reserve's dwindling confidence in its own outlook and resulting confusion among investors are creating a policy problem that may require chief Janet Yellen to lay out her own views more forcefully.

The article says this about Yellen:

A self-described consensus builder, Yellen sees her job as reflecting the whole committee's views rather than setting an agenda for others to follow.

The article says later:

At Wednesday's quarterly news conference Fed officials' doubts were in plain view, with Yellen using the term "uncertain" or its variations 13 times, more than twice as often as in March. In December, when the Fed raised its rates by a quarter point for the first time in nearly a decade, that word only came up twice.

This presents the following dilemma: How does one say "I don't know" more forcefully?

What Trump's Supporters Want

There is an article over at NBC News about Donald Trump's supporters. But there is one fascinating part of it:

If you go to a Trump rally and ask people why they support him, what’s the most common answer? You might be surprised.

It isn’t the border wall or his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country or his position on trade, although those come up regularly. It isn’t that he defies “political correctness” or “says what we’re all thinking, but afraid to say,” two phrases that come up often, as well.

Instead, it’s an issue that’s been almost entirely ignored by the Republican Party in recent years: Money in politics.

“He can’t be bought,” Eleanor Crume, 72, said at a South Carolina rally. “He’s not going to be bought by the lobbyists.”

“He can speak his mind because he’s not backed by these donors who say what he can and can’t say,” Travis Klinefelter, a 39-year old Iowa nurse, said.

“He’s not bought and paid for by special interests,” Dominic La Rocca of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida said. “Insurance companies, the banks, they get the law that they want.”

God bless America! They get it, even when they choose the wrong way to deal with the problem. While Trump can't be "bought", that doesn't mean he is the solution to too much money influencing politics. Last time I checked, he isn't proposing any way to remove the influence of money on politics.

He may drive the country off a cliff, but at least he will do it honestly...

P.S. One last tidbit from that article:

Unease with the corrosive influence of campaign donations and super PACs probably wasn’t something GOP leaders expected to influence their primary. Until now, the loosening of campaign finance restrictions after Citizens United and a subsequent flood of hundreds of millions of dollars into conservative causes was widely assumed to be an unmitigated good for the right.

Who made that ignorant assumption? Oh yeah, progressive elitists from the Media thought that. But I guess when you close your eyes to what Democrats do, you might not see all the influence of money on the D's. There is a reason one of Hillary's nicknames is "Hillary Goldman Clinton".

  

No Brexit

There has been a lot of news stories about the June 23rd referendum in Britain over whether they should exit the European Union (otherwise known as the "Brexit"). While I believe they should, I am fairly certain they won't.

Odds are currently at 37% for a Brexit, which I would feel safe betting against it happening. On top of that: It's the economy, stupid, and Britain isn't desperate enough yet.

While I and most people believe the EU is on the wrong path economically, nobody will leave it until it gets really bad. We are talking Weimar Republic-level economic nightmare. Until then, people will stick with what they have, even as they watch it deteriorate.

Another aspect which will keep Britain in the EU: Scotland. If Britain leaves the EU, Scotland has threatened to leave Britain. That creates a bit of a wicked googly for them, wouldn't you say?

But I will throw you a prediction: When Britain can leave the EU without worrying about Scotland, they will. When things are so bad in the EU that even Scotland wants out, Britain will leave without hesitation. There may not even be a referendum on it.

Today's News June 22, 2016

The Smoking Gun: 

DNC Researched Clinton Speeches, Travel Records

The latest document dump from “Guccifer 2.0,” the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee’s servers, shows that party officials have researched Hillary Clinton’s prior travel on private jets, the Clinton Foundation’s investments, and the Democratic presidential candidate’s speech contracts. 

The hacker this morning began distributing more than 250 files--totaling thousands of pages of records--that appear to have been prepared by DNC research staff.

What is the news here?

The DNC getting hacked isn't really that big a deal, since the U.S. government and average businesses get hacked all the time.

Hillary Clinton's dirt isn't really news, since we all knew about most of this stuff.

One minor story is what she requires for her paid speeches:

...the DNC dossier included copies of contract documents related to the presidential candidate’s paid speeches.

In addition to a “standard” $225,000 fee, Clinton required a “chartered roundtrip private jet” that needed to be a Gulfstream 450 or a larger aircraft. Depending on its outfitting, the Gulfstream jet, which costs upwards of $40 million, can seat 19 passengers and “sleeps up to six.” Clinton’s contract also stipulated that speech hosts had to pay for separate first class or business airfare for three of her aides.

As for lodging, Clinton required “a presidential suite” and up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides” and up to two extra rooms for advance staff. The host was also responsible for the Clinton travel party’s ground transportation, meals, and “phone charges/cell phones.”

Additionally, the host also had to pay “a flat fee of $1000” for a stenographer to create “an immediate transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.” The contract adds, however, “We will be unable to share a copy of the transcript following the event.”

Consider some of  these requirements. The one which stands out is the Gulfstream 450, which costs over $40 million, and that is just the plane itself, not including hired pilots. Admittedly, the group paying her to speak could have rented a 450, but that isn't cheap either: Hourly costs run over $6,000.

Let's face it: Whoever hires Clinton to speak has some deep pockets, not to mention a significant planning organization. Your local church won't be hiring her any time soon.

This just serves to show that Clinton is the candidate of Wall Street, not Main  Street.

But there is one other point to be made here: Why is the DNC doing research on a potential presidential candidate? It isn't like they can reject her, right? Or can they? Hmm...

On the other side...

CNN:
Trump directs nearly one-fifth of his money to his own businesses

Donald Trump has directed nearly one-fifth of his campaign cash to companies that are part of his vast business empire, new federal records show.

Trump, hurting for cash after he suddenly stopped self-funding his campaign last month, has mixed his public campaign and his private ventures for nearly the entire 2016 race. He has promoted Trump products at campaign events, publicly litigated a federal civil suit he's facing over Trump University on talk shows, and, this week, will bring the political press to Scotland for a tour of a Trump golf course.

And it shows in his latest campaign finance report, filed Monday: Trump-linked businesses account for 17% of all campaign expenses to date. He's paid almost $11 million to Trump organizations since launching his campaign a year ago.

Here's the rub: If he were using his businesses without paying them, he would have to call these campaign donations. But by paying his companies, he can use their infrastructure to support his campaign. He wins either way.

The only potential problem here occurs if Trump isn't a serious candidate, which is a rumor dogging his campaign from the beginning.

To be honest, I suspect he wasn't a serious candidate at the beginning, but I think he started enjoying the campaign. Politics can be addicting to the right personality, and I suspect Trump is one of them. But that is just my opinion.

Fox News: 
Marine Corps forced to pull warbirds out of 'boneyard' after new fleet delay

The Marines are looking for a few good planes, and their search has taken them to an Arizona boneyard where the Corps’ old F/A Hornets have been gathering dust and rust for years. 

The jets are being reclaimed and refurbished by Boeing after the service branch was caught short on planes because of long delays in the rollout of the much-awaited F-35. 

The Marines could have done as the Navy did and adopted second generation F/A- 18E/F Super Hornets until the new planes were ready, but opted not to. 

“In hindsight, it was a misstep for the USMC to not have purchased the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but only because the F-35 has seen such extensive delays and complications in production,” Omar Lamrani, senior military analyst for global intelligence firm Stratfor told FoxNews.com. “If the F-35 had entered production as originally scheduled and at the expected price, then the USMC would have been able to successfully transition straight from the F/A-18 Hornets to the F-35.”

The article doesn't mention a cost difference between the two possible plans, but if it saves money to take jets out of the "boneyard", I am all for it.

Of course, the article doesn't bother to ask whether we even need the jets at all. Sure, the article has the quotes from the USMC claiming the need for combat readiness, and the quotes from an expert that says this is a good idea to pull these jets. But ask yourself: The Marines are an offensive branch of the military, so who do we need to be attacking in the near future?

But it's just taxpayer money, right?

Lynch did NOT say that!

"All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need"--John Lennon and Paul McCartney

Guess who else is saying this? Attorney General Loretta Lynch! Except she is using this as a suggestion to combat terrorism. Here is her magical wisdom, from the Washington Times:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Florida’s LGBT community that the “most effective” weapon at America’s disposal against Islamic terrorism is “love.” 

Mrs. Lynch told reporters in Orlando on Tuesday that an ongoing investigation will determine the precise motive for 29-year-old Omar Mateen’s June 12 massacre at Pulse, a gay nightclub. Mateen, a former security guard, called 911 and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group while killing 49 people and wounding 53 others. 

“To the LGBT community — we stand with you,” President Obama’s attorney general said. “The good in this world far outweighs the evil. Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love. We stand with you today because we grieve together, and long after the cameras are gone will continue to stand with you as we grow together in commitment and solidarity and in equality.”

If we love gay people, bullets and bombs can't get to them.

Loretta, you get the bear for that:

Now Loretta, if you are serious about showing love, how about telling your boss to show some love to the world's Muslims? Maybe quit bombing innocent civilians?

Gary Johnson's Problem

While I will probably be voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson for president, he does not have an easy road ahead of him.

Obviously, his main asset is the failure of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to inspire the American public. As the most hated pair of presidential nominees in recent history, maybe even in all history, these two have left Johnson an opening you can drive a truck through.

Unfortunately, that opening has a monster truck sitting in it: The American Media. Before you suggest the Media could even consider supporting Johnson, read this. The Media is already bought and paid for by big business, which is owned by and owns big politics, namely the Republicans and Democrats. In other words, the Media is nothing more than a propaganda arm for big politics, which is nothing more than an extension of Wall Street. They WILL support Trump and Clinton, period. Until Johnson makes a racist remark, or shoots up a gay club, he has no chance of seeing page 17 of the New York Times, or even a fill-in story on Fox & Friends. Trump and Clinton already own the news coverage (I use the word "news" loosely").

For many Americans, they will show up on election day, and see the choices: Donald Trump ("no"), Hillary Clinton ("no"), or Gary Johnson ("???"). If Johnson gets lucky, enough people will pick him for the heck of it, and the election will be a split decision that gets tossed into a Republican-controlled Congress, where Trump has already burned more bridges than the Nazis in WWII. For some reason, I cannot imagine Paul Ryan voting for Trump...

But that is the best case scenario for Johnson, unless he makes an appearance in the next Star Wars movie. Maybe he can play Doobie-one Kan-roll-me?

(hat tip to Meme Generator for the pic)