Patterico's Pontifications


Lewandowski “Charged” By Police, Not Prosecutors

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:44 am

I should have known better than to believe Big Media. They never know what they are talking about.


Some media outlets have reported that this office has brought charges against Corey Lewandowski, campaign manager for Donald Trump. These reports are false. Our office has taken no action against Mr. Lewandowski. The matter was investigated and charged by the Jupiter Police Department, not this office. We will await the file from the Jupiter Police Department and make a decision on how to proceed in this matter before Mr. Lewandowski’s May 4th arraignment.

Law enforcement charges on a probable cause standard. The State has to proceed on a legally higher standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt as well as whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a conviction. At this point, our office has not received the case.

We have never said here, that I can recall (and I could be wrong), that prosecutors charged Lewandowski — we just quoted reports he had been “charged” . . . which can describe the actions of police as well as prosecutors. But I believed that court charges had ben filed, because (as the statement says) numerous outlets had said they had. For goodness’s sake, Anderson Cooper told Trump that the State’s Attorney is a Democrat at the Milwaukee town hall. Anyway, it’s important to be clear about such things, and so I am doing so here.

I also would like to reproduce a response to an email I received yesterday, asking whether I thought it was right for Lewandowski to be charged:

I speak for myself, not my office.

I think it’s a very minor incident that should not lead to jail time. Perhaps community service and a fine. But you do not get to lay hands on someone and bruise them because they’re asking your boss a challenging question. The case is a slam dunk that he did that.

The real issue here is not the minor battery, but the smearing of Fields, the lies, and the new set of lies to cover up the old lies.

I documented that last paragraph thoroughly yesterday.

I should add that if prosecutors decide not to file charges — and they may so decide — the same people saying that the prosecutors should exercise discretion will take the non-filing as TOTAL VINDICATION OF LEWANDOWSKI and PROOF THAT THE WHORE WAS LYING!!!!!11!1!!!

But you can’t stop stupidity.

This should have ended with an apology. Instead, they went after her hammer and tongs, like Clinton went after Lewinsky. When your philosophy is 115% overreaction to every single slight, whether you’re in the wrong or not, this is what you get.

And by the way? That’s also how countries end up at war. So this stuff matters.


Trump Calls for Women to Be Punished For Abortion, Flip-Flops, Absurdly Denies Flip-Flop

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:08 pm

Today, Chris Matthews asked Donald Trump if women should be punished for having an abortion. After trying to avoid the question, Trump looked to the side, clearly thinking about it for the first time on the spot, and said yes. The money part comes at 1:32:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion? Yes or no? As a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is . . . that . . . there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.

When he says “there has to be some form of punishment,” his tiny right hand comes down in a chopping motion, as if to say: I just made the decision.

I told my wife he’d walk it back within hours. Lo and behold:

Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Abortion

If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.


This is, of course, far from the first time that Trump has told a lie so brazen it makes the attentive voter laugh out loud at his chutzpah. Allahpundit links a good article at The Federalist on Trump’s gaslighting of America:

The term “gaslighting” comes to us from a play called “Gas Light,” written in 1938 by British playwright Patrick Hamilton. The play focuses on an abusive husband in the 1880s who convinces his wife that she is going crazy. One of his methods is lowering the gaslights and telling her it hasn’t gotten any darker. It’s all in her imagination.

Donald Trump has been playing this game on the American people, or at least a meaningful portion of it, for five months now. Telling us that Trump University was a success. Telling us that he only worked with the mafia because everyone in his business had to. Telling us that his campaign manager Corey Lewandoski never touched Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Then telling us so what if he touched her.

The Secret Service said nothing happened. They were concerned about that pen, it could have been a bomb. She was grabbing me, you can see from this screengrab where I’m actually reaching into my jacket pocket. I’m self-funding, but my FEC statements say I have taken in seven million dollars. I don’t solicit donations. Never mind the button on my Web site that says donate. I didn’t condemn David Duke because of a bad earpiece. I don’t know who David Duke is, even though I quit the Reform Party because of him. I’ve been audited every year, for twelve years, two or three years, the last four or five years, and I’ll give you a letter to prove I’ve been audited, and when you ask me again next month I’ll promise to give it again. Excuse me! Ted sent out that ad about Melania. And Ted gave people these mailers, it said there’s a voting violation, you can clear it up if you vote for Cruz. I think that’s a flattering picture of Heidi Cruz that I retweeted. I’m changing on H1B visas, no I’m not, but anyway those aren’t for high-skilled jobs, which is a lie but you won’t call me on it. Excuse me!! I never said Marco Rubio was Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator! Except on my Web site! I didn’t praise China’s crackdown at Tiananmen Square. I just said it was strong, but calling it strong isn’t praise. I was the one who kept saying don’t go into Iraq. OK I said we should invade beforehand, but I changed my mind quickly. Also I always said the way Bush Sr. did it was right. Only that’s not what I told Howard Stern, I said he should have finished the job. I got a small loan from my dad but now I’m worth over $10 billion, even though I got a tax break for middle-income families and admitted under oath that my net worth changes by billions depending on my mood. I own the Empire State Building. I was appalled when Vicente Fox said fuck. If I ever used language like that, people would go ballistic, and if you disagree you’re a fucking pussy. Excuse me! I’m skipping the debate with Megyn Kelly because I have a planned speech. I’m skipping the other debate with Megyn Kelly because I have to raise money for veterans, which they have gotten maybe half of. I’m anti-establishment, but there’s nothing wrong with a little establishment. I think the most important functions of the federal government are security, education (but I hate Common Core and want the states to run it) and health care (but I hate ObamaCare and want health care run privately). I’m against nuclear proliferation but it’s not a contradiction to say give nukes to South Korea and Japan. Nobody’s more supportive of women than I am. Excuse me! Nobody knows more about foreign policy than I do, but don’t ask me questions about key terrorists because that’s a gotcha. The Chicago Police told me to call off that rally. Almost everybody who attended Trump University praised it. I personally vetted all the faculty, except I didn’t. Poll after poll says I’ll beat Hillary.

The man lies to your face — constantly, every few seconds — and when you question it, he tells you he’s not.


Corey Lewandowski Contradicts Donald Trump: Ted Cruz Wasn’t Involved In Melania Trump Ad

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:50 pm

[guest post by Dana]

So where’s he been for the past week while his boss has been burning up Twitter and the airwaves insisting that Ted Cruz was indeed involved? :

Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said in a radio interview on Tuesday that Ted Cruz’s campaign was not involved in an attack ad on Trump’s wife, Melania. Lewandowski’s comments contradict his own candidate’s repeated claims the Cruz campaign was responsible.

Lewandowski made the comments on the John Fredericks Show, where he denied the Trump campaign had any involvement with a National Enquirer story alleging Cruz had affairs with five different women. Roger Stone, a long time Trump aide who is no longer affiliated with the campaign, was quoted in the story.

“I have no control over what Roger Stone does, doesn’t work for the campaign. He’s an independent individual who has no relationship with the campaign in any way, shape, or form,” said Lewandowski. “For them to intimate otherwise is completely inaccurate and it’s a narrative that they want to continue to perpetuate. The bottom line is Roger Stone is as much tied to this campaign as the super PAC that leaked that is tied to the Cruz campaign.”

Lewandowski also said this during the interview:

“To be clear, Roger Stone is someone who does not work for the campaign. He was a consultant to the campaign up until August of last year and then I’ve had no communication with Roger Stone until August of last year,” said Lewandowski. “For the Cruz campaign to equate that Roger Stone is part of this campaign is akin to us saying the super PAC that put out the pictures of Melania Trump is part of their campaign. Now, they can deny that, and they can say that they have no communication, but the two are exactly equal.”

No Twitter response from Trump thus far. Maybe that’s because he’s too busy trying to figure out how to catch up to Cruz given the *latest poll numbers from Marquette Law School in Wisconsin which show him trailing at 30% to Cruz’s 40%, or maybe he’s otherwise preoccupied with backtracking on his comment made this morning that women who have illegal abortions should be punished.

[*poll was done Mar. 24-28, before last night’s CNN GOP townhall and Scott Walker’s announcement supporting Cruz – Ed.]


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: To me, this is the best proof yet that Trump is behind the Enquirer story. Think about it. Why would Lewandowski admit Cruz isn’t behind the Melania ad? Because he’s honest? Come on. We just got through watching him lie his way through the Michelle Fields incident. He learned con artistry from Trump. And this is a con: you admit something surprising (OK, Cruz wasn’t behind the Melania ad) to give yourself credibility when you tell the lie (Trump wasn’t behind the Enquirer story). It’s a two-fer: keeps it in the news a little longer, and gives the story faux credibility. I don’t buy any of it for one second, and neither should you.

Sniveling Coward: That Reporter Could Have Had a Bomb!!!!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am


Donald Trump on Tuesday night offered America a new menace to be afraid of: a reporter with a pen.

Trump, speaking at a CNN town hall event, said former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields had been holding a pen when she approached him with a question earlier this month at an event in Florida.

“She had a pen in her hand, which Secret Service is not liking because they don’t know what it is, whether it’s a little bomb,” Trump said.

This led Philip Bump to tweet out a horrific possibility. Brace yourself. Maybe sit down first.

This is, by the way . . . not what Trump said at the time.

“I heard that nothing happened. You know, we’re surrounded by Secret Service. We have many Secret Service. You see some of them here. When we left, I spoke to them. Nothing happened. This was, in my opinion, made up,” he told CNN.

“Now I didn’t see anything. All of a sudden we heard about it later on. But the Secret Service said nothing happened. The Secret Service are amazing people. They said absolutely nothing happened. He [Corey Lewandowski] didn’t hear about it until like, the next day,” Trump continued.

Here’s the Sniveling Coward whining about Fields supposedly running up and grabbing him, and Lewandowski acting as an intermediary:

Funny thing, though. At the time, his story was that she was “delusional” and that he “never touched” her:

This was not an isolated claim. Lewandowski repeated it a week aga:

The Daily Mail, or as I now call it, the British Breitbart, had a laughable story citing an anonymous source allegedly from the Secret Service (one wag said the source’s name might be Lorey Cewandowski) saying Fields had touched Trump twice, and they had told her not to:

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a member of Trump’s U.S. Secret Service detail told on Tuesday that Fields made physical contact with Trump twice – and was warned by agents to stop – before Lewandowski grabbed her arm to pull her away from the billionaire.

‘She crossed in between agents and our protectee after being told not to,’ said the agent, who was present that night in Jupiter.

Yesterday I confronted editor David Martosko on Twitter about some gaping holes in the story.

Martosko took the time to mock me for being “in the cheap seats” (I don’t have access to Trump like the British Breitbart does, in other words) but never answered those questions. Clearly, they weren’t asked. Because there is no good answer to them.

Let’s go over the specifics. I already pointed out how Trump claimed at the time that “the Secret Service said nothing happened.” Nothing in the British Breitbart story about that.

Why doesn’t the video show what this anonymous source said? Look at the video. It does not show any Secret Service person trying to do anything. It does show Lewandowski grabbing Fields. It does not show Fields grabbing Trump. It does show that Trump’s deceptive screengrab, which in isolation looks like him pulling away from her, is really him reaching in his jacket pocket.

Why doesn’t the audio reflect what this anonymous source claims? It’s definitely worthwhile revisiting the audio. This supposed order, barked by Secret Service agents worried Fields might have ONE OF THEM DANGEROUS PEN BOMBS!!!! . . . cannot be heard on the audio.

At all.

The Daily Mail story is rank bullshit.

In conclusion: I feel reassured now that Trump and his team know just how to handle a crisis in a calm manner. Don’t you?


Trump’s Campaign Manager Charged With Battery Today

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:17 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Corey Lewandowski was charged with misdemeanor battery today in the Michelle Fields case. She was the reporter who alleged that Lewandowski grabbed her while she attempted to ask Donald Trump a question at a press conference earlier this month.

Lewandowski, who has denied any wrongdoing, plead not guilty this morning in Jupiter, Florida. He is expected to appear in court on May 4.

Donald Trump tweeted:

Wow, Corey Lewandowski, my campaign manager and a very decent man, was just charged with assaulting a reporter. Look at tapes-nothing there!

Followed by:

Why aren’t people looking at this reporters earliest statement as to what happened, that is before she found out the episode was on tape?

Michelle Fields responded to Trump’s tweet:

Because my story never changed. Seriously, just stop lying.

Trump also asked whether he could press charges against Fields for allegedly touching him at the time of the Lewandowski incident:

[Per a commenter’s suggestion: If you watch the video below, “you will see that Trump’s screengrab is deceptive. He was reaching for something in his pocket” – Ed]

The Jupiter PD released a video of the incident as seen from a different angle:


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Watch the video and you’ll see Trump’s screengrab is deceptive. He was reaching for something in his pocket. Shocking, I know, that he would lie like that, isn’t it?

What Trumpers Like Mike Cernovich Aren’t Telling You About Amanda Carpenter

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:48 am

I was going to take up nk’s idea of a one-word post that says “Trump” — but I actually have something to say today. Dang it.

I’m not doing a step-by-step debunking of all the junk surrounding the National Enquirer story. But there’s one guy out there, Mike Cernovich, who is spreading misinformation about it. By ripping stuff out of context, Cernovich sees “smoke” where there is nothing but fumes from dry ice. Example:

This is actually false, as you can see. Carpenter does not call Cruz “Daddy.” She calls him “Daddy Cruz” — and why might that be? Look at the date on her tweet: December 22, 2015. Was there anything happening that day that involved the Washington Post and Ted Cruz as a father of actual daughters? Hmmmmmm:

Because the cartoonist deleted the tweet, you’ll have to look at Dana’s December 22, 2015 post to remind yourself of what it said. Fortunately, Dana had the screenshot:


Before the cartoonist deleted it, it was an animated GIF of Cruz pulling his daughters like monkeys on leashes. Something that made Daddy Cruz angry at the Washington Post.

But Cernovich now has his false narrative that has Carpenter calling Cruz “Daddy” as in “WHO’S YOUR DADDY” and he runs with it in other out-of-context tweets:


Except, looking at the date on the tweets might help: April 1, 2014. Carpenter worked for Cruz back then, and the staff all decided to get these Winston Churchill tattoos, and have Cruz pretend on TV that his was permanent, as a joke. An . . . April Fool’s joke.

These are just examples. There’s more: photoshops of Carpenter putting condoms on her [UPDATE: supposedly balancing a wrapped condom on the shoulder of her dress, to clarify]; pretending that Carpenter is wearing Cruz’s jacket in one of the photos above when it is a woman’s elbow-length jacket with ruched sleeves; and so on.

It’s shameful what these people are doing. But low-information folks might take nonsense like Cernovich’s as convincing. It’s like a lot of what Trump says: it’s total crap if you think about it for one moment. So I figured it was worth taking that moment to set forth the context that folks like Mike Cernovich aren’t giving you.

UPDATE: Also, there is security camera footage of Corey Lewandowski grabbing Michelle Fields, truthers. Enjoy. He has been charged with battery. It deserves its own post but no time this morning.


Carly Fiorina To Media: How About We Stop Dancing To Trump’s Tune And Focus On Real Issues

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:49 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Carly Fiorina is at her best when she is passionate and angry about an issue that she cares deeply about. And today that issue was Ted Cruz’s character. When a putz from the Daily Mail brought up the National Enquirer allegations about Ted Cruz and brazenly suggested that the candidate needed to go on the record, right then and there, to say that he had never been unfaithful to his wife, Fiorina wasn’t playing:

Amazingly, the reporter claims that the National Enquirer allegations pose a “very serious question” about Ted Cruz’s character. Really?? How so?? Has anything been proven that speaks to anything other than a solid character? Or is this just another case where the media is playing judge and jury, and assuming that if a Republican is accused of something, they’re obviously guilty? Because seriously, what exactly is it that makes his character questionable? That one anonymous source has accused him of having extra-marital affairs? That a notorious tabloid that trades in scurrilous rumors printed it? Exactly what is it? SPELL IT OUT. Because if you can’t spell it out because you don’t have anything concrete to substantiate your claim, then maybe you should just shut the hell up.


Charlie Sykes Interviews Donald Trump

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:00 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I just listened to Wisconsin’s conservative radio host Charlie Sykes’ telephone interview with Donald Trump. It was a typical Trump interview in that the candidate meandered and the host reined him back in to focus on the issue at hand. Sykes actually challenged and pushed back on Trump, which was refreshing. It would be nice to see other media outlets stop treating him with kid gloves and press him for clear and concise answers. As I am unable to find a complete transcript of the interview, I have grabbed a couple of the more interesting portions from other sites.

Sykes brought up the attacks made on Mrs. Cruz by Trump, and Trump kept insisting that Ted Cruz started the whole brouhaha with the release of that now infamous political ad featuring a nude Mrs. Trump — an ad released by Liz Mair’s anti-Trump PAC Make America Awesome. (Preemptive strike: Both Liz Mair and Ted Cruz have denied Cruz’s involvement or knowledge of the ad.) But hey, why should that stop Trump from pushing an inaccurate story!

“Is this your standard?” Sykes asked. “That if a supporter of another candidate, not the candidate himself, does something despicable that it’s okay for your personally –a candidate for president of the United States– to behave in that same way? I mean, I expect that from a 12-year-old bully on a playground. Not someone who wants the office held by Abraham Lincoln.”

“I did a retweet,” Trump said. “And it was art by someone else.”

“Your wife is a beautiful, classy woman, why can you not say the same about Ted Cruz’s wife?” Sykes asked.

[*I don’t know Ted Cruz’s wife. I’m sure she’s excellent though. I don’t know her, but you know, all this was was a response to what he did.]

In response, Trump explained that his decision to tweet the photo of Cruz’s wife grimacing was a very “mild” response.

“I didn’t even know it was necessarily a very bad picture of her versus [my wife] Melania,” he said.

Oh puleeeeeze…

Then, affirming that he really is a 12-year old, Trump continued to blame Ted Cruz for everything:

Later in the interview, Sykes pressed Trump again about not apologizing for the mocking photo of Heidi Cruz. Trump continued to incorrectly claim that Cruz “started it.” Sykes again pointed out the offending ad about Melania Trump was from an independent group, not Cruz himself or the Cruz campaign (or even a Cruz-supporting group).

“No it wasn’t,” Trump said, incorrectly. “No, he knew about that. Is Ted Cruz going to apologize for starting it and sending out that photograph?”

None of this should be surprising.

Also interesting was Trump’s claim of being a conservative, but not too much of one, and reiterating his confusing view of free trade:

“Why shouldn’t conservatives here in Wisconsin think your claim to be a conservative is just a giant fraud?” Sykes asked.

“As a businessman, I never even thought about all the things you’ve talked about,” Trump said before lauding his past business successes.

“You’re not answering my question,” Sykes responded.

“I am a conservative,” Trump said. “I’m not so conservative when it comes to the pure aspects of trade… I believe in free trade, which is nice and conservative,” he said before repeating his usual talking points about being a tougher negotiator with other countries by threatening to implement costly tariffs on imported goods.

“It’ll never happen,” Trump said of a tariff. “But you have the threat out there.”

“Well you’re a much better negotiator than I am,” Sykes said. “But you just said it’ll never happen, so you’ve basically said your negotiating ploy is a bluff.”

Trump stammered and repeatedly insisted that other countries like China, India, and Mexico are “killing us.”

Interestingly, Trump was unaware that Sykes was a #NeverTrump guy. Upon finding it out, he took it in stride:

SYKES: “Mr. Trump, before you called into my show, did you know that I’m a #NeverTrump guy?”

TRUMP: “That I didn’t know.”

SYKES: “OK. Well, because I thought it was interesting and people were wondering, does Donald Trump know what Charlie Sykes has said about him in the past?”

TRUMP: “No. No, I —“ [crosstalk]

SYKES: “And I would give you credit either way on it, but I was wondering —“

TRUMP: “No, no, I understand. But no, I didn’t know that and — but I assume you’re also an intelligent guy. I know you’re an intelligent guy, and you understand what’s going on. Our country is getting ripped off left and right by every country we do business with, even in NATO.

Listen to the whole thing.


Open-Carry At GOP Convention: A Sound Or Misguided Idea?

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:33 pm

[guest post by Dana]

A few days ago, a blog called Hypernationalist began an online petition to allow the open-carry of firearms at the GOP National Convention in Cleveland this July:

In July of 2016, the GOP will host its convention at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Though Ohio is an open carry state, which allows for the open carry of guns, the hosting venue—the Quicken Loans Arena—strictly forbids the carry of firearms on their premises.

According to the policy on their website, “firearms and other weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden on the premises of Quicken Loans Arena.”

This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk.

The petition currently has 45,000+ supporters.

Referencing a 2012 report by Forbes that listed Cleveland as the ninth most dangerous place to live in the U.S., and by not allowing open-carry, sponsors of the petition believe that both the GOP and Quicken Loans Arena will be putting citizens at increased risk, both inside and outside the arena, by not allowing open-carry. They also cite the possibility of an ISIS attack as another reason to allow attendees to be armed. Consider that the arena holds 20,000 people, and the GOP expects 50,000 attendees over 4 days of the convention, thus if there were an attack and the attendees were unarmed and unable to defend themselves, the loss of life could be enormous. Post-Belgium, GOP organizers and law enforcement have stepped up efforts to make sure the convention will be secured.

And today, in response to the petition, the Secret Service announced that convention attendees will not be allowed to carry guns into the arena.

Over at NRO, Charles Cooke, passionate defender of the Second Amendment, explains why he believes the move for open-carry at the convention is misguided. Here is a sampling:

First: There is no Second Amendment violation here. The Second Amendment is a check on government, not on private entities. The Quicken Loans Arena is a private corporation. If the arena’s rule is no firearms, then those who wish to use it must abide by that rule. And if they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else.

Second: As absurd as the idea of “gun free zones” is in a country with this many firearms, there are certain circumstances in which it is prudent to try to limit the presence of guns. It has always been ridiculous to hear progressives predict that widespread concealed carry would lead to frustrated shoppers shooting each other in the supermarket or to irritated customers opening fire at the bank; and it has been hilarious to witness the freakout we see each year when the press learns that NRA members may pack heat at their annual convention. But a political convention strikes me as being less akin to those examples, and more akin to, say, the circumstances that obtain at a polling place. And the argument against carry strikes me as being less “people will shoot each other for no reason” and more “we need to make sure that the results aren’t marred by charges of intimidation.” From the early days of the American Republic, certain “time and place” restrictions have been imposed upon the right to bear arms, especially when the integrity of democracy was perceived to be at stake. Delaware’s 1776 Constitution, for example, made clear that:

“To prevent any violence or force being used at the said elections, no person shall come armed to any of them, and no muster of the militia shall be made on that day; nor shall any battalion or company give in their votes immediately succeeding each other, if any other voter, who offers to vote, objects thereto; nor shall any battalion or company, in the pay of the continent, or of this or any other State, be suffered to remain at the time and place of holding the said elections, nor within one mile of the said places respectively, for twenty-four hours before the opening said elections, nor within twenty-four hours after the same are closed, so as in any manner to impede the freely and conveniently carrying on the said election: Provided always, That every elector may, in a peaceable and orderly manner, give in his vote on the said day of election.”

This does not strike me as an unconscionable “affront” to the right to keep and bear arms, nor as a rule that is likely to “puts all attendees at risk,” especially given that security will already be tight in Cleveland.

And then there is the issue of trust and risk:

Third: Given the brazen manner in which Donald Trump has encouraged physical violence against those who have protested at his rallies — “next time, we might have to kill him,” one Trump fan warned a man he sucker punched — there is pretty much no incentive for the Quicken Loans Arena team to be generous here. Generally speaking, I am of the view that trying to stop shootings by putting up signs is the most abject of human folly. But with this guy? As is the case with most of the pillars of free and civil society, liberalized carry laws presume a certain degree of responsibility and trust — a degree that has, alas, not been on display from Trump and the more excitable among his followers.

As far as I can tell, Donald Trump is the only GOP candidate who has been asked about the petition. Trump, who warned of possible rioting by his supporters if he doesn’t leave the convention as the nominee*, would like to know the details before making a full comment:

“I have not seen the petition. I want to see what it says. I want to read the fine print.”

(*When asked whether he would tell supporters that he doesn’t want to see violence at the convention, Trump said “Of course I would, 100 percent. But I have no control over the people…” Full quote at the link.)


Hot Take: Kiveling Snoward Hears the Petition of the Candlemakers

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

“We’re gonna build a dome,” the candidate said. “It’s going to be a big, beautiful dome.” Later, the candidate confided to me that when his rallies get a little slow, he mentions the dome, and everybody goes crazy.

The candidate, Kiveling Snoward, was once discounted as a joke. But this hot take will show that Snoward appeals to a disaffected group of blue-collar workers: the candlemakers, whose distress over the cheap light offered by the sun has found expression in Mr. Snoward’s promise to build a dome to block out its rays. For years, the GOP had ignored the entreaties of the candlemakers, whose complaints about the sun’s inexpensive light had fallen on deaf ears.

Now they are paying a steep political price.

One of those candlemakers is Freddie Bastiat, the author of a petition that went viral on social media in recent months, and inspired Snoward’s dome:

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of American industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Some experts, including every single economist on the planet, expressed opposition to the notion of a dome. “Why would you eliminate cheap light to create artificial demand for inferior light that takes time, energy, and resources to produce?” asked Frilton Meedman, an economist renowned for his free-market thinking. “Let’s pretend a genie came along and told all Americans that they could snap their fingers and have the best possible big-screen TV for free. Not just an inexpensive one. Absolutely for free. And if it breaks, they snap their fingers and the broken one disappears and a new one appears. This would put television manufacturers and repairmen out of work, for a time, of course. That’s the nature of capitalism! When cheaper alternatives emerge, those who provide unwanted or overly expensive products have to improve or find something else to do. The same goes for blocking out the sun, a totally free source of light and energy. It’s insanity! Would anyone really suggest that we should reject free or inexpensive goods, just because some workers would be temporarily displaced?”

“Hell yeah I’d suggest that!” said a worker in a television plant. “This kinda pointy-headed stuff is why I’m voting for Snoward! Make America Great Again!”

Mr. Bastiat was similarly unmoved. “I get so inspired when I hear Mr. Snoward say: “We’re gonna build that dome, and the machines that build it are gonna be solar-powered!”

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1651 secs.