Trump Shoots Mouth Off at "Not Strong" Soldiers with PTSD

Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) has been trying to make a great play to win the military and veterans vote, as so many of them are against Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY).  Trump has emphasized rebuilding our military and solving Veterans Administration hospitals continued patient care problem for veterans.

With this in mind, Trump spoke before the Retired American Warriors PAC gathering in Herndon, Virginia, Mr. Trump was tossed a verbal softball by a questioner about a prospective Trump Administration's attention to Tramatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which afflicts many veterans returning from today's battlefield. Trump's answer to this puff ball question was such a foul ball that it evokes the military acronym FUBAR.




Suggesting that soldiers suffering from PTSD due to combat experiences  are not strong is pain ignorant and insulting, despite the dulcet tones and fleeting promises contained his Mr. Trump's response.

Perhaps such boorish buffoonery should not be surprsing from Mr. Trump, as he made great hay about insulting Senator John McCain (R-AZ) being a "loser" because he was interred in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW for five years. And this ignorance may arise from the Donald because the closest to combat Trump came was surviving his "personal Vietnam" by avoiding STDs in the 1980s.

After shooting his mouth off about PTSD soldiers, it is a question of whether Mr. Trump politically shot himself in the foot with his insulting answer.   If veterans and their families want a President who will actively rebuild America's military capability as well as support the interests of veterans, it is dubious that they would vote for Mrs Clinton, Mr "What is Aleppo" Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson (L-NM) or Green Party candidate Jill Stein (Green-MA). There is Independent Presidential candidate Evan McMullin (I-UT), who  advocates more conservative political perspectives,  has made the ballot (or qualified for write in status) in 34 states, but has not made much of an impact in national polls.

It is a good bet if active military men and women could publicly participate in politics, they might well affix this on their bumpers.

Hillary Leaks Basement Dwelling Condescension--Feel the Bern

As Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wonders why she is not connecting with Millennial voters, she should consider her attitude behind the public mask.  Ex Secret Service Agent Ron Kessler points out the nasty way that she treats agents behind the scenes.  Similarly, audio leaked from a Hillary event in February 2016 which she denigrated youthful Bernie backers as being basement dwellers.



In this 2016 cycle, voters yearn for genuineness, even if it is unvarnished and uncomfortable ejaculations like Donald Trump on a roll.  People may think that Hillary Clinton won the first Presidential debate because of preparation, canned ham (e.g. "trumped up, trickle down economics") and pasting on a smiley face for a prolonged period. This pose, however, did not significantly move the needle up.

Millennials are loathe to run to a candidate who just plays the gender card.  Now that they know "Sneering Hillary" who speaks contemptuously of being a barista or believing in real change, are they going to go out in droves to support Democrats? Might some join "The Deplorables" Trump Team? The latter seems unlikely.

We'll see on November 8th.

Ron Kessler on Hillary Clinton

When the Supreme Court Acts Like Politicians

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

W.C. Fields on Prohibition