Repeal The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution is in many ways an amazing document. It has allowed our country to become the envy of the world, but it was not and is not perfect. There have been amendments to correct some flaws and it is now time to fix a remaining flaw.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Just take it out of the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't mean all guns become illegal and will be confiscated. What it means is that the laws about guns must be legislated from the perspective of how we as a country want them to impact our society and not from the perspective of a constitutional right where we argue about what the founders actually meant. Gun ownership and use should not be some inalienable right. It should not be a foundational part of our country and enshrined in the Constitution. It's inclusion in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have such a terrible gun violence problem.

Most us drive cars and depend on cars to support our daily lives. But we also know that operating a car is not a right. We have to be licensed and provide insurance among other restrictions. There are rules for different types of vehicles and when and how they can be operated. Those rules are determined by legislation to fit our changing needs. For example, self-driving cars will require many new laws and regulations.

This is the way gun laws should be handled. Laws to define how guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting can be legislated just like laws that govern drivers, driving, cars, trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, etc., and without needing to quote the founding fathers or the Federalist Papers.

I believe the Second Amendment was written to provide the country with a service; citizen soldiers in militias to defend us from foreign threats which we no longer face. We now have well trained people in the military services, National Guard and Reserves that provide for our defense.

For the constitutional originalists/textualists, I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that provides guidance about personal self-defense or suggest that the amendment was meant to provide ready weapons for citizens to overthrow a misguided government. I also don't understand how the initial dependent clause can be ignored, although that is convenient since militias were male only institutions so the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to women.

And how well has the Second Amendment worked? Are we better off having it? How is our record on gun violence and the number of citizens killed by guns compared to the rest of the industrial world? We've been told for years that all we need is more good people with guns. Yet while gun purchases continue to sky rocket, gun violence increases and still more and more people are killed by guns. Clearly more and more guns are not making us safer or decreasing gun violence.

In my city we have an interstate highway where people are wary to drive for fear of being shot for an awkward lane change or just by a stray bullet. Kids are being killed in their homes from stray shots coming from outside their houses. Do we really want to live this way? And the situation keeps getting worse.

What does it say about us that guns are now the leading cause of childhood deaths? We should be ashamed. More importantly, we must do something about that.

Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start creating laws that allow reasonable ownership and use of guns.

 

Self Defense Begins At School

I suggest that the NRA rephrase one of its old sayings.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun in a school, is a child with a gun.

 

Possible Concomitant Consequences

I have not been closely following the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse is the Illinois teenager who says he traveled to Wisconsin with his assault rifle to defend people and businesses from rioters.  He is accused of killing two people and wounding another person while he was in Wisconsin.  There is video evidence showing he shot them.

I did take notice when the trial judge, Bruce Schroeder, ruled that prosecutors could not use the term "victim" or "alleged victim" to describe the people who were killed or shot.  I believe I read he thought that calling these people "victims" would bias the jury against Rittenhouse when he has yet to be convicted of anything.  I don't think that explanation makes sense.

Dictionary.com defines victim as "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action...".  These victims were injured.  Whether or not they were injured by Rittenhouse, and if they were, whether or not the injuries were legally justified is what this trial is all about.  We won't know if these people were victims of Rittenhouse until the trial is completed so why not use the term "alleged victims".  The term "alleged" is just acknowledging that this is what the trial is going to determine.  

But the judge has legal training and experience that I don't have, so I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.  At least I was until he expanded his ruling.

He went on to say the defense could use the terms "rioters", "looters" and "arsonists" to describe the people who were shot if the the defense presented evidence supporting these descriptions.  

What?

These people have not been convicted of any crime so why can they be labelled by the court as law breakers?   The judge is not willing to allow possible negative bias against Rittenhouse during the trial, OK, but he has no problem labeling the victims as felons and giving Rittenhouse backing from the bench for any self-defense claims.  

I thought justice was supposed to be blind. I don't know of any charges the wounded person is facing. If there are any crimes, they would be alleged until he is convicted.  The two victims who were killed can't be tried or convicted.  They can't defend themselves, so why can't we at least call them "alleged victims"?

I would imagine the prosecutors will call Rittenhouse a murderer which presumes there are victims. So if prosecutors can't call them "victims" what do they call them?  They are not plaintiffs.  How about "possible concomitant consequences"?

 This blog was originally written in November, 2021, before Rittenhouse was acquitted.

Save Our Democracy, STOP THE BIG LIE

Republican Elephant Shit

It is clear the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capital on January 6th were hoping to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden to the presidency and have Donald Trump reinstated as president.  It is becoming clear that former president Donald Trump and his allies (including some elected officials) were also trying to use quasi-constitutional schemes to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden and instead certify that Donald Trump had won.  How closely these two groups were working together to complete an insurrection is still being investigated.

These subversive actions were planned even though Joe Biden won the election by roughly seven million popular votes and 76 electoral college votes.  There were various recounts, court cases and certification by all states which affirmed that there was very little if any voter fraud and Joe Biden was the winner.

Yet Donald Trump and most Republicans keep spreading the Big Lie that there was widespread fraud and the election was stolen.  This lie is ominous because it seems to be setting the stage for future manipulation of election results.

The courts and congress will have the final say on how the insurrectionists should be punished and what changes are required to defend our constitution, but I have a different question.

What did the insurrectionists and the people who support them think would happen if they had been successful on January 6th?

Do conservatives think the Democrats would just say something like "Aw shucks, lost again", give up and walk away?

In 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats used all the legal actions at their disposal to get an accurate count of votes in Florida which they believed would show Al Gore won and would be the next President of the United States.  Yet when the Supreme Court (on a purely political split) stopped the Florida count and therefore gave the state to George W. Bush by a roughly 800 vote margin, Gore graciously conceded and Democrats reluctantly accepted the result.

If today's conservatives were on the losing end of a vote count like 2000, what would they do? Keep in mind former President Trump has no intention of ever conceding the 2020 presidential election.  He has made it clear that he does not believe in the peaceful transition of power.  More upsetting are the number of his supporters who agree with his actions.

Now we see Republicans in many areas trying to change state laws to make it easier to manipulate election results in the future to favor them and possibly override election results.  

Speaking for myself, if Republicans someday succeed in overruling voters and changing the results of elections, I, and I expect many other Democrats and independents, will not calmly walk away.

I would prefer that we put in laws and rules that prevent the subversion of our democracy.  If there are differences in how our democracy should be run, I would prefer that those differences be settled in the courts and legislatures, but if those processes fail to defend our democratic principles and processes, extraordinary remedies may be required.  Once a democracy is lost it is difficult to bring it back because the insurrections are even more emboldened to use their illegally won power to retain their positions.

I beg all voters, especially Republicans, who understand how radical and dangerous the Big Lie is to help defend our constitution and country.  Do not support politicians that are willing to damage our democracy to retain their political power.  Don't accept changes to election laws that are claimed to be needed to stop future election fraud.  If a politician won't publicly and clearly state there was no wide spread fraud and Joe Biden is the properly elected president, don't vote for them.  Don't accept a mealy mouthed, elephant shit answer that there were irregularities or state laws were not followed.  Politicians need to say that the states all certified their votes and Biden won. Any other answer damages our democracy.

Credit Due

 I would like to give a shout out to all the people who have declined receiving their COVID vaccine shot.  Those of us waiting for our shot appreciate the chance to move up in line.

I would also like to give a shout out to those people who refuse to wear a mask. I understand we need to have 70 to 80 percent of people vaccinated to get to herd immunity.  That number of people is decreased by people who have already recovered from a bout of COVID.  The brave mask deniers actions that put them at risk of death and serious long term disabilities will decrease the time needed to reach herd immunity.  Mere words cannot express my awe of their selfish and stupid actions.

Mask deniers should also get credit for the family, friends, co-workers and even strangers who they recruited to their cause. Those additional victims will have contributed to the goal of beating the virus with out giving in to the tyranny of the mask.

So mask deniers, what else can I say except "stay the hell away from my family, friends and me!"

Bring On The MAGATES

As a proud Democrat it has long aggravated me that Republicans insist on disrespecting the Democratic Party (its official name) by calling it the Democrat Party.

We may soon have payback.

Donald Trump is threatening to create a new party called the Patriot Party or maybe the MAGA Party.  In either case I propose we call members of the new party Magates.

Rubio Opposes Trump Impeachment Trial - Part 2

Republican Elephant Shit

 

By the way, Marco Rubio also believes we shouldn't impeach Trump because Trump supporters are already so riled up that an impeachment would be like throwing gasoline on a raging fire.

 Does that mean he really thinks that coercion by mob violence is a valid reason not to defend the Constitution? 

Does that mean we should ignore the fact that it was a mountain of incendiary lies built by Trump and his Republican enablers that fired the insurrectionists up?

Rubio Opposes Trump Impeachment Trial

Republican Elephant Shit

Senator Marco Rubio says that he is not in favor of holding the Senate impeachment trial of former president Trump since Trump is already out of office.

That certainly makes sense from Rubio's perspective. Although he voted against rejecting any state's electors, he wouldn't say how he would vote until near the actual vote. Now he wants to put his and his party's involvement in an attempted insurrection behind him.

Any Senator or Representative that didn't early on clearly state they would not vote to invalidate state certified electors bears some responsibility for the insurrection and riot at the Capital on January 6^th.

The trial of Donald Trump in the Senate is absolutely required. Donald Trump with the help of many elected Republican officials encouraged their supporters to take actions to overturn an election. All these people and all the insurrectionist at the Capitol need to be held accountable.

For the “what about club”, yes, there have been a few cases in the recent past where a Democrat or two has voted against a slate of electors. But those situations were different. Before this year who knew that this counting of electors process even took place or remembered who might have ever voted against a set of electors? Did any of those Democrat's encourage violence to overturn the election? How long will this year's violent insurrection and rejected elector votes be remembered? Correct answer----FOREVER!

What did Republicans think would happen if they had succeeded in overturning the validated results of the election? Maybe 80 million Democratic voters would just quietly accept that result? I don't think so. Clearly some insurrectionist wanted to start a real civil war that included violence. We can't afford to get that close to a civil war ever again.

All the states with electors that the Republican's planned to vote against were won by Biden. So Republicans think there was no fraud in states won by Trump? And only the presidential votes in these states were fraudulent? Votes in other contests were not affected? Some of the races in these states were won by Republicans and in other races Democrats won. In the 2020 election Democrats lost their firm hold on the House and now narrowly holds the majority. Democrats knew that they also really needed to win the Senate which they barely did. But if it were so easy for Democrats to fraudulently win the presidency by changing votes in so many states, why didn't they throw in a few more close Senate and House wins?

The idea that the presidential election was stolen was a big lie led by the biggest liar, Donald Trump. But many Republicans were complicit in convincing their supporters that the election was stolen and convincing these supporters that any action to reverse the results of the election was acceptable.

Donald Trump needs to be convicted in the Senate for his lies and actions before and after the election in support of the big lie. He needs to be barred from every running for the presidency again. Future presidents need to understand that efforts that undermine the Constitution will not be allowed.

Republicans that echoed the big lie need to admit to lying. Perpetrators of the big lie need to pay a big price. We need to make sure that big liars and big lies cannot put our democracy in jeopardy again.

Convicting Donald Trump in the Senate is a good first step.

Give Trump A NY Times Subscription

Former presidents are normally provided some forms of classified information. I've heard the reason for this is that their valuable experience along with up-to-date information might be of value to their successor.

President Biden should make sure former President Trump gets absolutely nothing.

We know Trump has divulged classified information accidentally. At least we think it was accidentally.

We know that Trump seems to have an unexplainable obsequious relationship with Putin.

We know that Trump is going to be under extreme financial pressure and may have to sell things of value.

We know Trump will do anything to harm President Biden. Even things that could hurt our country.

Let Trump get his national security information by reading the New York Times.

In The U.S. Everyone Deserves Legal Representation

 I read that former President Donald Trump (former, doesn't that sound good?) is having trouble finding lawyers willing to represent him in his up-coming impeachment trial in the Senate.

I would suggest he request help from public defenders.  I think they have to take on clients no one else will represent.  Even insurrectionists.

Donald Trump is COVID-19 Personified

Bob Woodward's new book, Rage, is an documentation of parts of the Trump presidency from a respected journalist.  It is based on facts and research using interviews with President Trump, the public record and trusted sources.  Much of what I'm reading confirms what I had already heard, but Woodward brings them together in a time line.

Woodward clearly shows Trump is a liar.  That is, a person who does not tell the truth.  President Trump is clearly a liar, but I'm convinced most of his lies are not really intentional because he does not actually understand the concepts of truth or facts.  Occasionally he seems to logically determine what response is best for him.  But in many cases, he seems to just say whatever his gut tells him is most expeditious at the moment. That is why he can say something and them shortly thereafter he can say the complete opposite.

I must admit I've long believed President Trump is an idiot, but Woodward recounted incidents that make me pause to consider maybe Trump has more substance than I gave him credit for.  That was until I read chapter 33.

In chapter 33 Woodward describes the advice he received years ago about writing biographies.  An English professor suggested finding true "reflectors" of the subject.  People who are or were close to the subject.  People whose close experiences with the subject allow them to make accurate assessments of the person.

Woodward choose President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as such a person.

In February, 2020 Kushner suggested four texts that should be consulted to help understand Donald Trump.  Texts in this case meant writings, not text messages.

The first is a 2018 opinion piece by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal.  In this piece she describes the President as a "crazy act", "a living insult", and "epic instability, mismanagement and confusion".

I think Noonan was basically saying Trump is not rational and has no desire to use rational thought to perform his presidential duties.

The second text Kushner recommended consulting was Alice in Wonderland.  Specifically the Cheshire Cat whose strategy, according to Woodward, "was one of endurance and persistence, not direction”.

I understand this to mean Trump does not think ahead. He doesn't believe that goals and steps to achieve those goals are needed. He just needs to survive the moment, psychologically satisfy his narcissism and boost his low self-esteem.

Then Kushner suggested the book The Gatekeepers: How White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency, by Chris Whipple.  I think Kushner recommended this book to high light that while other presidents chose people with talents, knowledge and experience to help them determine how to handle difficult issues, Trump feels he needs little help since he is more qualified than anyone to best decide what to do.

I believe, President Trump wants people who just do whatever he says and sometimes realize what he wants done without him having to put himself in jeopardy by saying something incriminating. He also wants people who will tell him what a great job he is doing and people to blame when things go badly.

The final text was Scott Adam's book, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.  Scott Adams is the creator or Dilbert. Adam's argues that Trump's lies "are not regrettable errors or ethical lapses”. In Adams' words, Trump “can invent any reality”.

We see this all the time. Trump lies and some people will accept whatever he says. Trump supporters have been conditioned to believe that anyone who tries to correct Trump is the liar. They are just creating fake news.

As I said earlier, I'm not convinced Trump's lies are that strategic. He knows his followers will believe whatever he says. He suffers no penalties for repeating and expanding a lie. In Trump's world, the old saw, “go big or go home” is a guiding principle for his lies.

Woodard summarizes Kushner's insight into Trump by saying, “When combined, Kushner's four text's painted President Trump as crazy, aimless, stubborn and manipulative.”. It sounds like neither Kushner or Woodward think Trump is a stable genius.

I would phrase Woodward's analysis a little differently. President Trump is not rational, has no goals other than surviving, only needs people who will serve him and has no compunction abusing people to meet his needs.

That sounds a lot like COVID-19.

To make this comparison even stronger, President Trump would like to be King Trump and COVID-19 is a corona virus.

The Election Should Decide Who Picks The Next Justice

 I do not agree with Senator McConnell's rule that an opening on the Supreme Court in a presidential election year should be filled by whoever wins the election that year.  Oh yeah, that was the rule last election.  Since that no longer works for him, he has a new rule this election.  Does anyone doubt that he would go back to his earlier rule if that worked better for him?  Or make up a new rule?

As I have suggested before, I would like laws that require some kind of bi-partisan vote on Supreme Court justices.How about requiring a super majority of 60 votes with at least 10 votes from outside the majority party?

But that is for the future.  

If  Trump wins the election, he can nominate the next justice. But...Since I believe Republicans stole a Supreme Court justice from President Obama, if they insist on forcing a Senate vote either before the election or after the election if Biden wins, then it is time to play hardball like the Republicans.

If Biden wins and Republicans insist on confirming a new justice this year, I suggest that Democrats declare that they will impeach this justice as soon as they can.  I don't believe they need any justification other than that seat on the court was stolen.

I know that opens the possibility that Republicans will do the same when they have a chance, but they show no principles now.  They will always do whatever suits their current needs.  Precedent be damned.  Norms be damned.  Principles be damned.  So what do we have to lose?  You have to stand up to bullies.

The hope is that Republicans will understand we can treat governing like a death match or we can try to govern with the understanding that for the good of the country we must try to work together.

President Trump's Troubling Projection

 There are several things we know about President Trump.  

 He seldom tells the truth.  The more impassioned he is about an issue, the more likely it involves a lie.

He has mental health issues.  He is a narcissist and is very insecure. One of his coping mechanism is to project what he believes are his issues and weaknesses onto others.

It is therefore very troubling that President Trump has, without any proof, accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to sharpen his public speaking.

We need to watch how often President Trump makes this baseless claim.

How Do You Know That A MAGA Hat Is Authentic?

 

How do you know a MAGA hat is authentic?

 

Look for the tin foil lining.

 

 

Rehabilitating Michael Flynn

Republicans are once again trying to warp reality to excuse President Trump's delusions.

President Trump and Republicans are outraged over the unjust treatment of former National Security Advisor, former general Michael Flynn by Obama's FBI. They have Attorney General Barr's dismissing of the prosecution of Flynn as proof that Flynn was mistreated and set-up by the FBI.

This story is more long and more involved then can be discussed here, but I'm dismayed by several things.

What should the FBI have done when they found the Russian's had tried to interfere with our elections? Factor in the public appeals by Trump for Russia to provide him help, the unusual and considerable number of contacts between the campaign and Russia and the overwhelming electronic proof that the Russians were helping Trump. I would be outraged if they hadn't opened an investigation, including the actions of Flynn. If the investigation spiraled out of control, and I don't think it did, it is was certainly in part because there clearly was a lot to investigate and involved people at the highest levels of our government.

But what now bothers me about the rehabilitation of Flynn is the attempt to completely forget the basic facts.

Flynn had contact with the Russian ambassador and then lied about it to the FBI and Vice-President Pence. President Trump cited these lies when he fired Flynn. And then to make it worse, Flynn lied to federal prosecutors and a federal judge.

When Flynn denied his contact with the ambassador, one group knew for sure he was not telling the truth, the Russians. This is a classic example of how to turn a person into a spy. The Russians could then go to Flynn and say something like, “We know you lied about having secret contacts with us. We won't tell anyone about this, but we could use a favor.”. And then they ask for some small favor. They do this a few more times with the requests being more significant each time. It becomes harder and harder for Flynn to say no. At some point they have enough evidence that, if released, would cause Flynn to be locked up forever. Then what would they expect the National Security Advisor to do for them?

If Flynn is so innocent, why did he repeatedly lie?

Who knows, the Russians may have more damaging information about Flynn that we don't know about . If they do, would they hesitate to use it to coerce him? And yet President Trump and Vice-President Pence say they would be open to hiring Flynn again. Really?

The FBI was right to be concerned about these guys. I certainly am.

The Real COVID-19 Plan

It is clear that we will be dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for months. The task now seems to be how to balance the need to protect people from the serious health risks of the disease against the serious economic and social effects of social distancing. I think the solution has already been determined, but no one is going to openly admit what it is.

Since no vaccine is likely to be available for many months, we need a long term plan for dealing with the pandemic. A reasonable plan has been known for several weeks. Focus on protecting people's health to minimize deaths and serious injuries and thereby prevent the health care system and workers from being overwhelmed. The cost of this is on-going economic pain. At the same time, relax social distancing restrictions and restart some businesses, but that will mean more people will be infected and more people will die.

We would each probably define the proper balance between health and the economy differently.

People who prioritize health have the harder job. They need to keep social distancing in effect until the number of new cases is low enough that rapid testing (which we do not yet have), contact tracing and isolation can control the infection rate. This would prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed until an effective vaccine is eventually created.

On the other side, people who prioritize the economy over health have the easier task. No one likes social distancing and its economic ramifications. That makes it is easy for politicians to call for relaxed restrictions even while the infection rate is not controlled. Even without relaxed restrictions, people and businesses can just ignore social distancing laws and rules. In either case, some  businesses will reopen and maybe have a chance to survive, but more people will become infected. While more people will be sick and die, more people will hopefully now have immunity.

If infections and deaths spike, restrictions can be increased again, but that won't change much. Pandemic overload will eventually desensitize people. Once that spike is controlled people will clamor for eased restrictions again and be even less appalled by the health care side-effects.

While no one will say it, every person who is infected and survives is helping build herd immunity. Many people, especially politicians, are gambling that herd immunity will control the pandemic quicker than a new vaccine. That's the real plan.

Time to Move Dept of Justice out of the Executive Branch

Recent events have made it clear that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice should not be part of the executive branch.  They must be non-partisan.  People smarter than I am should come up with a plan, but I suggest they be moved to the judiciary.

The Attorney General could be chosen by a super majority of Supreme Court Justices (6 or more) from a list of candidates.  One candidate each from the president, the House and the Senate.  Congress would need a super majority vote (>60%) to choose its candidate.  If the House or Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the ABA could then suggest a candidate.

The Attorney General would be appointed for an 8 year term that starts in the year after the presidential inauguration. As the end of the term nears, the nomination process would begin again.  The current attorney general could be re-nominated.

The Justices could, with a super majority vote, remove the current Attorney General.  The process would then start to choose a new Attorney General to serve the remainder of the term.

The Chief Justice, working with the Attorney General, would submit a budget each year.  The budget should have protections to prevent appropriations being used to politically influence Department of Justice decisions.

We would also need a plan to fill and remove Justice Department positions that are now political appointees.  It is probably too much to expect the Supreme Court to oversee an operation of this size.  But I'm sure we can figure this out.

The idea is to remove politics from the administration of justice.  While this is probably idealistic, we should try.

While we are at it, lets make it law that a super majority of the Senate is required to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

Trump's Questionable Meeting With Putin

President Trump will meet with Vladimir Putin in a few days.  The first session is reported to be a private meeting with only Trump, Putin and Putin's translator present.

Why isn't President Trump going to also have his own translator present?  The room is too small for another person?  He is afraid that having a second translator will confuse the conversation?  He trusts Putin's translator and he can't find an American translator he trusts?

Why is there no note taker present?

Why doesn't President Trump want one of his advisors to be present?  This person doesn't have to talk, just listen.  Is Mike Pompeo taking a day off?  Are other close advisors, the people Trump choose, not trustworthy?  Is he afraid they can't keep a secret?  If so, what will be discussed? Remember, these are people currently handling some of the most secret national security issues facing this country.

Does Trump's ego require that he show he doesn't need any one to help him run this country?  Even a translator or close advisor?

Does Trump want to discuss issues that even his closest advisors don't know about? And he doesn't want them to know.

Are Trump and Putin discussing private personal matters that are just too embarrassing to make public?

Are Trump and Putin going to talk about aliens?  I don't mean asylum seekers from Central America,  I mean the kind from outer space.  Maybe we are on the verge of first contact and Trump and Putin have to determine who will take credit.

Whatever the reasons, for a President whose campaign is currently under investigation for collusion with the Russians this looks suspicious.

Maybe that's the point.  After the meeting is over, he can tell us (or not) what was discussed no one can dispute him.  Except for Putin.

There is a conundrum.  Trump and Putin disagree.  Who do you believe?
 

Nobel Prize or Booby Prize?

President Trump is ready to nominate himself and accept the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing North Korea to the table and denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

He claims he did that by putting maximum pressure on North Korea.  Of course, that included the threat of annihilating the entire peninsula.

So faced with a bellicose and unpredictable dictator who has no problem starving the citizens of his own country, Trump, an equally bellicose and unpredictable president repeatedly threatens war.

Don't tell me President Trump had this all planned out.  Trump, as he often does, just lashed out with threats when he had no plans at all.

Thank goodness Kim Jong-un turned out to be the more rational head of state. 

But then again, this fight over who has the bigger button is not over. What prize will President Trump get if his threats end in another war with North Korean?

Republicans Owe Democrats a Supreme Court Justice

If the Democrats win back the Senate this November, they should refuse to allow a Republican nominee to be added to the Supreme Court.

President Trump can nominate a new justice and Democrats should hold hearings, but Democrats should not vote to confirm the nominee.

The Republicans stole a Supreme Court Justice from President Obama and Democrats.  Until that theft has been repaid, Democrats should refuse to approve any Republican Supreme Court nominee.

I realize that this could lead to a political war that prevents any new justice from being added to the court until the presidency and Senate are both held by the same political party.

That would be terrible, but Republicans started this war.

President Trump could solve this problem by letting Democrats pick the next Supreme Court Justice, should there be one.

In fairness, if there are two openings in Trump's last two years, he can fill the second after he lets Democrats fill the first.

Once the stolen seat is returned to Democrats, we can all hope that both parties agree to nominate only centrists to the court.  Republican presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-right justices and Democratic presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-left justices.

We have to get back to working together to keep our democracy strong and stop needless, counter-productive political wars.