The Question Heard, and the Question Asked

Someone's got a lot to lose, and someone knows it. Not the little people, they're going to lose either way. Someone is a big fish, one of the biggest fish in the pond, for two and a half decades. Imprisonment may very well be on the line for said someone, maybe even a few of the guppies in someone's bigger school of fish. For this very special someone, victory is livelihood. Failure may completely undo this someone.

This isn't a review of last season's finale of House of Cards. Fantasy is much less interesting than reality.

During the third and final dog show, we heard it asked if Trump would accept the Election results. This is what we heard, but likely not what was asked. Was Trump asked to concede to a rigged game? This is how the wise guy asks the question, akin to "So Loretta, how are the grand-kids?"

The question isn't outrageous. It's been an insightful couple of weeks into the machinations of Democracy. Some terrible truths have been laid bare, and the Wizard of Oz gives gravity to the possibility, demanding that Dorothy pays no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Wikileaks and Project Veritas have shined a bright light on the Clinton Machine, including but not limited to :

• Sabotage and Fraud

• Blatant bias of the DNC, actively working against Bernie Sanders

• Voting Machines, allegedly pieced together by the Soros Network

Yet, it is asked of Trump, "So kid, you accept yet? You gonna roll over?" as Guido clutches his aluminum bat.

This isn't a question that would've been asked if they didn't feel vulnerable and exposed - The Elite have let worse accusations and revelations slide. Between the work of Wikileaks and Project Veritas, the Democracy Myth is threatened. Faced with this threat, and the cat being out of the bag already, there's little point in being clandestine anymore. In desperation, Hillary's guppies will be quick to paint Trump as a wicked tyrant opposed to the sacred right, that he's against the People's choice, and will be against the People if he wins. No less was expected from this set up.

In the face of this exposure, Trump was challenged to turn a blind eye to it, "like a good boy should". He made the move that would give them what they needed most: Defiance. Trump had plenty of ways to answer this challenge while keeping them in suspense. "Do you ask me to ignore historical evidence of fraud?" might be one, he might continue "Is it expected of the President to turn a blind eye to said fraud?" Another may be "Is it Presidential to accept an outcome before it happens?", he could even use this one to take a jab at Obama's ceasefire in Aleppo.

They certainly intended to trap Trump with a predictable answer, as post debate analysis seemed to focus exclusively on Trump's answer to the question we heard. One can only speculate what the response will be for the answer to the question asked.

Election Mind Dump v2

Miscellaneous points about the election, a follow up to this:

Hillary's empty ammo can:

 The Deplorables speech helped Trump more than it did Hillary. The "October Surprise" wasn't exactly a surprise - an affluent and charismatic man who seeks a station of power quantifying his desires as just another notch on the belt (or in this case, the notch that wasn't) isn't exactly news to anyone that's paid attention for the last fifty years, or even just seventeen years ago.

The otherwise calculating and infinitely Machiavellian Hillary walked, or marched right into this, at her husband's expense no less. Rest assured, Bill noticed.

This is a face that's very out of character for the Bill Clinton I remember. The Clinton Cartel will need to work a little harder to recover. But they can't. This isn't a game that they've ever played. They've played the game of politics all the while controlling the rule book, the referee, and the court they play on. Now they're playing the game of Trump, and they're terrible at it.

Clinton's ammo can is empty; all she's firing are some very noisy blanks that are giving away her position.

The Second Debate:

The only moments that anyone will talk about next week are Hillary's black eyes. Yes, I know. Ken Bone is being paraded around the news articles like the next "Joe the Plumber". But Joe too has been forgotten, and it didn't take long.

There were two black eyes: The four ghosts of Clinton's past, and promises of a special prosecutor. If Donald ceded the ball in the last round, he forcefully took it back this round and framed the match around his moves. Both Trump and Clinton knew this, as Trump stalked the stage akin to a wolf circling it's prey. Clinton recoiled, and withdrew her bravado to focus on survival. "That's not true" replaced "I'm with her" in roughly an hour.

What's next?:

There won't be a winner, anymore that there could be a winner in a nuclear war. Whoever makes it to the Oval Office will be crawling to it on bloody knuckles and shattered kneecaps. "But Trump is still standing", someone might say. Yes, but Trump took a shot at a Clinton. Hillary's ammo can may be empty, but now she has more reason than ever to find that nuke. Ruthless and desperate are a devastating combination, especially when operating on a timetable.

 Alternatives to the one party system would be wise to start looking at 2020 - there's never been a bigger podium for something different. We're watching the Elite's apparatus tear itself apart.

No pressure, LP. Don't crash and burn too hard just yet.

Oh stop it.

In alternative media circles, there's a growing concern that Gary Johnson is somehow going to be a spoiler candidate that guarantees a Clinton victory in November. I do not follow the logic behind this for at least a few reasons. If anything, I'd say he's trying to woo a demographic of ex-Sanders voters that are more likely to vote for Hillary than Trump.

1. He's not catering to Trump's audience.

Johnson flails his arms when someone uses nouns and adjectives that, when not paired, are perfectly acceptable members of the lexicon that we call the English language. He doesn't persuade, discuss or reason: he demands compliance and feigns outrage. Regardless of his party affiliation, you can't help but hear the guy and think Carl the Cuck and AIDS Skrillex.

2. To the Left, two, three, four.

At every opportunity Johnson has to elaborate on ideas, he defaults to the left. He never waivers from this, and he will stay the course. A short list of stances:

• You can't discriminate with your own resources
• Open to Carbon Taxes
• "We'll just call him Racist"
• "Equal Opportunity"
• "Reasonable" Gun Control, "round capacity limits" (From Weld)
• We need more Syrian Refugees
• Not "All Lives Matter"

We're afraid that these stances are going to derail a fiery and frustrated Trump train, for Hillary.

3. He has a million words for Trump, but a handful for Hillary.

None of these words for Hillary are scathing, or even remotely critical. This is smart on his part: You don't change minds by criticizing their choice. Johnson is also fairly quiet until Hillary starts slipping. He's likely to only get louder as she tries and fails to defend herself from Trump on the debate stage. Johnson will echo Anti-Trump talking points even further as this happens, hoping a disappointed Clinton supporter notices.

This isn't a strategy that benefits Hillary, and I doubt Johnson aimed to do anything for Hillary on purpose (or Trump for that matter). Johnson says nothing that will appeal to a Trump voter or supporter. Johnson doesn't even say much that appeals to dedicated libertarians.

If we want to be concerned about what Johnson will do to the extent that anything he does will actually do something, let's talk about this SJW re-branding of Libertarianism that's got him so excited.

Election Mind Dump

The following are observations about the election from a libertarian point of view. They aren't necessarily sorted into one piece, but are a collection of thoughts. Expect a lack of flow and cohesion.


Clinton:

We can talk about Bill or Hillary, it doesn't matter as they seem to be interchangeable fun-house mirrors of each other. The system they've used to ride high seems to be turning against them since Trump secured the Republican nomination. As of this writing, Black Lives Matter has turned against Hillary. Bernie supporters have never hated the Clinton cartel more. The IRS has launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.  Then, there's that little Wikileaks thing that calls the legitimacy of her impending nomination into question. Julian Assange claims there's more leaks to come regarding the election.

Everything seems to be turning against them at once. We can't talk about this without talking about the Elite. The Elite needs a useful puppet, which Clinton is. This puppet also needs to keep the masses bewildered by perpetuating the myth of consent of the governed. Clinton no longer fits this bill, if she ever did. Should Team Clinton sit on the throne again, the myth that the elites rely on will be dispelled.

The Elite needs the myth maintained, and it hasn't been a good year for the elite.

Trump:

Trump could fit this bill, not necessarily because he is or isn't an insider. Elements of his beliefs may fly in the face of the status quo, but what few policy stances he's offered don't overtly threaten much of the elite agenda with the exception of a handful of core tenets. Where he deviates, there's an answer for that. The Elite are also short on alternatives.

Which puppet gets chosen?:

 Consider who would be more useful at this stage in the game, of the two: The puppet with an irreparably tarnished reputation, despite her willingness to toe the line. Or, the alternative potential puppet that asserts "I'm a real boy", with his own thoughts and his own beliefs. This puppet deviates little, but where he does deviate he pivots unpredictably, sometimes putting on a show that the puppet master doesn't want on the stage.

The Elite would rather lose a few fingers than the entire hand. They'll lose fingers if Trump makes it to the White House. They'll lose a hand if Hillary does.

Libertarians for Trump:

When Trump is golden, he's golden. When he's not, he's the polar opposite of liberty. Libertarians have enough to applaud and condemn. Trump, when applying the Libertarian litmus test, is terrible for liberty. To borrow the line, "Support the master that will dole out less beatings", which I can't argue with. Which takes me to...

Libertarians for Trumpism:

Make lemonade from the lemons. Trumpism is a unique phenomenon tied to Trump, comparable only to Pat Buchanan's populism that was uniquely tied to Pat Buchanan, now only a residual of the alt-right and Libertarian circles. Trumpism too will evaporate when Trump is out of the game, and Trumpists will look for a new home - they won't find it in the progressive, liberal, or neoconservative camps. Many of these people have libertarian sympathies, having been supporters of Ron Paul in the last two election cycles (See: Alex Jones). They could be libertarian, or libertarian sympathizers in a few years. Murray Rothbard was right, education and outreach is how we will succeed. Libertarians for Trump could accomplish this - worst case scenario it doesn't, and Libertarians will be no worse off than we are now for the effort.


Libertarians for Johnson:

Talking about all of this, and Libertarian support, would be incomplete without mentioning Johnson. I've talked about Johnson a lot on this blog, I'll avoid reiterating. Johnson won't necessarily grow Libertarianism, but he could transform  Libertarianism into Libertinism and Diet Statism. If the words out of Johnson's mouth are any indication, he's not a libertarian. Had Johnson said any of these things campaigning as a Democrat or a Republican, much of Johnson's libertarian voter base would have cried foul and called him a Statist. Giving Johnson a free pass because he's campaigning with an L next to his name is worse for Libertarianism than anything Libertarians for Trump could possibly do.

Summary:

Can we have Ron Paul back?

Mud into Clay

Brexit and Gary Johnson have done things to challenge my outlook on voting, campaigns, and elections. Particularly, when it comes to the choice of participation, or how to participate. I hold an aversion to participation for a number of reasons, but as a result of these two topics I'm questioning how effective this tactic is when it comes to moving the discussion and action toward liberty.

Brexit:

It all comes back to Rothbard, as it always does. Murray had it right, our victories aren't necessarily in the results of elections. After all, nothing says that Brexit will actually happen. It's still waiting for a line up of rubber stamps and statist bureaucracies before the idea becomes tangible: In this process, there are multiple means to halt this from happening. We can't rely on the State to give liberty any approval.

While I'd be delighted to see the vote transferred to action tonight, tomorrow or in two months, in the grand scheme this isn't as important to me as seeing Sixteen Million people say "No, goodbye". A war of ideas was won, reminiscent of the Rothbard method of education and persuasion. I don't insist these same Sixteen Million people are libertarians, but this same group chose to remove a very large apparatus of control from their day to day governance. Two weeks ago this was the stuff of imagination, now it's what's put a smile on my face for over a week!

What followed was sections of the Bremain camp wanting to secede from the United Kingdom. As of this writing, there are movements in Northern Ireland, Scotland and London emboldened by the vote to further decentralize the UK. Though their motives are blatantly unlibertarian, Libertarians can still take heart. Freedom of Association and Secession aren't relegated to the dark corners of political discourse anymore. These aren't limited to the planks of Libertarian theory, these are now very human issues.

Don't take my word for it. Even California, socialist utopia of the west, boasts a small but budding secession movement that's since been emboldened by Brexit. No longer can the talking heads insist that secession and decentralization are the movements of racists, xenophobes, or fringe elements - lest they spite the poster children that comprise their power base.

The Elite has been painted into a corner as a result of Brexit. Even Obama has to use alternative language to maintain credibility in the conversation. A quote, from an interview on NPR:

"Mr. Trump embodies global elites and has taken full advantage of it his entire life," the president said. "So, he's hardly a spokesperson, a legitimate spokesperson, for a populist surge of working-class people on either side of the Atlantic."

Right, wrong, or otherwise isn't the point of this writing and citation. The State felt compelled to use anti-state language in an anti Global Elite context to keep it's place at the round table. The elders among us may correct me, but I can't recall a moment in recent history where this has happened.
The poltergeist of Lincolnism has been pointed out in the Haunted House of political discourse. The exorcist has been notified and may be on his way.

Gary Johnson:

I'll avoid restating what I've said already about the Libertarian that wasn't, you can read it here. But the rise of Johnson as the face of Libertarianism for the past two election cycles has me questioning my arm chair stance. Since I wrote my critique, Johnson only seems to get worse.

Kristol is interested in supporting Johnson.* 

That's interesting. I'd wager this has more to do with #NeverTrump than it does with favoring Johnson or Libertarianism, and likely motivated by supporting Hillary without overtly saying so. Despite this, when has Kristol ever given a second thought to Libertarians? This says more about Johnson than it does anything else. Anything that makes the likes of Kristol feel safe likely does little for liberty.

If the Libertarian Town Hall is any indication, Johnson would be right at home campaigning as a centrist Republican or Democrat.*

All of this, in the post Ron Paul age. Disappointing is an understatement.

Conclusion:

While I obviously can't speak for everyone and I'm certain there was a presence, where was the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party? Rightfully so, there's an aversion to participating in this process. The very nature of Democratic action is a violation of the non aggression principle.

But like Ron Paul, we don't have to become part of the game as a stakeholder in the outcome. Education and changing the conversation are infinitely more important. Even if Johnson was the Libertarian Savant, putting libertarian application into an existing apparatus of Statism is likely to yield little for liberty. Avoiding the Statist's chosen arena seems to do even less.

The results of both Brexit and the Libertarian nomination are challenging to my non-participation stance. If we'd like to effect the conversation, taking one step back out of the discourse doesn't help our cause. It gives the State a chance to take two steps forward. Which it did, the faces of liberty are Johnson and Weld. Did a non participation stance yield this result?

If ever there was a moment to inject unfiltered ideas of liberty into the conversation, it was this election cycle. Nuts to me for not participating. Maybe I'm off base, and I'd welcome some criticism to tell me why.



*Credit for these citations rests with Robert Wenzel and Justin Raimondo. Thanks to you both!

Libertarian support for The Joker, Cthulhu, and Gollum

Across the spectrum of Libertarian writing, there are a lot of ideas put forth on who to support this cycle. We'd think the answer is easy - support the Libertarian Party candidate. The LP would have to nominate a libertarian before I could consider this option.

As far as Johnson goes, I'm not convinced he's a good standard bearer. He's certainly better than his predecessor, Bob Barr, by libertarian measure, but so are a lot of people. Being better than a disaster doesn't make something good. When I hear him speak, he doesn't sound like a libertarian. He sounds more like a jaded Republican with an interest in marijuana, aiming to cater to the SJW crowd now that Sanders is out of the game.
 

Ron Paul was leaps and bounds better, while campaigning as a Republican, catering to a Republican crowd at that. His message only grew. 2012 was a better year for "Paul Awareness" than 2008, at least by anything I could see. Had there been a Paulian candidate in the Republican primaries this cycle, I can see the fight for the nomination going all the way until the end.

Instead, we have a wasted opportunity. If not for Paul, I'd say Johnson would be deprived of his current opportunity. I'd encourage Johnson to take a lesson from the great teacher - dilution doesn't make something better. If it didn't work for Rand it definitely won't work for Johnson.

Let's say Johnson does succeed, and attracts enough attention to put the big tent of libertarians in the spotlight. What does this do to the expectation of Libertarianism? Does it necessarily help libertarianism, or include elements that aren't libertarian, giving us something different entirely? It's not hard to imagine the Libertarian Party becoming the "Jaded Republican with a Liberal Twist" party after a few more cycles, if it isn't already. Maybe next cycle they'll nominate John McCain? He fits the Fiscal Conservative/Socially Liberal descriptor perfectly.

We can't expect Johnson to quote Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell, or Block - it doesn't sound like he's familiar with anything outside of Libertarianism besides the easy stances we're known for. When Johnson stumbles on libertarian stances, he doesn't just stumble. He tumbles into the briar patch. Some might say I sound nit-picky, but consider just two stances where Johnson suspends conviction on two core libertarian principles that likely define much of what Libertarianism is.

•  Freedom of Association: Johnson has stated that a baker should be required to sell a cake for purposes said baker finds distasteful. To what ends would a libertarian dismiss the basic right of non-participation? If there's a requirement, there's likely a penalty for non-compliance. This is an initiation of aggression both in forcing participation, and penalizing non-participation. There's no justifiable wiggle room for a libertarian argument on this answer. This stance resembles the worst result of Cultural Marxism. 
•  War: If you can't say "Under no circumstances, ever" to atomic devastation, what can you say no to?  I'm surprised this wasn't the deathblow to his campaign, and it says much about the state of the Libertarian Party that this was passable. I've never heard of a libertarian of any variety that couldn't say no to atomic or nuclear warfare. This stance resembles the worst result of the Warfare State.

But, the Libertarian Party insists, "He's our guy!".

This takes me to Trump. He's definitely no libertarian, contrasting to Johnson's "almost Libertarian on maybe something". But, Trump's also not trying to tell me he's a libertarian either. He isn't pandering for libertarian applause, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz did. Trump also doesn't seem interested in making terrible things worse, until we talk about additional interventions on the free market. Any of the nasty things he talks about doing in any arena are things I can picture Clinton doing, and maybe Johnson. Should Hillary get her hands on these arenas I imagine she could only do worse.

Trump also appears to be honest to a fault. Honesty doesn't make a person good though. We don't applaud the mugger for his honesty when he holds someone at gunpoint and demands their wallet. I at least know what Trump is thinking. His thoughts change quick though. Even now he's reconsidering his stances on elements in the Gun Control debate - admittedly his stance is only likely to move further from liberty. But take this to the broader conversation - Who knows what else he could reconsider, whether for better or worse? Maybe he chooses another inexperienced (I consider this a good thing) politician for his VP, or someone with minimal experience, ideally someone very sobering. Imagine Peter Schiff as president of the senate for a minute. Unlikely, sure. I wouldn't call it impossible, and this might even be worth suggesting to the proper ear.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I had to choose to lend support to the Libertarian That Wasn't, or the Statist that could change his mind on any number of things - and at least seems very uninterested in nuclear fisty cuffs with Putin, I'd probably lean towards the latter - even if the rest of his statist policies pan out to horrific fruition. This gets twice as scary when we see who Trump chooses to associate with, including Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie. Unfortunately, Johnson's lack of libertarian principle put that bad of a taste in my mouth.

Trump may even be a fraud entirely, I couldn't say. It's very possible, even Bush Jr. came out against nation building during his 2000 campaign. We got the complete opposite. This would all be rendered moot, if the LP candidate was in fact a Libertarian. There's something to be said of the Libertarian candidate that struggles to convince another Libertarian. I was hesitantly leaning towards Johnson, until his major errors - and Weld got onto the ticket. Weld alone could drive me away from supporting Johnson.

Conclusion:

All of this goes to say, there isn't a libertarian alternative this cycle. I can't help but think the opportunity was wasted. Everything Ron Paul and the Rothbardian wing of Libertarianism warned about is actively happening, and it's only just begun. How many curious and eager minds are out there wondering if there's a better way? How many of them would have become unapologetic libertarians, as we've come to know them, had someone like Ron Paul got nominated?

We won't know. Instead, their frustration with the establishment found a home in Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders lost, and I can't imagine what his supporters will do - but their minds are made up, they believe in Socialism and we'll be dealing with their belief for a long time. Regardless, this fall we'll be hearing from The Joker, Cthulhu, and possibly Gollum (I'll let you decide which is which). Though a subject for another writing entirely, some might say shame on me and other disappointed libertarians for not participating and putting forth an alternative candidate, and they might be right for the wrong reasons.

The ideal candidate wouldn't even need to win - just change minds, change conversations, and show a better way. Ron Paul did this.

Liberty in a Year. Yes, it's possible.

But, only if one of us has the nerve to take that plunge. Maybe not this year, but maybe "Liberty in a Year", four years from now.

I don't lend my support to the apparatus that makes fodder of us all. However, if the past eight years have taught us anything, election season seems to be when people are listening most. Where would Libertarianism (or Libertarian positions, at least) be if not for Ron Paul taking the plunge? Speaking personally, I can't say with much certainty that I would have found my way to LRC without him. One can say, Ron Paul did in a year what the Libertarian Party tried doing for thirty years. If the current election cycle has taught us anything, it's very possible to be a front runner without the support of the Elites, the Media, or a massive donor base (barring "Behind the Curtain" shenanigans, which for all we know Trump is) .

You don't have to like Donald Trump to admit that his campaign is a success. Even if he loses, he's made the conversation interesting, and his strategy is brilliant. He has the finances to self fund his entire campaign, and he's willing to. This means he can take any stance he wants, without upsetting a donor base. For better or worse, he can afford to be unfiltered and honest. Donald Trump has disrupted the entire system that made elections what they were.

Trump has taken every weapon in the arsenal of the elite and has used it against them, leaving them completely unarmed. Two Party system? Piece of cake, that made it all the easier. A reactionary mainstream media? Perfect! All one has to do is forcefully refute the status quo and political correctness. Then, they get what amounts to a free commercial. Oh, you don't want to fund me now? That's fine, your pockets are deep but mine are deeper. But given all this free air time you're giving me, I don't think the money is very important anyway.

This strategy has been so effective, that Trump thought nothing of giving the Alex Jones Show considerable face time, and he hasn't had to apologize or justify it. Remember when the MSM trotted that one out for Dr. Paul, and it was treated like some dark secret being exposed?

Imagine a candidate with the wisdom of Ron Paul and the charismatic, unapologetic defiance of Donald Trump.  This candidate could get on stage and mock the Federal Reserve with complete immunity, thank Ed Snowden for informing the western population about how un-free they are, and tear apart the foreign policy that's been the driving force behind dangers to the west for over a decade.

Better yet, this candidate could do this by planting his feet firm and giving the critics another round of facts when the "Trial by Media" demands an apology or a clarification. Imagine George Stephanopolous' face upon learning that his salary could be worthless in a couple of years thanks to the systems and norms he steadfastly defends. Or, the blank stare of Anderson Cooper when this champion states quite clearly that nobody is under any moral obligation to welcome something that they find objectionable, and he should have that same right too.

This could be a libertarian, and said libertarian wouldn't even have to win - just change the conversation. Who could it end up being? Whoever has the nerves of steel and charisma to do it.

Ted Cruz, Star Wars, and Liberty

Wow, this took me by surprise. Cruz is a life long major Star Wars fan? That's awesome. But, if only he were a libertarian too. So everyone's clear before we continue, I don't have a dog in the fight for the next four years on the throne, I'm finding all of them to be dangerous to liberty. This is just a for-fun jab.

I've always been surprised that, despite it's status as a highly influential paragon of pop-culture, Star Wars fans typically aren't Libertarian in their approach. One may ask, "Why would they be?" As I've detailed elsewhere, one could argue that the Jedi of the original trilogy were the first cinematic depiction (on a mainstream scale that I can recall, at least) of the Libertarian NAP - one only has to look at the few scenes containing Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda in the original trilogy, the Mises and Rothbard of a galaxy far, far away. You could compare Luke Skywalker, or certainly Darth Vader, to Alan Greenspan or David Koch - Taught by some of the best minds in their time, certainly experienced enough to know better, but seduced by power and their own arrogance, inevitably looking to the dark side of the force for their strength.

(Okay, I know my Luke Skywalker theory is speculation at best, but the evidence of his fall is plain as day if you watch the trilogy.)

Sadly, the moral struggles contained in Star Wars may even be skewed by delusional real world Sith Lords, somehow, seeing benevolence in a militaristic empire that would think nothing of destroying an entire populated planet just to make a point to a righteously stubborn rebel princess.

All of this goes to say: Ted Cruz, I vainly implore you as a fellow Star Wars fan. Don't give in to Empire. Perhaps you watched with inspiration as the Rebel Alliance engaged in guerrilla warfare against Imperial Forces - but Star Wars has a stronger message, across both trilogies: It's important to do good, especially when evil is much easier.

Ted Cruz, I'm concerned for you. I want to be the Yoda to your Luke Skywalker, mainly because I don't think I'm charismatic enough to be Obi Wan. At the best of times, you walk a fine line between championing Liberty and championing Empire, typically leaning toward the latter. While you seem to stand for liberty on a variety of issues, I'm bothered that you view Empire as a solution just as often - particularly on issues relating to foreign policy and security. Your invocations of sanctions against Russia (There are loose Star Wars parallels to this, which ended up being the catalyst to creating the Galactic Empire), your desire to see more soldiers recruited to fight in an endless campaign in the Middle East (The Galactic Empire's MO throughout the Galaxy), and a militaristic solution to border security are but a few examples. Warfare, whether fought with weaponry or trade sanctions, is the greatest enabler of State Power, the eternal foe of liberty, and penultimate foe of peace. I'd ask you to ignore the Palpatine who's undoubtedly seen you as a successor to his power structure, as he's likely whispering darkness in your ears, or taunting you to do great evils.

If the recent polls are any indication, it's likely to come down to you and Trump. I'm concerned at the idea of a Trump or Cruz administration. We could get desperate enough to team up with Teddy Bears Ewoks to challenge the inconsistencies of their invocations of liberty.

I beg you Ted, complete your training before you dash off to the Emperor's throne room. Oh, again. Please don't make us team up with Ewoks. Those things are embarrassing.