In her unsuccessful 2010 bid to become U.S Senator from Nevada, Sharon Angle floated the idea that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies.”

She later doubled-down on her statement by saying “Second Amendment remedies” would not just apply to the ever-growing “tyrannical” U.S. government, but to replacing her general election opponent, the then Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Tea Party Republican, of course, lost to Reid, but her “Second Amendment remedies” talk survived. The phrase is now synonymous with the veiled threat that ‘if we don’t get our way via the ballot there’s always the bullet.’

It appears more and more Americans are resorting to their “Second Amendment remedies.”

You have a problem with Planned Parenthood providing abortion services? You shoot up the place like Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. did at a Colorado facility in 2015.

You have a problem with your school, your classmates, or are rejected by a love interest? You shoot up your school like Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech in 2007.

And now, in Dallas, we have five police offers killed and seven others wounded in an ambush attack. While we still do not know the full details for the onslaught, one suspect who had been negotiating with police before being killed stated he wanted to kill white police officers while also expressing anger for Blacks Lives Matter. “Second Amendment” remedies strike again.

In a country of just over 300 million people, there are about as many guns in circulation. Now what could go wrong?

The NRA’s trope that more guns will make us safer is perhaps the most dangerous, vile BS ever espoused by a special interest group.

Weapons will be banned inside the Quicken Loans Arena, the site of the Republican National Convention, which is being held July 18-21. But since Ohio is an open carry state, anyone who owns a gun legally can holster up in public because there’s no law against it. Weapons will be allowed outside the convention hall.

Some delegates are so fearful of violence that they have applied for gun permits.

Pennsylvania delegate, Ash Khare, a 67-year-old Indian-born engineer from rural Warren County who has long been active in Republican politics, will be packing heat.

“I am the last person that my family expected to carry a gun,” Khare said. “But then at the end of the day, we all look at life, and we say we are responsible for the safety and security of our families and loved ones.”

A crowd of armed protesters, outside a raucous convention hall, who fully embrace their “Second Amendment remedies?” What could go wrong?

Does anyone really know what Donald Trump stands for? Well, at least for more than a day or two?

Trump has been all over the map with his policy proposals and political philosophy. But in the “TrumpTwilight Zone,” this does not matter much to Trump devotees.

To anyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid, what Trump is presenting is not just a bad case of flipfloppery but more of a brilliant case of skullduggery. He, no doubt, is one the greatest con artists to ever run for political office.

Here are just a few Trump “inconsistencies” that loyal followers do not hold against their hero – stuff that would sink almost any other candidate wanting to occupy the White House:

1. Ban On Muslims – Trump famously proclaimed at a news conference this past December that he was in favor of a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Now? It is a mere “suggestion.” It appears the pool of people banned is shrinking by the day. Trump says the ban would not apply to Muslims already living in the United States. And, oh, the ban wouldn’t apply to Muslims who are foreign leaders, government officials and business executives.
2. Nuclear Proliferation – First Trump said, “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.” Then it was South Korea and Japan should have nuclear weapons. And later “I don’t want more nuclear weapons.”
3. The Iraq War – Trump brags he opposed the Iraq war before it began. But in a 2002 interview with BuzzFeed News, weeks before Congress voted to authorize military force in Iraq, Trump said he was in favor of invading Iraq.
4. Abortion – Trump has gone from pro-choice to pro-life. He now wants to ban all abortions, except in the case of incest, rape or if the life of the mother is at risk.
5. Torture – In February, Trump came out in favor waterboarding, claiming “torture works.” He went on to say he would “bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” The next day, Trump walked back his comments. “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.” The following day, Trump changed his answer again! “We’re going to have those laws broadened because we’re playing with two sets of rules: their rules and our rules,” pointing to ISIS’s tactics.
6. Immigration – At the start of his campaign, Trump made two firm promises – he would deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S and build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. Then later, on Fox News, he said his proposals were “negotiable.”
7. Gun Control – Trump says he’s a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and, as president, he wouldn’t support any restrictions to gun access. Trump previously, in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” argued in favor of banning assault weapons and supported “a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

Trump’s appeal among voters is obviously not tethered to facts, policy or a coherent governing philosophy. The reality TV star is your basic cult leader with a loyal following. While most Americans live in what might be called the real world, a good many Americans have stepped into the surreal world of the “Trump Twilight Zone.”

Photo | businessinsider.com

Bernie Sanders supporters, like most Republicans, are crying foul over the FBI’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of private email servers.

What many “Bernie or Bust” proponents had hoped for … a recommendation to the Justice Department to indict … failed to materialize. A criminal charge against Hillary Clinton was the last real chance their hero had of securing the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Many Bernie enthusiasts who had been “Feeling the Bern” felt they got burned by FBI Director, James Comey.

With these simple words from Comey, “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” Sander’s supporters took to the blogosphere to vent their disgust with the FBI’s decision. Many echoed Donald Trump’s conclusion that “the system is rigged.” Many vowed never to support “Crooked Hillary.”

But Bernie Sanders himself has remained silent about this blockbuster development.

According to The Washington Post, the Sanders campaign’s only message today was a text encouraging supporters to press the DNC Platform Committee to include Sanders’ amendment to the TPP.

The frustration of Far Left Democrats and Far Right Republicans is in many ways similar. Both groups are true revolutionaries rebelling against anything that remotely smells of center politics. There actually is a name for this phenomenon – the horseshoe theory. In political science, the theory asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.

The good news for Democrats is that once reality sets in; once Bernie endorses Hillary; once he actively campaigns for her, any hurt feelings will be pacified.

The template here is Hillary Clinton’s (and Bill’s for that matter) full support of candidate Barack Obama after a bitter 2008 primary contest. Of course there will be Bernie supporters who will sit out the election or even vote for Trump, as they have threatened to do.

But in the end, Democrats will unite to defeat a cancerous growth upon our body politic … Donald Trump.

Photo | nbcsandiego.com

Ask a young person to describe the Fourth of July and you will get answers filled with bbq’s and fireworks. Ask that same youngster to explain why we celebrate the holiday and it gets a little messy.

In a nationwide survey conducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, over 1,000 teen-agers, ages 12 to 17, were asked basic fourth-grade level history questions. The results? Not very pretty.

For 14 percent of U.S. teens, the Fourth of July marks that historic day we declared independence … from France.

Another 5 percent think July 4, 1776 is the day we rose up against our neighbor to the north, Canada.

A whopping one in five American teen-agers doesn’t know from whom their country declared independence during the Revolutionary War!

And it gets worse.

Students also messed up on more general history facts. One in 10 teens didn’t know George Washington was the first president of the United States. Nearly a quarter didn’t know who fought in the Civil War, and nearly a third didn’t know who wrote the “Star Spangled Banner.”

“When you look at these numbers, it means that more than 5 million U.S. teenagers don’t understand the true meaning of Independence Day,” said Colin Campbell, head of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “As our nation is taking a hard look at our education system, these statistics indicate American history is one area we can’t afford to ignore.”

Here are other significant findings from the survey:

* 17 percent didn’t know there were 13 original colonies.

* 15 percent didn’t know the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

* 19 percent couldn’t identify the three branches of government.

We, as a nation, have focused our efforts on improving science and math literacy among our young. Perhaps it is time to give equal time to the humanities.

Let’s start with American history.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In a presidential election were one candidate is almost as disliked as the other, what is a voter to do? The pat answer, of course, is vote for “the lesser of the two evils.”

But that often used bromide fails us miserably in this most unusual election year. It seems half the country believes the lesser evil is Hillary Clinton, while the other half is sure it’s Donald Trump.

What it all boils down to is one’s definition of “evil.”

To some Trump voters, raking in millions in “speeches” to Wall Street fat cats, and other one percenters, is evil. Believing the Democratic Party nominee is responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is evil. Using your own “foundation” to legally accept bribes, while in office, from foreign governments, including some hostile regimes, is evil. Compromising our national security by setting up your own email server is evil.

To some Hillary voters, defrauding desperate people out of their hard earned money with talks of riches, through your fake university, is evil. Inciting people to violence is evil. Bringing out, and fanning, people’s latent racist instincts is evil. Being a serial liar is evil.

My belief is the lesser of the two evils can best be identified by the way members of the candidate’s own party are treating them.

No Democratic politician I know of is so disgusted with their party’s nominee as to publicly state he or she will vote for the other party’s candidate.

On the Republican side, however, it is very much the opposite. Many Republican politicians have publicly come out against their party’s nominee (OK, presumptive nominee). Many have said they just can’t find it within their hearts to be party-loyal over doing the right thing for the country. A few notable Republicans have actually gone so far as to state they would be voting for the other party’s candidate! (Brent Scowcroft, Henry Paulson, Mark Slater)

And now we have a group of Republican women coming out for Hillary in a big way. The women kicked off their first steering committee meeting this past Monday for a new organization: “Republican Women for Hillary.”

“It’s really important that Republican leaders, especially Republican women leaders, stand up right now and say we’re not OK with Trump representing our party,” said Jennifer Lim, a group founder who works at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has spent much of her life volunteering for Republican causes and campaigns. “This is not a position I ever wanted to find myself in. But it’s important that when things like this happen that people speak up.”

Don’t expect a bunch of Democratic women following suit by setting up an organization to support The Donald.

So there you have it, the answer to the dilemma. Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly the lesser of the two evils.

Photos | hollywoodreporter.com | kitodiaries.com

From day one, Trump bragged about his wealth.

When Trump announced his candidacy last year at his gilded Trump Tower, he wanted it to be known he was wealthy, very wealthy. “I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich, I can assure you that.”

Trump’s wealth, which he has estimated to be around $10 billion, has been a big draw for Trump supporters. Here is a mega-rich guy, say followers, who can’t be bought like other politicians. Here is a man who is funding his own campaign.

Thing is, very few people in the know believe Trump’s net worth is remotely close to what he claims it to be. Fortune magazine earlier this month estimated Trump’s net worth at $3.92 billion based on the latest financial disclosure. Some financial analysts, however, are questioning whether Trump is even a billionaire in light of the mountain of debt he carries.

If you want to understand a con man, look to his actions, not his words.

According to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission last week, Trump’s campaign had a total of $1.3 million in the bank as of May 31. This paled in comparison to the Clinton’s reported $42 million. Her super PAC Priorities USA has $52 million.

Wouldn’t a true self-funding multi-billionaire have a little more scratch on hand? Why wouldn’t Trump just sweeten his campaign coffers with, say, a measly $100 million check?

Today we learned the Trump camp is soliciting foreign donations. Why would a self-funding multi-billionaire do this … a clear violation of federal campaign laws?

“Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals — including foreign politicians — in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and Britain,” the nonprofit, nonpartisan group, The Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement.  The group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation.

There is no doubt Donald Trump is a wealthy man. But it appears his much bragged about riches may just be a figment of his very vivid imagination and not the reflection of what some might call reality.

Photo | donaldjtrump.com

The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union … a done deal? Not so fast.

The ballot could not have been simpler or clearer. Should the United Kingdom Remain in or Leave the European Union? The Leave side beat the Remain side, 52% to 48%. Close, but a clear victory for the Leavers. Right?

Well, maybe.

It now seems many of the Leavers are claiming they “mis-voted.” They actually want to remain in the European Union but cast a Leave vote as a form of protest. They are claiming they never believed their vote would matter as the Remain side was sure to carry the day. A new second ballot, some Leavers are suggesting, is in order.

An online petition for a UK revote has been organized, with over 3.5 million signatures collected to date.

While in theory anything is possible, do not expect a do-over vote based on what amounts to sour grapes. For proper Brits, it would be so undemocratic!

There is one plausible complaint, however, which could very well trigger a revote … the ballot was so simple as to be confusing!

Nowhere in the ballot is the word “leave” defined.

The Cambridge English Dictionary gives multiple definitions of “leave.” One is to go away from someone or something, for a short time or permanently.

As one can plainly see, the ballot does not indicate if the leaving is temporary (separation) or permanent (divorce). “Leave” can also mean ” allow to remain,” as in “Lets take out these ingredients but leave the rest in.”

The master of word meanings, Bill Clinton, is an excellent guide here. What can seem so plain on its face can actually be quite difficult to decipher. Everything needs to be properly defined.

Contending that his statement that “there’s nothing going on between us” had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Monica Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

The Brits are sticklers for the proper use of their language. Some who voted to “brexit” can argue with a straight face, and logic on their side, they did not know what the meaning of “leave” was.