Admiral McRaven in NYT: Remove Trump from Office ‘The Sooner, the Better’

Retired Admiral William McRaven has published an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times titled, “Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President,” urging that Trump be removed from office — “the sooner, the better.”

McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election.

The admiral, well-respected for his role in overseeing the operation to kill Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden in 2011, argues that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation.

If there are Officers who feel that way, then they should resign, immediately. I may not have the utmost regard for a profane, ill-mannered, abusive, loud mouthed, boor, but he is the elected President of the U.S. until he’s not, and he gets the respect due the position since he’s got the job.

McRaven is retired, but as a General Officer, can be recalled to Active Duty. It is imperative that the military is and will always remain subordinate to civilian control, otherwise we’ve got a military dictatorship on our hands. Especially as a General Officer, he should keep his open political views well within the bounds of propriety, or he can find himself in more than ‘hot water’ for writing  and having published what can easily be taken as a call for a coup against an elected official.
McRaven could find himself facing a General Court Martial for charges under the UCMJ of:

Article 82 – Soliciting commissions of offences:
(a)Soliciting Commission of Offenses Generally.—
Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to commit an offense under this chapter (other than an offense specified in subsection (b)) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b)Soliciting Desertion, Mutiny, Sedition, or Misbehavior Before the Enemy.—Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to violate section 885 of this title (article 85), section 894 of this title (article 94), or section 899 of this title (article 99)—
(1)if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or is committed, shall be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense; and
(2)if the offense solicited or advised is not attempted or committed, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 88 – Contempt Toward Public Officials:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 94 – Mutiny or Sedition:
(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2)with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3)fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b)A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Article 133 – Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 134 – General article
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “crimes and offenses not capital” includes any conduct engaged in outside the United States, as defined in section 5 of title 18, that would constitute a crime or offense not capital if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of title 18.

Attempted armed robbery in Franklin foiled after owner pulls personal gun

By WBKO News Staff |

FRANKLIN, Ky. (WBKO) – The Franklin Police Department is asking the public’s help identifying two suspects who attempted an armed robbery Wednesday at Bluegrass Cellular on Nashville Road in Franklin.

Police say the person in the “Scream” mask wearing an ASAP FERG hoodie pointed a handgun at the store owner, but both men were chased from the store by the owner who pulled his own firearm.

The suspects fled south on Nashville Road.

Employee fires back after attempted robber allegedly shoots into The Little Fish House

DAVIDSON COUNTY, N.C. — Deputies think they will soon be able to identify a suspect after a firefight between an would-be robber and a worker at a Davidson County business, according to the sheriff’s office.

At about 7:15 a.m. Wednesday, deputies responded to an attempted robbery at The Little Fish House at 1461 National Highway in Thomasville.

At the scene, deputies used a K-9 but were unable to find any suspect or suspects.

Investigators learned that an attempted robber tried to get into the business, but, when they were not allowed to get in, the robber pulled out a gun and allegedly shot into the business.

An employee fired back. Deputies do not know if the robber was hit.

Oklahoma Lawsuit shows logical flaws in Gun Control Assumptions

The coming implementation of Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma has served to emphasize the logical flaws in the arguments of those opposed…….

The restoration of Constitutional Carry is scheduled to go into effect in Oklahoma on 1 November, 2019…………..

The opponents of Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma  filed a lawsuit against the implementation of the law. The lawsuit claims the law violated the Oklahoma Constitutional requirement for each law to address a single subject.  Second Amendment supporters have characterized the lawsuit as a “Hail Mary” pass, unlikely to succeed.

The lawsuit includes allegations that Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma would be dangerous.

Constitutional issues are not about policy differences, or they should not be. Policy issues are to be decided in the legislative process. Courts are not supposed to be super-legislators.

Here is a summation of the policy arguments made by those opposed to Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma.  From

The suit alleges that states which enacted permitless carry laws have seen “a significant increase in firearm-related deaths.”

Kay Malan of Bixby is a volunteer with Moms Demand Action.

“When you remove the basic training requirements for the handling of a firearm and also remove the requirement to have a fingerprint and background check in your state, that is leaving it open for guns to fall into the hands of the wrong people,” she said. “As it is, we have a gun violence problem. Part of the gun violence problem is fueled by people who get guns illegally.

“All this will do is make it even easier for them.”

On the surface, this appears to contradict the statement that homicide or violent crime has not increased in states where Constitutional Carry has been restored.

There is no contradiction. It is clever sophistry of those opposing Constitutional Carry. Those opposing Constitutional Carry do *not* say homicide or violent crime increased. They say:

 “states which enacted permitless carry laws have seen “a significant increase in firearm-related deaths.”

There is no contradiction:  “firearm related deaths” includes suicides. Over the last 20 years, the number of suicides and the suicide rate in the United States have soared. While the percentage of suicides committed with guns has fallen, the increase in the overall suicide rate has been enough so the number of people committing suicide with guns has increased, and increased enough to override the reduction in homicide with guns. 

Thus “firearm related deaths” have risen in states where Constitutional Carry has been restored, because the number of suicides committed with firearms has increased along with the overall suicide numbers. From 1999 to 2014, the number of suicides increased 46%, while homicides decreased 6%. Suicide with firearms are two thirds of all “firearms related deaths”.

It is hard to see how Constitutional Carry is related to an increase in suicide, especially as the percentage of suicides committed with firearms has dropped, even though the absolute numbers have increased. Suicides have risen all over the United States.

The next bit of sophistry is the conflation of the legal ability to carry a firearm with the legal ability to possess a firearm. The Oklahoma Constitutional Carry law does not change who is legally allowed to possess firearms.

 “When you remove the basic training requirements for the handling of a firearm and also remove the requirement to have a fingerprint and background check in your state, that is leaving it open for guns to fall into the hands of the wrong people,”

How does that work? The legal requirements for possession will not have changed. There have not been, and are not, any requirements for training to possess a firearm in Oklahoma. No fingerprint checks are required to possess a firearm in Oklahoma. The requirements for background checks to purchase firearms will not have changed.

The only changes will be about carrying firearms, not possessing them.  If a person is not able to legally possess a firearm, they will continue to be unable to legally carry firearms.

One of the most basic claims of those who want a disarmed population, is that legal gun ownership has an effect on illegal gun ownership. It sounds reasonable, as an abstract theory.

“As it is, we have a gun violence problem. Part of the gun violence problem is fueled by people who get guns illegally.

“All this will do is make it even easier for them.”

The term “gun violence” is an Orwellian propaganda term. It is used to conflate several different things; suicide, homicide, justifiable homicide, homicide by police, and fatal firearms accidents, all together. All those things have different causes and dynamics. The purpose of the term “gun violence” is to conflate them and focus on the gun, thus implying the solution to all of them is more legal restrictions on gun ownership and use ……

Many of those who wish the population disarmed operate from a simplistic, childish perspective.

The thinking is something like this:

People with guns do bad things.
If there were no guns, people could not do bad things with guns.
Make the guns go away, and the bad things will not happen.

How many times have you heard “If there were no guns…”?
Making guns hard to legally own and use does not reduce the homicide rate. It does not reduce the number of guns owned illegally. It creates incentives for illegal gun manufacture and a black market in guns and ammunition.

The hard evidence, from 160 years of highly restrictive gun control laws, is they do not affect the murder rate or the number or rate of illegally owned guns. Governments have not been able to confiscate illegally owned guns faster than people are able to make, buy, steal or smuggle guns to add to the illegal stockpile.

If facts supported the arguments of those who wish the population disarmed, they would not be forced to mislead.

Gov. Newsom Fiddles With Pointless Gun Restrictions While California Burns

California is literally on fire. Power is being cut to millions. There’s rampant homelessness. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Taxes are among the highest in the nation.

Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom fiddles with guns. Newsom signed a raft of gun control bills, 15 of them to be exact, including limiting law-abiding Californians’ right to buy a gun to just one per month.

Along with the nation’s widest-ranging so-called “red-flag” law that allows nearly anyone to call for seizure of a private citizen’s firearms that even the American Civil Liberties Union won’t support and former governor Jerry Brown rejected, Newsom is demonstrating he’s more interested in settling political scores and pursuing far-left ideologies than actually governing.

That’s about par for the left isn’t it?


I wrote here about the riot that occurred in downtown Minneapolis during and after President Trump’s rally last Thursday night. Trump supporters were assaulted, their vehicles were blocked, police officers and police horses were attacked, and so on. This video, filmed by Alpha News, shows how violent and disgusting the “protest” by liberal Democrats was:

You might think that in the aftermath of such appalling lawlessness, mainstream Democratic politicians would rush to denounce the violence. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single Minnesota Democrat has criticized what you saw in that video. At least one Democratic legislator, Aisha Gomez, participated in the riot, and several others tweeted their support for it. And Ilhan Omar, the darling of Minnesota’s Democratic Party, expressed regret that she wasn’t taking part in the riot along with Rep. Gomez:

While not a single Democrat has condemned the lawless violence that liberals perpetrated in the streets of Minneapolis, they have heaped vicious vituperation on the Trump supporters who peacefully and happily participated in the Target Center rally. Which leads one to wonder: is there, anymore, any such thing as a moderate Democrat?

(I already knew the answer to that one.)

Bloomberg’s Everytown Just Makes Up Gun Facts

As if we didn’t already know…….

Let us help out Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown. For a group that claims to know a lot about guns, they apparently aren’t familiar with one of the best selling books ever from the University of Chicago Press: “More Guns, Less Crime.” There is also information from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Here are a couple of discussions from that book.

Or here

Samsung proves the folly of so called ‘smart guns’

Why cant we have thumbprint guns, they said. It would work just like my cell phone, they said. Noted gun expert and Silicone Valley consultant Joe Biden has pushed this on many occasions.

“My cell phone – like yours -I just put my thumbprint on, and that is my access to everything. (…) Why can’t you do that for a gun?”

Well, Samsung just blew that entire argument out of the water, now didn’t they?

Headline: Samsung: Anyone’s thumbprint can unlock Galaxy S10 phone

DOH! Thats a big F-UP. Inconvenient if its a phone, tragic if its a ‘smart gun’.

The scanner sends ultrasounds to detect 3D ridges of fingerprints in order to recognise users.

Samsung said it was “aware of the case of S10’s malfunctioning fingerprint recognition and will soon issue a software patch”.

South Korea’s online-only KaKao Bank told customers to switch off the fingerprint-recognition option to log in to its services until the issue was fixed.

Previous reports suggested some screen protectors were incompatible with Samsung’s reader because they left a small air gap that interfered with the scanning.

Powerful Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings has died

Well, he’s not ‘powerful’ anymore.

Jim Taylor once advised that one should only say good about the dead, and his formulation was: “He’s dead. Good.”

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a sharecropper’s son who rose to become the powerful chairman of a U.S. House committee that investigated President Donald Trump, died early Thursday of complications from longstanding health issues, his office said. He was 68.

Tennessee Will Now Let Felons Possess Guns, but Only if the Guns Are More Than 120 Years Old
A change in Tennessee’s definition of a firearm allows for felons to own a gun provided it was manufactured before 1899.

Have no fear, the commentary- hopefully- has schooled the author about the efficacy of guns made before 1899.

Convicted felons can now possess guns in the Volunteer State.

The catch? The guns have to be so old they don’t technically count as firearms under state law. That also means they’d probably be pretty useless in terms of self-defense. (haw-haw-haw-ahhhhh-hahahahahaha .ed)

Earlier this year, the state legislature unanimously passed legislation that amended Tennessee’s definition as to what constitutes a firearm in order to make the state’s definition the same as the federal government’s. Notably, the federal government doesn’t consider “antique weapons”—by which the government means guns manufactured prior to 1899—to be firearms. That means, by extension, Tennessee now doesn’t either.

State law previously denied felons—including individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses—the right to own any firearms, including those classified as antique. However, Tennessee’s reaffirmation of a felon’s right to own an outdated, ineffective weapon does little to address the fact that nonviolent drug offenders are still being denied their Constitutional right to self-defense in the state.

Reason’s Jacob Sullum has written about how “drug prohibition and indiscriminate gun laws conspire to deprive people of the constitutional right to armed self-defense.”

For example, in 2018, Krissy Noble, a pregnant woman who used a gun to defend herself after she was attacked in her own apartment, ended up facing potential jail time for her legally justified use of a firearm due to a past felony marijuana conviction in Arkansas. Even though the courts found her actual use of the gun justifiable, her prior felony charges of “possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia” (both nonviolent offenses) disqualified her from possessing a gun under Arkansas law. Noble was eventually sentenced to six years of supervised probation and ordered to pay a $2,500 fine for defending herself and her unborn child with the illegally possessed firearm.

While it’s encouraging that Tennessee recognizes that flintlock pistols pose little threat to society, it’s unclear what tangible benefits the state’s new law holds for nonviolent felons, like Noble who are barred from owning firearms and left defenseless.

UK: 6 Years in Jail if You Dislike Gays and Transgenders

Have no doubts in your mind. This kind of law is already here in New York City and it will undoubtedly be pushed to go federal.

From today on, it is ILLEGAL in the UK to dislike and express your opinion that you do not agree with transgenders! If you say anything at all that criticizes transgenders, transsexuals, transvestites and ordinary gays it is now punishable with a minimum of 6 months in jail and up to 6 years.

The punishment is going to be harsher than those that are given for domestic burglaries. Make no mistake about it, this is absurd indeed, its as if you are thrown in jail for not liking candy.

It is your right to like and dislike whatever the hell you want, its called FREEDOM, but in today’s society, freedom is becoming a thing of the past.

Transgenders have obtained a special status of favorite people so watch out what you say and what you think. Bow down and obey your masters which you voted for!

The most interesting thing in all of this will be the Muslims and where will they fit in all of this because they are the ones who hate gays more than any other group of people and they run their mouths openly and they are also a special protected class so, seriously, this is going to be interesting to watch the clash of the Muslims VS Gays in the near future.

Kritarchs Move to Directly Legalize Alien Smuggling With Phony “First Amendment” Argument

It is illegal to induce an alien to enter or remain in the United States illegally. It has been so for many years under Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In or Harboring Certain Aliens. However, a group of Kritarchs have decided to overturn years of precedent and legal usage to declare that the First Amendment protects alien smugglers, corrupt politicians, and those with a personal relationship with an illegal alien to induce and encourage illegal activity.

This is not about a debate concerning whether this prohibition should be in Federal law, but a claim that aiding and abetting a crime is not a crime. Note that the analogy of this crime is also contained in Title 18 USC Section 2 Principals and 18 USC Section 3, Accessory After The Fact. Both are long standing statutes that criminalize not speech, but speech involving itself in a criminal offense. (As when an armed robber says “Hands up”, or a blackmailer says “Pay up!” )

The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage or induce” someone to enter the country illegally violates the First Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Circus said the law is unconstitutional in December 2018. The justices added the case to the docket for their forthcoming term Friday.

“The provisions here are primarily directed at conduct, not speech,” the government’s petition to the high court reads. “To the extent they even reach speech, they do so only incidentally by prohibiting communications that foster unlawful activity by particular individuals, which have long been understood to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.”

The dispute involves an immigration consultant called Evelyn Sineneng-Smith. Federal prosecutors allege that she offered to enroll illegal aliens in a Department of Labor certification program for nearly $6,000. She allegedly did so knowing that her clients were not qualified, and were therefore guaranteed rejection.

[The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Encouraging Illegal Immigration Is Protected Speech, by Kevin Daley, The Daily Caller, October 4, 2019]

The three judge panel on the 9th Circuit who made this ruling are Democrat judges. The law doesn’t seem to be part of their legal reasoning, only imposing their will on the nation, a dictatorship of judges, a kritarchy.

What Do Socialists and Environmentalists Really Want?

This article could really be wrapped up in three sentences. The socialist Democrats of America want to control your money, your land, your home, your power, your water, your food, your education and your health care. They want to control what you do, where you live, where you work, what you drive and what you wear. They even want to control your news and your entertainment. They have almost succeeded on all fronts.

These aren’t new revelations. You have all heard them say it, on the campaign trail and in the recent debates. It gets worse every year as they troll for votes offering free “stuff” to a dumbed down electorate.

Besides wanting to control every aspect of our lives, the socialist Democrats openly advocate for open borders. They want to do away with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. They want Medicare for all and wipe out private health care for 180,000,000 Americans. One of these insane asylum inmates (AOC) wants to close all of our prisons and let all the violent prisoners loose on society. They want free college for all students and free health care for illegal aliens. They want to take away our guns. They want to repeal the Electoral College so that eight (8) major cities in America, New York, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego and Los Angeles, would control the vote. They want to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power, an insane idea and impossible. (See: “Why Wind And Solar Can Never Replace Fossil Fuels” by Paul Driessen)

Socialist Democrats and their deep state allies want all this and more, without regard to the consequences, the cost, or the devastating impact on individual freedom. The only thing that stands in their way is President Trump and the 63,000,000 Americans that voted for him. Will it be enough?

Lawmakers Consider Balloon Ban In Massachusetts

“You can always count on state legislatures to focus on important issues, like banning balloons”

BOSTON (CBS) – State lawmakers are considering a bill to ban the sale and use of all balloons in Massachusetts.

“The sale, distribution and release of any type of balloon, including, but not limited to, plastic, latex or mylar, filled with any type of lighter than air gas, both for public or private use, is hereby prohibited,” the bill sponsored by Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, states. Violators would be fined up to $100.

A hearing was held on the proposal Tuesday.

According to, supporters of the bill say balloons can be deadly for animals and bad for the environment. But opponents said the proposed measure would hurt businesses.

Earlier this year, the town of Orleans debated a balloon ban. Chatham, Nantucket and Block Island have already enacted balloon bans.

Robbery suspects shot to death near Grant and Swan

TUCSON, Ariz. – Tucson police investigated a homicide in midtown Wednesday.

Police say the call came in at 3:45 a.m. A woman called 911 and said she heard noises coming from her backyard, in the 4700 block of East Duncan Street, near Grant and Swan.

She found two men trying to break in and confronted them. She shot both of them. Police say 18-year-old Corey Teixeira died at the scene. 18-year-old Ali Mohamed died later at the hospital.

Tucson Police say the break-in does not appear to be random.

Utah cousins rob father and daughter at gunpoint, then father pulls his gun on them

SALT LAKE CITY — Two cousins robbed a girl and her father at gunpoint when the four met up to sell a phone in Salt Lake City on Saturday. Then, the father pulled out his own gun and fired at the cousins as they ran away, jail records show.

One of the cousins, 20-year-old Buk Mawut Buk, was booked into the Salt Lake County Jail later that day on suspicion of two counts of aggravated robbery and intentionally giving false information to an officer, according to a police affidavit. Buk’s cousin was a juvenile and his name will not be released, police said.

The girl’s father will not face charges, according to Unified Police Sgt. Melody Gray.

Earlier on Saturday, the girl found an iPhone on a classifieds site and began messaging the seller, who identified himself as “Lil,” jail records state. The girl and the seller agreed that she would pay $290 for the iPhone and planned to meet at 3400 W. 5620 South in Salt Lake later that day.

John Brown’s Raid

On October 16, 1859, John Brown led a small army of 18 men into the small town of Harper’s Ferry, (now West)Virginia. His plan was to instigate a major slave rebellion in the South. He would seize the arms and ammunition in the federal arsenal, arm slaves in the area and move south along the Appalachian Mountains, attracting slaves to his cause. He had no rations. He had no escape route. His plan was doomed from the very beginning. But it did succeed to deepen the divide between the North and South.

John Brown and his men stayed in a rented farmhouse in the days before the raid on Harper’s Ferry.
John Brown and his cohorts marched into an unsuspecting Harper’s Ferry and seized the federal complex with little resistance. It consisted of an armory, arsenal, and engine house. He then sent a patrol out into the country to contact slaves, collected several hostages, including the great grandnephew of George Washington, and sat down to wait. The slaves did not rise to his support, but local citizens and militia surrounded him, exchanging gunfire, killing two townspeople and eight of Brown’s company.

Troops under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee arrived from Washington to arrest Brown. They stormed the engine house, where Brown had withdrawn, captured him and members of his group, and turned them over to Virginia authorities to be tried for treason. He was quickly tried and sentenced to hang on December 2.

Global Warming Honcho Shockingly Honest About Climate Change Policy

I admit it, I am a skeptic. As ironic as it sounds, I am often even skeptical about the skepticism of others. I usually don’t take things at face value. I need to look behind the facade and see what kind of supporting structure it has. Outward appearances can be and often are deceiving, sometimes intentionally so……………

With global warming, much of the data, the foundation for the science, including that from years past, has been adjusted. There are legitimate reasons why particular data points may need adjustment to better reflect reality, but what scientific evidence can prove that the biases of the adjusters have not influenced vast swaths of adjusted data? What scientific evidence is there that the biases of the model builders have not creeped into the models, or that key factors of nature are downplayed or poorly understood? Vested interests want CO2 to be the culprit, so CO2 is the pre-ordained culprit.

Many leaders of the global warming movement have been quite frank about where this is headed, as with  Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of working group 3 of the IPCC: “[…] One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. […] One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

I will take them at their word. It is likely that they are being honest about this at least.


Bernie Sanders sounds ready to set up collective farms

Bernie Sanders in the Democratic debate last night had big plans for remodeling the country on socialist lines.

He’s guaranteeing everything — jobs, education, health care —, to everyone, in exchange for total power to decide what’s best for us. Sound like a bargain?

Here’s his call to “eliminate” the kulaks — er, billionaires:

According to The Hill:

Questioned whether he was sure that the federal government could adequately provide jobs for all adults in the workforce, Sanders replied, “Damn right we will.”

He’s throwing out all kinds of jobs to presumably draw in union support.

Yet 15 million jobs pretty well means a huge revamp of the economy.  How’s he going to hire 15 million people?  Employing just one person in the private sector takes a lot of checking and competition to select the best candidate.  Holding out a hiring spree for 15 million presumably laid off workers after Sanders gets done with the economy sounds more like Stalin’s institution of collective farms.

First problem: Why should these jobs replace the jobs the private sector had for such workers?  What we have here is government picking and choosing which jobs should exist.  If Vozhd Bernie wants a highway built, workers will have the choice of that job or no job, and that’s assuming that this would be done freely.  Historywise, it certainly won’t be.

What  would Bernie do if workers didn’t want those particular jobs?  What if, say, a trained beautician or dog-groomer wanted to stay in his job but couldn’t because his job had been taxed out of existence to fund the great green job machine?

For Bernie, central planning is what it’s all about.

What if someone didn’t want to dig ditches and preferred to remain a college professor instead?  This is what actually happened in Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  That laid off professor was pretty much made to dig ditches for the collective good.

Beto O’Rourke: If You Don’t Hand over Your AR-15 We’ll Take It

Gerson: O’Rourke’s proposal would hand victory to Trump

WASHINGTON — Beto O’Rourke, innovative for interpreting a failed Senate campaign as a steppingstone to the presidency, is now famous for (1) his use of profanity on the campaign trail, (2) his pledge that “hell, yes” he wants to confiscate AR-15s and (3) his proposal to tax religious institutions that don’t approve of gay marriage.

This is not the normal substance of presidential ambitions. Few young people nursing political dreams say: “When I grow up, I want to be a foul-mouthed, overreaching, anti-religious culmination of every exaggerated liberal stereotype and the embodiment of every fevered conservative nightmare.” Perhaps O’Rourke was just precocious in that way. It is more likely, however, that he was led in this direction by the increasingly desperate pursuit of a spotlight that fell on him once, and briefly.