Donald Trump picks up a major endorsement Yeah, this one will help him!

You just can’t make up this stuff!

North Korea says Trump isn’t screwy at all, a wise choice for president

Jack Kim | June 1, 2016

North Korea has backed presumptive U.S. Republican nominee Donald Trump, with a propaganda website praising him as “a prescient presidential candidate” who can liberate Americans living under daily fear of nuclear attack by the North.

A column carried on Tuesday by DPRK Today, one of the reclusive and dynastic state’s mouthpieces, described Trump as a “wise politician” and the right choice for U.S. voters in the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

It described his most likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as “thick-headed Hillary” over her proposal to apply the Iran model of wide sanctions to resolve the nuclear weapons issue on the Korean peninsula.

Trump instead has told Reuters he was prepared to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to try to stop Pyongyang’s nuclear program, and that China should also help solve the problem.

North Korea, known officially as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), is under U.N. sanctions over its past nuclear tests. South Korea and the United States say its calls for dialog are meaningless until it takes steps to end its nuclear ambitions.

DPRK Today also said Trump’s suggestion that the United States should pull its troops from South Korea until Seoul pays more was the way to achieve Korean unification.

“It turns out that Trump is not the rough-talking, screwy, ignorant candidate they say he is, but is actually a wise politician and a prescient presidential candidate,” said the column, written by a China-based Korean scholar identified as Han Yong Muk.

There’s more at the link, but the DPRK is absolutely right: the United States pulling its troops is one sure way to achieve Korean unification!

I’m fairly sure that, as President, Donald Trump wouldn’t be stupid enough to pull American troops out of South Korea.

In other news, it seems as though the only fat guy in North Korea is gaining weight.

Shaking in my work boots

From The Wall Street Journal:

Donald Trump Warns Republicans Who Don’t Support Him

Presumptive GOP nominee says he has given $5.6 million to veterans organizations

By Reid J. Epstein | Updated May 31, 2016 1:14 p.m. ET

Donald Trump said Tuesday he would continue to attack fellow Republicans who don’t endorse his presidential campaign, adding to his difficulties uniting elites in the party he now leads.

Speaking at a news conference in New York, which came after reports in several news outlets that Mr. Trump hadn’t delivered on the $6 million he repeatedly said would be donated to veterans groups, he touted giving $5.6 million to veterans organizations. The GOP standard-bearer in the same breath insisted the party is unifying behind him and signaled he will be harsh with Republicans not backing his campaign.

“The real story is how fast we’re getting together,” Mr. Trump said. “Now, if I have a Republican that is not on my side, I’m not going to…why should I be particularly nice to that person?”

Mr. Trump’s remarks came during a remarkably contentious news conference, during which he repeatedly questioned the credibility of the news media, including addressing one network television correspondent as “sleazy.”

Mr. Trump last week came under fire from Republicans for his unprovoked attack on New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, the party’s highest elected Hispanic woman. Mr. Trump said Tuesday that other Republicans who haven’t backed him should expect similar treatment.

“You know what, why should I be nice to that person?” Mr. Trump said of Republicans who don’t back him. “If I have a person that’s not going to support me, I have no obligation. Politically, I might be right, I might be wrong, but that’s who I am.”

The presumptive nominee—who barreled through his party’s primary calendar by attacking his opponents—said that if elected president, he would continue to behave the same toward the press if he is aggrieved by reporting.

There’s more at the original.

Of course, The First Street Journal is a smaller-than-small potatoes blog, and I’m certain that we’ll go wholly unnoticed by the Trump campaign, but I have to say, that Mr Trump’s threat that he will be “harsh” with me for not backing his campaign doesn’t seem like much of a problem. But, for a guy trying to win the support of better-known Republicans, telling them that they had better support him, or else, probably isn’t the wisest move. He can’t fire Senator Ted Cruz, and he can’t fire a lot of Republicans who don’t support him.

Well, that’s just TFB!

From The Wall Street Journal:

Family of Driver Killed With Taliban Leader Mansour Files Case Against U.S.

The complaint, filed in Pakistan, accuses unnamed U.S. officials of murder and terrorism

By Qasim Nauman | May 29, 2016 3:20 p.m. ET

A U.S. drone strike on this vehicle on May 21 killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour and the driver of the vehicle. The family of the driver filed a case against the U.S., accusing unnamed officials of murder. Photo: Zuma Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The family of a taxi driver who was killed alongside Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a U.S. drone strike has registered a case with Pakistani police against unnamed American officials over the attack.

Mullah Mansour was killed on May 21 in Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province after he entered the country from Iran. Pakistani officials and family members said he hired the vehicle in the Pakistani border town of Taftan, and driver Muhammad Azam had no links to any militant group.

Mr. Azam’s brother Muhammad Qasim filed the complaint, called a First Information Report, on Wednesday, accusing “U.S. officials” of murder, terrorism and damage to property, Balochistan Police spokesman Shahzada Farhat said.

“My brother was innocent, and very poor. His four children are very young, and he was the family’s sole breadwinner,” Mr. Qasim said in his complaint.

“I seek justice, and legal action against the American entities responsible,” Mr. Qasim said, adding that he didn’t know the names of the U.S. officials behind the drone strike. He said his brother picked up a passenger from Taftan on May 21, who Mr. Qasim later discovered was a person who gave his name as Muhammad Wali.

There’s more at the link. The story states that we did not notify the Pakistani government of the drone strike, and that the Pakistani government was displeased by this:

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan on Tuesday described the strike against Mullah Mansour as “illegal, unjustified, unacceptable, against Pakistan’s independence and sovereignty, and completely against the U.N. Charter and international law.”

In August of 1998, we did notify Pakistan of an impending strike against Osama bin Laden. From the September 11 Commission Report, Section 4.2: August 1998:

By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst, as well as hitting al Shifa. The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the “premise kept shifting.”

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.

Had we notified Pakistan that such a drone strike was coming, it is not at all improbable that a Taliban-sympathizer in the Pakistani government would have notified the Taliban, and the Taliban leader would still be alive.

So, a taxi driver was killed? That’s unfortunate, but, you know what: I don’t care. Just like we didn’t really care that innocent women and children were killed when German factories were bombed, because that was necessary to win the war, and just as sensible Americans — a description which excludes President Obama — don’t really care that some wholly innocent Japanese incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must do the things necessary to win the war against the Islamists.

Rule 5 Blogging: Down Under

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Elle MacPherson in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: Aussies!

military_woman_australia_army_000006

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Down Under’ »

From Around the Blogroll

Does this matter?

Gary Johnson to Face Five Rivals for Libertarian Nomination

By Ryan Struyk and Ines de la Cuetara | ORLANDO, Florida — May 28, 2016, 7:47 PM ET

Fending off challenges from more extreme wings of the Libertarian party, Gary Johnson wooed his ticket’s skeptics in a nominating speech this afternoon at the national Libertarian convention.

GaryJohnsonLogoThe frontrunner didn’t mention the elephant in the room -– Johnson’s running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. Delegates here have been hesitant about Weld, questioning his commitment to the party given his earlier endorsement of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who some say was actively trying to keep Libertarians off the ballot in Ohio.

“Libertarian principles are very simple, but you can’t violate any of them and still call yourself Libertarian. Mr. Weld is not by any stretch of the imagination a Libertarian,” said John McAfee, one of Johnson’s rivals for the nomination.

During his speech, Johnson instead focused on major Libertarian talking points, decrying military intervention and equating taxation to theft.

“I am not Republican-lite,” he said, rebuking criticisms that he is not libertarian enough. “I am a Libertarian and I’m proud of it.

“The two party system is broken,” he went on, adding the Libertarian party has the opportunity “to achieve major party status” this cycle.

All of the national delegates here are free to vote for whichever candidate they want at this weekend’s meetings, unlike the two major parties, which bind most delegates according to a primary or caucus process.

Johnson will have five challengers in the presidential race, three of whom were scheduled to join him on the debate stage Saturday night. The others didn’t make the cut. His main challengers are:

  • Young, up-and-coming Austin Petersen, a former TV producer and Libertarian activist.
  • John McAfee, the millionaire software entrepreneur who fled Belize after he was sought for questioning in the killing of his neighbor.
  • Darryl Perry, who believes “the United States government, as it exists today, should be abolished,” according to his website.

Delegates vote separately on presidential and vice presidential nominees, so Weld will need to get a majority of delegates on his own separate ballot.

This is one of the bigger problems for the Libertarian Party, the fact that a freaking murder suspect is one of the “main challengers.”

Were it not for the fact that the Republican nomination has been won by an utter clown, I would be paying no attention at all to the Libertarian nomination. Given that I need a candidate for whom I can vote in November, and I will not soil myself by voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton — not that my vote would matter in Pennsylvania — I have to pay attention. I can support some of Governor Johnson’s positions, while I find others either silly or outright stupid.

Then there is the lesser known Constitution Party, which has nominated Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley for President and Vice President. I know even less about those third party candidates than I do about Governor Johnson, and the Constitution Party nominees have not yet been guaranteed ballot access in Pennsylvania. I have once voted for a Constitution Party candidate, Jim Clymer, in the 2004 Senate race in Pennsylvania.

This is the worst election choice I have ever seen.

And now, on to the blogroll!

12 gauge justice

When we move down to the farm in 2018, I’ll buy a 12 gauge shotgun, and any drone which I happen to spot over my 7.92 acres will be shot down. From The Wall Street Journal:

Should You Be Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property?

Two legal experts debate who has the right to decide when and where drones can fly

May 22, 2016 10:03 p.m. ET

Drone use across the U.S. is soaring, and the skies may soon get even more crowded, as the Federal Aviation Administration expects sales of these unmanned aerial vehicles to jump to seven million in 2020 from about 2.5 million this year.

Interest in drones for both commercial and casual purposes is raising not only safety and privacy concerns, but also thorny legal questions about where and when drones should be allowed to fly—and who gets to decide.

On one side are those who say property owners’ rights generally extend up about 500 feet, which gives them the right to prevent drones from flying or hovering over their land. They say drones pose a much bigger threat to security and privacy than jets and airplanes, which travel at higher altitudes, in airspace regulated by the FAA.

Others aren’t so sure. They say drones represent the next frontier in aviation, and as such, decisions about where and when they can fly should be made collectively, not by landowners through tort law. Commercial air travel never would have flourished, they say, had individuals been allowed to sue anyone who flew over their property without permission.

The rest of the article contains legal arguments, one for each side, concerning property owners curtilage rights. William Meridith of Bullitt County, Kentucky shot down a drone he believes was spying on his 16-year-old daughter sunbathing in the back yard, and I would have done so as well. He was arrested and charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief in July of 2015 for shooting down a drone that was traveling below the tree line in his backyard, but a local judge dismissed all of the charges.

As for me, I do not care about what other people want to do: if they are going to trespass on my property, they will be subject to 12 gauge justice.

Racial discrimination by the left? That’s OK, just perfectly fine, thank you very much

From The Wall Street Journal:

Asian-American Groups Seek Investigation Into Ivy League Admissions

Organizations seek DOE probe of Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, citing rise of qualified Asian applications but not acceptances

By Douglas Belkin | Updated May 23, 2016 7:29 p.m. ET

A coalition of Asian-American organizations asked the Department of Education on Monday to investigate Brown University, Dartmouth College and Yale University, alleging they discriminate against Asian-American students during the admissions process.

While the population of college age Asian-Americans has doubled in 20 years and the number of highly qualified Asian-American students “has increased dramatically,” the percentage accepted at most Ivy League colleges has flatlined, according to the complaint. It alleges this is because of “racial quotas and caps, maintained by racially differentiated standards for admissions that severely burden Asian-American applicants.”

The schools named in the complaint all said they used a holistic approach and evaluated each applicant individually in an effort to build a diverse class.

Further down is the money quote:

The complaint against Harvard last year cited third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale.

The concentration of so many accomplished Asian-American students diminishes the odds of admission, said Nat Smitobol, a counselor at IvyWise, a New York-based college admissions service.

“It’s tougher for Asians to be successful because they’re competing against a pool that’s quite saturated,” said Mr. Smitobol.

Translation: the Asian applicants are competing against other Asian applicants, and not against the applicant pool as a whole. There is no more explicit admission that there is a de facto quota on Asian students.

This is no surprise, as we have documented this previously. Racial discrimination is perfectly fine, according to the left, when it is used positively, to make up for past negative discrimination. Left unstated, but still practiced, is racial discrimination against some groups. It’s not like Asians were always well-treated in the United States: our first immigration laws were directed against the Chinese, and there was plenty of discrimination against Chinese immigrants. Then, after Pearl Harbor, American citizens of Japanese ancestry were interned as potential enemies. Yet somehow, some way, our lioberal universities do not see such past discrimination as something to be rectified by having Affirmative Action policies which positively benefit applicants of Asian origin, but are discriminating against them wholesale.

Translation: the left are nothing but a pack of lying hypocrites!

Gungrabber Hillary Constantly protected by armed guards, she doesn't want law-abiding Americans to have guns to defend themselves

From CBS News:

Hillary Clinton goes after Donald Trump, gun lobby

By Hannah Fraser-Chanpong | CBS NEWS May 21, 2016, 9:30 PM

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump’s proposals on firearms Saturday as dangerous for America’s children, just one day after the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee garnered the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.

“Donald Trump said that in his very first hour as president, heaven forbid, he would overturn President [Barack] Obama’s actions to strengthen background checks,” Clinton said, speaking at the Trayvon Martin Foundation’s “Circle of Mothers” dinner in Fort Lauderdale. “Then, Mr. Trump went further. He said that also on his first day in office he’d mandate that every school in America allow guns in classrooms. Every school, he said. That idea isn’t just way out there, it’s dangerous.”

Clinton said that schools “should have the right to keep guns out of classrooms, just like Donald Trump does at many of his hotels.”

Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, founded the Circle of Mothers to bring together women who have lost children to gun violence. Fulton, a Clinton supporter, has campaigned for her throughout the primary season and, ahead of the event, Clinton met privately with 60 mothers who, like Fulton, have suffered the loss of a family member.

“If you want to imagine what Trump’s America will look like, picture more kids at risk of violence and bigotry,” she said. “Picture more anger and fear. Ask any of the mothers here tonight if they want to live in that kind of America.”

There’s more at the link. But think of where the lovely Mrs Clinton made her remarks: to the Trayvon Martin Foundation’s “Circle of Mothers” dinner. Never forget: Trayvon Martin has gone to his eternal reward because he attacked George Zimmerman. Yes, Mr Zimmerman thought that Mr Martin was behaving suspiciously, and was following Mr Martin, but was doing so from a distance. Mr Martin took offense, then chose to close the distance, and attacked Mr Zimmerman. He was pounding Mr Zimmerman’s head into the ground, and was about to thoroughly kick his butt, when Mr Zimmerman pulled the firearm he was legally allowed to carry, and changed the course of the fight.

What Mrs Clinton and the Trayvon Martin Foundation would like is for Mr Martin to have beaten Mr Zimmerman senseless — or worse — because they are on the side of the thugs.

Oh, they’d never say that, of course not, but when you are proposing to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans over the death of a thug killed in the commission of a crime, there is no other possible conclusion.

Rule 5 Blogging: Basic Training!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Morgan Smith Goodwin in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

Today, we go back to the beginning, to the basic training that every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine must pass.

Marine Corps Basic Training

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Basic Training!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From The Washington Post, via the better-looking Dana on Patterico’s Pontifications:

We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate

By David Harsanyi | May 20 at 9:00 PM | David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist.

Never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us.

A person need only survey the inanity of the ongoing presidential race to comprehend that the most pressing problem facing the nation isn’t Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media or even Big Money in politics.

It’s you, the American voter. And by weeding out millions of irresponsible voters who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary workings of the Constitution, or their preferred candidate’s proposals or even their history, we may be able to mitigate the recklessness of the electorate.

No, we shouldn’t erect physical barriers to ballot access. Let’s purchase more voting machines, hire additional poll workers, streamline the registration process, mail out more ballots for seniors and produce more “Rock the Vote” ads imploring apathetic millennials to embrace their civic duty.

At the same time, let’s also remember that checking a box for the candidate whose campaign ads you like best is one of the most overrated obligations of the self-governed. If you have no clue what the hell is going on, you also have a civic duty to avoid subjecting the rest of us to your ignorance.

Unfortunately, we can’t trust you.

Now, if voting is a consecrated rite of democracy, as liberals often argue, surely society can have certain minimal expectations for those participating. And if citizenship itself is as hallowed as Republicans argue, then surely the prospective voter can be asked to know just as much as the prospective citizen. Let’s give voters a test. The citizenship civics test will do just fine.

There’s more at the original.

Now, I will freely admit that I have previously joked that we should return to the franchise the way the Framers understood it, being limited to white male property owners, but that’s just it: such a suggestion was a joke. Mr Harsanyi proposes one test; we used to have others, one being the ability to pay a poll tax, something ended by a constitutional amendment.

But what Mr Harsanyi’s article really is is a complaint that the voters, those stupid, stupid voters, decided to cast their votes for Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. That I disagree with the voters’ choices is obvious and many-times stated, but I certainly do not hold with the fascist left’s belief that only the elites should have control of the government. What Mr Harsanyi has written is exactly why Mr Trump has become the (presumptive) Republican nominee: so many Americans are just plainly pissed off at the conduct of the governing elites that a candidate like Mr Trump could win. We saw this with the all-too-brief rise of the TEA Party, and Ross Perot’s candidacy back in 1992, and now we have the Republican presidential nomination going to the leader of the I’m-mad-as-Hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore voters.

We will survive a Trump presidency, probably a bit better than we’d survive a Hillary Clinton Administration.

And now, on to the rest of the blogroll!