Is Trump done? Not at all. He only needs to secure on the first ballot 482 of the remaining 798 delegates outstanding. That is about 60% of the remainder, though, so he’d have to do much better going forward than he has so far. And that is much more difficult for him to do because there’s only three in the race, now, and Trump has made himself ever more toxic to everyone but his core supporters.
Cruz, meanwhile, has the nearly impossible task of getting about 90% of the remaining delegates to secure a first ballot nomination – anything can happen in politics, but it is almost a certainty that Cruz won’t be able to do that. But that, at any rate, doesn’t seem to be Cruz’ plan right now – the reason he’s working hard at getting his people into the delegations to the Convention is he figures (a) he can’t get a first ballot majority and (b) neither can Trump. Many of Cruz’ people will have to vote Trump on the first ballot but after that, it’s pretty much anything goes…but as these people were selected with massive input from Cruz, it is highly unlikely they’ll go for anyone other than Cruz, unless the convention deadlocks after multiple ballots are taken. Then Cruz backers might start looking around for a non-Trump, non-Establishment alternative. Of course, Cruz also has to worry not just about how Trump does, but how Kasich does…if Trump plus Kasich equals “nominating majority”, then Kasich might well throw his support to Trump, putting him over the top. Whatever amount Trump falls short, it will be vital to Cruz to make sure he falls farther short than whatever Kasich has.
It occurred to me today that as well as securing himself friendly 2nd ballot delegates, Cruz may also be making a play to take over the Party. Remember, regardless of who they are pledged to vote for on the first ballot, Cruz-backing delegates will be voting on the rules for the Convention. If Cruz gets enough of his people in there, then Cruz sets the agenda for the Convention. And given how diligent Cruz has been at this nuts-and-bolts stuff, I’d be shocked if among his selected delegates there aren’t people who have mastered the rules of parliamentary procedure. People who know that stuff can tie things up in knots, and untie them just as swiftly…while those who don’t know the rules won’t know what hit them. Given that Trump has proven himself manifestly ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts of politics, I’d expect the Convention to steamroller Trump…and, also, go a long way towards making sure Establishment types don’t parachute someone else into the nomination.
I have to admit to being ever more impressed with Cruz. I’ve always admired his firm stance on Constitutional government, but he’s also showing rare ability to just work the system – set up, it must be said, by people who despise him and wanted to precisely keep out people like him – to his advantage. He prepares. He studies. He does the mind-numbingly boring stuff it takes to get things done. Of course, he can’t do it alone so he must have hired some really cracker jack people to help him out. Given the towering unpopularity of Hillary and her massively dispirited base, I’m starting to think that Cruz might be able to make mince meat out of her in the fall. We’ll have to see – and, of course, it is not even remotely certain that Cruz will prevail in Cleveland. Lot of politics to go through before we get there.
Bernie is, however, done – he never was other than done, anyway. The Democrat Party has determined that Hillary will be the nominee. Lot of factors probably playing to that. Not least is the fact that the party it honeycombed with Hillary loyalists…but it is more than that. It is her “turn”, you see? Democrats really think like that – not all of them, but enough to grind it out. But it is still remarkable that Hillary has yet to put Sanders down. I suspect it will be end of April, start of May before she manages it…and then only with the sort of chicanery which often gives her as many delegates from a State as Sanders gets, even when he blows her out among the voters.
Make people work as part of the welfare requirement and this happens:
In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
And that, my friends, is why Big Government liberals are opposed to welfare reform…and it’s not just that people will move off the rolls and become independent, but the additional horror that we’d need fewer bureaucrats…and that, in the end, means lower donations to the Democrat party.
Glenn Reynolds suggests a bit of punishment for Attorney Generals who try to criminalize dissent.
Ok, so a third or so of Wisconsin GOPers won’t vote GOP if Trump is the nominee…that is understandable…but about the same number won’t vote GOP if Cruz is the nominee. That makes no sense even in 100 parallel universes. I get it that Cruz has likeability issues. I get that he’s a bit far right for some even in the GOP. But this concept that “well, I’ll stay home or vote third party which ensures that Hillary is President if Cruz is the nominee” is just, well, absurd. Part of it is, I think, just passion-of-the-moment thing. There are still plenty of Rubio voters who feel betrayed their guy lost, and plenty of Kasich voters who are just officially sticking with their man to the bitter end. The balance would be made up of Trumpsters who simply won’t vote GOP, at all, if Trump isn’t the nominee. Most of the #NeverCruz people will, I think, come home in November.
Cruz does have a very high hurdle to jump – first getting the nomination; then uniting the party; then facing off against Hillary and figuring out a way to poach enough Rare Voters and disaffected blue collar Democrats. I figure his chances of beating Hillary are significantly less than 50/50…but he will have one magnificent asset in the quest: Hillary. She’s just terrible.
So, a Dominican priest walked across a college campus – and the kiddies went into a panic thinking his white Dominican robe was a KKK outfit. College – it just doesn’t make any sense.
The Panama Papers scandal continues to cause a stir. If you ever wonder why rich and powerful people act like the laws don’t apply to them there is a simple reason for this: generally, the laws don’t apply to them. Certainly not like they apply to a poor or middle class person. If you’ve got enough money and enough pull, you can avoid prosecution; get sweet heart deals if prosecution is unavoidable; tie up the law in endless appeals if you can’t get a sweet heart deal; provide donations in return for an executive pardon if all else fails. But, mostly, you don’t even have to worry about that – Hillary isn’t the only easily indictable person out there walking around free, after all. The love of money is the root of all evil and power corrupts…people with lots of money tend to love money (otherwise, in almost all cases, they wouldn’t have made quite so much of it – and by “lots” I mean once you start getting into the billions of dollars of net wealth); people in power are always at risk of being corrupted by it and the longer a person has power, the more chance they’ll be corrupted. I have my solution for these problems – a wealth tax and term limits. Yeah, maybe not the best…but let’s hear yours.
The natural response to a $15 minimum wage. Spoiler alert: those making a minimum wage won’t like it.
State writes a confusing medical marijuana law. Small business owners decide to set up a marijuana dispensary which they believe has obeyed the law. Police disagree. Raid the place. Take everything they own. Charges get dropped. Small business owners still rather out in the cold. The biggest issue here is the asset forfeiture law – Michigan’s appears to be one of the worst, but all around the nation this sort of thing goes on…and one can’t help but feel that some of the incentive for the police to get a bit over-aggressive is the fact that many asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to keep the goods even if no conviction ever results. My solution: no seizure of assets until after conviction. And rather, period, end of story. Yep, this does mean some real criminals will be able to hide some of their ill-gotten gains, but that risk is worth it to me in order to ensure that innocent people don’t have their property seized.
Related: Juries should curb out of control prosecutors.
Trump and Cruz square off in Wisconsin tomorrow and if Cruz wins – as is expected via polling – then it will get very difficult for Trump to secure a first-ballot nomination…and that is pretty much the end of the game for Trump because Cruz, who actually understands the process, has been busily securing delegates at State conventions…and even if they have to vote Trump on the first ballot, they will be solid Cruz votes on the second and subsequent ballots.
Trump is, naturally, complaining about this – and that, for me, is the final nail in his political coffin. He didn’t do his homework – running for President is a much more difficult and demanding activity than he suspected and voting, especially in the primaries, is only part of the game. I expect him and a large portion of his backers to get all stompy-foot about it and by doing that they may, indeed, wreck GOP chances in November…but given how toxic Trump has become over his alligator mouth, his getting the nomination probably wouldn’t have worked out any different. Meanwhile, Cruz has at least a chance to unite enough of the party and gain just enough cross-over votes to stop Hillary…it would be a hard fight and the money would have to be bet on Hillary, but at least it would be a chance for the GOP, given how massively unpopular Hillary is. If, however, the GOP Powers That Be – who despise Cruz probably more than they do Trump – lock out both of them and hand the nomination to someone who didn’t even run in the primaries or who was knocked out early, then the GOP is definitely doomed – both Trump and Cruz supporters will justifiably cry foul and stay home.
Over on the Democrat side, Hillary is the Democrat’s Trump – at least in the sense that she simply didn’t prepare for the contest. And this is a terrible indictment of her leadership ability given that she was taught no end of a lesson in 2008. Hillary had all the money and the entire party behind her and she still can’t put Bernie down. I am still pretty certain she’ll be able to muscle her way to the nomination but she’s day by day turning off the most determined and enthusiastic Democrats. Say what you will about Bernie, but he’s an honest man who is actually campaigning on what the Democrat base wants…Hillary is making a belated lurch to the far left trying to stop him, but the reek of hypocrisy is strong and, meanwhile, she’s providing all sorts of ammunition for the eventual GOP nominee to use against her. A lot of people have said that Hillary is smart – sorry, but I don’t see it. I see not the slightest evidence of intelligence in her actions over her public life. She’s just rote recited whatever current Democrat talking points are, has greedily sucked up as much money for herself as she can and cruelly gone after anyone who has got in her way. She might wind up being President, but she’ll be a lousy President that no one but her sycophants has a kind word for.
The President of France – a Socialist much in tune with political correctness, it should be noted – said the Bad Words Islamist Terrorism while Obama was there…and so his people censored them. If a Republican President had done something like this, it would have been front page news for a month…
Manufacturing jobs are going away, but bartending is having a boom year. Obamanomics!
Once upon a time, men were men – and could be warrior poets:
Safety
Dear! of all happy in the hour, most blest
He who has found our hid security,
Assured in the dark tides of the world that rest,
And heard our word, ‘Who is so safe as we?’
We have found safety with all things undying,
The winds, and morning, tears of men and mirth,
The deep night, and birds singing, and clouds flying,
And sleep, and freedom, and the autumnal earth.
We have built a house that is not for Time’s throwing.
We have gained a peace unshaken by pain for ever.
War knows no power. Safe shall be my going,
Secretly armed against all death’s endeavour;
Safe though all safety’s lost; safe where men fall;
And if these poor limbs die, safest of all. – Rupert Brooke
It has been brought up lately, and I’ve been pondering it for quire a while. Here are some thoughts I have on the subject:
Back in ancient days, those who were defeated in war were at the mercy of the conqueror – it was felt that merely enslaving them was to cut them some slack. But putting an entire city to the sword down to the last man, woman and child was not uncommon. Over time, this was modified a bit as some great conquerors (most notably Alexander and Caesar) discovered that clemency was itself a mighty engine of war – letting the defeated off relatively easy tended to make conquests more lasting; and you could get more out of the defeated in continuing tribute than you could in a one-off sacking. But, still, for the longest time it was thought that an enemy who refused terms and was then defeated was without recourse to mercy.
Mostly through the agency of the Catholic Church as it rose to prominence, this idea of mercilessness to the conquered was modified. And the waging of war, itself, was held to require a strict set of rules. That these rules were often ignored is beside the point – there were rules and people would refer to them in judging the wartime actions of a nation. Time went on and war became to be seen as a thing between professional armies, alone, and the non-combatants were to be spared the ravages of war as far as possible. Napoleonic France diverged from this general trend (essentially, Napoleon looted Europe in order to fund his regime and his continuing wars) but the post-Napoleonic reaction was just that much more strong – until, by treaty, nations in the late 19th century started to codify the rules of war.
But it was still held that if one side violated the rules, the other side was justified in following suit. A good example of this was poison gas – banned by treaty prior to World War One, once the Germans started using it then all sides used it to the best of their ability. And then World War Two happened – a war was started by a nation with absolutely no justification and that nation then ran amok murdering and looting on a scale never seen before in war. After the war, trials were held and those judged most guilty of carrying out the crimes were hung or imprisoned for long terms. And it became rather set in stone: there were some things you just couldn’t do in war, ever.
But it still remains a fact that some people depart from the laws of war – most notably the terrorist. Remember, what was most terrible about the Nazi crimes was the way they brutalized people who couldn’t fight back…civilians and disarmed prisoners of war. We look far more in horror at the massacre of Babi Yar where more than 33,000 defenseless Jews were murdered than we do the bombing of Hamburg where more than 42,000 Germans died…this is because the Jews were completely harmless and completely helpless, while the Germans were at least working to support the German war machine and in the Luftwaffe and the Flak units, the Germans at least had a chance at self defense. We feel sadness when, say, an American or Israeli soldier is killed by an enemy but we know that soldiers voluntarily face such risks – and they have a chance to defend themselves. But when a bomb goes off in a shopping mall, it is defenseless, harmless people being murdered. The laws of war require that those shooting and being shot at be clearly identified as people who can do that – anyone who is not so identifiable must not be shot at and must not shoot. But the terrorist is violating both sides of that – they are not identifiable as shooters and they seek to kill people who are most definitely not in a position to shoot back.
What do we do about such a thing? That is the crucial thing we need to be clear in our minds about. The enemy diligently hides his identity. He desperately does not want to be known as a combatant before he starts shooting. He hides among his like, blending in to the best of his ability to confound those who would prevent him from attacking. He browbeats and threatens non-combatants into keeping silence, and supporting his efforts. He then steers clear of any place where he’s likely to be met with armed resistance, and then attacks. Is such a person, if captured, to then he held as if he were a regular soldier, honorably seeking to engage his like in battle? Or is he to be treated as a common criminal and be provided with a defense attorney? Or is he to be fought as he fights? Here is a clip from the movie Breaker Morant – it tells the story of three Australian officers being charged with murder for shooting out of hand what amounted to captured terrorists during the Boer War:
Most of the laws of war we use today were in effect at the time – but there is a difference: the defense the officers used was that they were obeying orders. Here’s the scene where the defense sums up:
And, of course, the standard was created in the post-WWII trials of the Nazis that obeying orders is no defense. Soldiers are to refuse to obey any order of a criminal nature – and, indeed, this has been written into American law and into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But, still, what to do with an enemy who has departed entirely from the rules of war?
If a terrorist is planning on setting bombs in a series of shopping malls, what rule are we to use in stopping him from doing it? To be sure, if we can just arrest him and send him to jail, that is fine. But suppose we can’t? And even if we can arrest the particular terrorists planning the bomb-setting, what of their masters in a foreign land? And what of the government which allows them to operate in their territory? A further example – a terrorist group is using an active hospital as a base for their operations, what rule of war are we to use in getting after them? Kindly ask them to leave? Bomb the hospital? Suppose we decide in such cases that it is legitimate to bomb a hospital but we, being human, bomb the wrong hospital and kill hundreds of civilians – is that a war crime? Bring up the pilots on charges of murder?
We all know we must not become just like the enemy – but it seems to be that to become like the enemy would be to start hiding our military forces behind civilians and to eschew entirely attacking the enemy but, instead, go in search of family and friends and killing them out of hand. That would be acting like the enemy – but fighting the enemy without let or hindrance even though he is hiding behind civilians would not, in my view, be a crime…and if in the heat and pressure of battle where our troops are in a shooting gallery where who is the enemy and who the noncombatant is unclear, then it still would not be a crime if some of our troops did some things which in cool hindsight were wrong.
We are faced with a ruthless enemy and we have our choice – fight or quit. I don’t think that quitting is an actual option because they are determined to get after us regardless of what we do. But, still, if one wants to believe that if we stop, they’ll stop then that can be tried. On the other hand, however, if we decide to fight then while obeying all the rules of war, we still have to understand that an enemy departing from the rules will have to pay a high price for his actions…and those shielding the enemy while he violates the rules have to know that cooperating, even involuntarily, with the enemy is the worse option than resisting enemy pressure (in other words, the guy allowing his house to be used as a staging area for terrorists must become convinced that it is better to risk the wrath of the terrorists than to risk our wrath should we find out his house is a staging area).
War is a nasty, dirty business and no one comes out of it with completely clean hands. To take a human life is always a terrible thing and we should do our best to find ways to solve our problems without the spilling of blood. But the nature of humanity dictates that there will always come people who desire to obtain things by killing. It doesn’t really matter what particular thing it is they are trying for – the fact that they are willing to kill to get it is all that matters. And each enemy who arises has to be dealt with in the most efficient way possible. If someone wants to raise a conventional army to fight us and is willing to spare, as far as possible, all civilians then that, indeed, is how we should fight them…but if someone is taking to the hidden bomb in a school or the gunmen in an airport, then other means will be necessary to convince such an enemy that fighting is a losing proposition.
‘Cause we’re all going to need to start drinking, heavily – get it?
Anyways…
Why are people furious over our political system? Here’s why:
During a panel discussion Monday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe about a pair of new reports in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post concerning the ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton private e-mail server, National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued that there should be a higher bar to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because she is running for president…
No. No. NOOOO! Because Hillary is prominent it is all the more vital that she be held to the strictest standard. I’ll much easier let some poor guy off than I would someone rich and powerful…because a rich and powerful person (a) can’t possibly have any justification for breaking the law and (b) if those who run the government are breaking the law then every person in the United States suffers ill effects. But this is why Trump is having such a huge effect – because this and 10,000 other examples are out there of people juiced in getting a free ride. This sort of thing must end if our nation is to be saved.
Could Trump win New York in November Short answer, no. But take a look at this quote:
…Levine said voters are increasingly unwilling to cross party lines, “and this pattern has only accelerated in this era of negative partisanship in which, if nothing else, many people are voting against the opposing party rather than voting than voting in favor of their own party.”…
Which is all very true but which might not be true for 2016. We only have a few bits and pieces of information to contradict the polling and political history…but if Trump can pull into his camp numbers of those who don’t vote along with some who normally vote Democrat, things could be very much up in the air.
NY Times throws up it’s hands and just can’t figure out why people become terrorists:
…After all this funding and this flurry of publications, with each new terrorist incident we realize that we are no closer to answering our original question about what leads people to turn to political violence,” Marc Sageman, a psychologist and a longtime government consultant, wrote in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence in 2014. “The same worn-out questions are raised over and over again, and we still have no compelling answers.”…
I hate to state the obvious, but I guess I’ll have to: people become terrorists because they want to. There are people out there who get a kick out of doing bad – from the drug smuggler to the bank robber to the identity thief to the terrorist. It is true that some times you can talk a person out of doing bad – appeal to their better nature. There are also times when it seems pretty clear that God intervened and a bad person saw the light and repented. But there are also people who, for a variety of reasons, can’t be reasoned with and refuse the call of God. These are the people who make the bad things happen – for run-of-the-mill criminals there are the police, courts and jails to deal with them…but for those who are determined to set off bombs in random public places, much more stern measures will be required. One thing certain, if you’re sitting there spinning mental cobwebs trying to figure out some sort of root cause of either bank robbery or terrorism, you’ll be failing to deter either the robber or the terrorist…you’ve got to take vigorous, positive steps to stop them. If there is some sort of root cause, you can work on that, too…but, meanwhile, you’ve really just got to get after those who do bad things.
On the first day of the week,
Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning,
while it was still dark,
and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
So she ran and went to Simon Peter
and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them,
“They have taken the Lord from the tomb,
and we don’t know where they put him.”
So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.
They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter
and arrived at the tomb first;
he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in.
When Simon Peter arrived after him,
he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there,
and the cloth that had covered his head,
not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.
Then the other disciple also went in,
the one who had arrived at the tomb first,
and he saw and believed.
For they did not yet understand the Scripture
that he had to rise from the dead. – John 20:1-9
Much argument these days on what a Conservative actually is – my two cents: a Conservative is someone who understands and believes the fundamental dogma of Original Sin. You don’t actually have to be a believer to hold this (though it’s easier if you are), but if you don’t work on the assumption that people can, even from the best of motives, get it wrong then your own policy ideas will eventually fall apart.
Trump is going to get crushed in an epic landslide – or, maybe not.
You know me – I’m not really in favor of all these late night, no-knock raids by police…but Belgium’s policy of no raids between 9pm and 5am is, well, stupid.
Georgia is debating a bill which would provide just a tiny bit of protection for those who want a conscience exemption – you know, not having to do things like hire people to work at the Church school who openly disbelieve in Church teaching and that sort of thing. Now, pay attention, Conservatives: Big Corporation is stoutly opposed to this. Big Corporation is even threatening boycotts of Georgia if the people there have the nerve to demand freedom of conscience. Big Corporation – and the so-called Capitalist system it lives in – is against us, folks. They are allied with liberals – and please let that sink deep into your heart.
Australia banned guns – and this led to the end of guns in Australia and everyone is now happy and peaceful! Just kidding – it has actually generated a violent black market in guns.
Scott Walker thinks that brokered convention will lead to a non-candidate getting the nod. I can think of at least one person I’d rather have than either Trump or Cruz. Can you? After all, if we are doomed to President Grifter, then I’d rather have us lose under an honorable banner.
Colorado’s dope industry is doing well – smoke a blunt for prosperity!
Is Hillary perhaps still a Bill Clinton centrist or at least an elite member of the establishment whose first allegiance is the sober and judicious status quo?
No. Her tenure as secretary of State was the worst since Cyrus Vance served under Jimmy Carter. To Vance-like incompetence and therapeutic blather, she added serial dishonesty, violations of the law, callousness toward the families of the Benghazi dead, and opportunistic trashing of her predecessors. Hillary was as responsible as her boss for the Russian reset, the Iranian deal, the Libyan tragedy, the implosion of Iraq after the needless total withdrawal, the cluelessness about ISIS, the red lines/deadlines/step-over lines embarrassments, the slow and steady decline of Afghanistan, the genocide in Syria, the reach-out to thugs like the Castro brothers and Recep Erdogan, and the estrangement from Israel. She may have not done the apology tour, but it reflected well enough her worldview of the moment, as did the euphemism campaign of workplace violence and man-caused disasters…
Then, “Is Trump a Sure Loser?”
There is a good chance of it. I think he has no idea what Clinton, Inc. will do to him and will probably lose by a wide margin. But if that battle is lost, it was lost also when the Republican establishment and center nominated fine and upstanding trimmers like John McCain and Mitt Romney and a Congress that sought to slow rather than halt Obama’s frenetic efforts to socialize the U.S.
Do read the whole things because, as is usual with Hanson, every word repays reading. I’ll wait. Go on, read it.
Ok, all done? See what I mean – you already feel smarter than you were 20 minutes ago.
For those who are #NeverTrump and are arguing that Trump represents some horrible departure in American politics – an unprecedented level of vitriol, cluelessness, corruption and racial animosity – I have a couple questions to ask: where you been since 2007? If Trump is an incipient fascist out to destroy American liberty, then just what has Obama been up to? Have you forgotten the way the IRS went after TEA Party groups? That Ben Carson was magically audited right after he offended Obama? That the maker of an obscure video was actually arrested in service of the Obama Administration lie about what caused Benghazi? That Petraeus was convicted for far less than what Hillary hasn’t been indicted for? That Senator Menendez as given a pass on corruption when Obama needed him as a supporter, but as soon as he turned on Obama vis a vis Iran and Cuba, he got indicted? That Obama’s people spied on and harassed members of the MSM who didn’t entirely toe the Obama line? That Obama fanned the flames of racial animosity just to goose Democrat turnout for 2012? No matter what Trump might do as President, it isn’t anything that Obama hasn’t already done…and what Obama has done was done with the eager cooperation of Hillary Clinton.
We do have a real problem in this nation – freedom is under siege. Decency is despised. Honesty is considered a sucker bet. Trump may well exacerbate these trends but so would Hillary – it’s a complete toss up as to which one of them would be worse. But one thing we do already know – Hillary has held political power and corruptly used it to advance and/or protect herself and her cronies. Trump, by fact that he’s never held any political power, hasn’t.
As I’ve said before, I’ll never be a Trump supporter – but I’m not going to let my disgust at Trump’s antics blind me to just how lousy Hillary’s record is…nor Obama’s.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.