News To Gladden The Hearts Of Democrats, And Make Republicans Throw Up

John McCain is not constitutionally eligible to be president of the USA.

Before you dismiss that claim out of hand, download and read this document written by a law professor. Meanwhile here is a summary of the facts:

1. Congress determines who will be a citizen, and how. The federal constitution does not make the rules, except to state that anyone born in the USA is a citizen.

2. The commonly-held notion that the child of a US citizen is automatically a citizen, regardless of where that child is born, is false. In fact the courts have explicitly stated that citizenship is not inherited. So forget all that nonsense about jus soli and jus sanguinis they told you in college; there is no such thing in US law as jus sanguinis.

3. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The courts and Congress both have been clear on one point: the Zone was not ever a part of the USA. It was under US control, but that did not incorporate the Zone into the USA; it was never even a territory. McCain was born without citizenship of any kind (hard as that may be to believe, it’s true).

4. Eleven months after McCain’s birth, Congress passed a law allowing those in his predicament to be naturalized automatically. McCain is therefore not a natural born US citizen, which he must be in order to become president. He was naturalized and is today a naturalized citizen, with the same status as, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now read the document you downloaded. That will explain exactly how and why things are they way they are.

What are we going to do?? Again, read the document for a discussion of the options open to the government.

Whatever happens, know that the Democrats will use this.

 

Preserve Us From The Humanitarian Reformers Who Know Whom To Blame, And Intend To Sort Those Bastards Out

Eric S. Raymond on the consequences of a trendy ideology:

Feminism’s toxic idea that all men are barely restrained sexual predators killed that little girl. This probably wasn’t the first time it happened, and almost certainly won’t be the last.

 

The Canadians may be saying, “We’ll get around to it, eh?” The Human Rights Commissions scandals go on, and while there are some expressions of anger and calls for reform, the USA’s neighbors to the north still seem to need their prefrontal lobes defrosted. If principled government were a goal in Canada, we’d see torchlight parades, eh?

A Lesson Of Vietnam

Saigon fell over thirty years ago, and the significance of the US attempt to stop communism in Southeast Asia is still debated. How we regard that war depends on our preconceptions and roles in life; the Soviets, for example, looked at the unfolding tragedy as a way of predicting how the USA would react to the USSR’s expansionist policies.

Fighting and winning always impress. Even merely fighting and persisting impress. Shortly after the fall of Soviet Communism, I had dinner with a then-recently former senior Red army general. He told me that the Soviets were astounded and impressed by the fact that we were prepared to fight and lose 50,000 men in Vietnam, when the Soviets never thought we even had a strategic interest there. They thus calculated that they’d better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?

To Asians, however, the salient fact of Vietnam was not that the USA would fight when it had no comprehensible reason to. What mattered was the end of the struggle, the outcome. It was clear that the USA would fight until it grew disillusioned, without considering the value of winning. The lesson: if you go to war with Uncle Sam, you don’t have to whip him — you just have to avoid losing, and you will win by default.

Vietnam told the world that the determination that had delivered triumph on Iwo Jima and imposed unconditional surrender on the Empire of Japan no longer existed in Washington. The world had seen the clumsy, half-hearted invasion of Cuba. Vietnam validated the opinion that a willingness to stand toe to toe with the USA was a weak power’s strategy for victory. If puny Castro could do it, literally anybody could.

For a principled nation, a declaration of war is a necessary manifestation of the essential ethos. When undeclared war for limited objectives became a policy option for Washington (ignoring the many US military adventures in Latin America during the 19th century and first half of the 20th), the USA was recognized as a large nation that could be thwarted militarily. Over time, that realization linked up with the evolution of asymmetrical warfare conducted by non-state entities — groups such as Al Qaeda. The consequences are obvious, but their origins are seldom mentioned.

The cycle is both simple and notorious: presented with negative developments in a distant land, the USA intervenes in multiple ways to aid its allies. When US troops are involved in ground combat, the investment must be respected and supported. Then casualties mount, and the wily enemy — often not wearing uniforms and able to vanish into the population — demonstrates cockroach-like survival skills. Time drags. The Western culture is impatient — it is addicted to immediate gratification and assured results. Win or lose on the battlefield, the USA decides to concede territory and status to the insurgents/rebels/invaders, and the war ends in humiliating withdrawal. Allies are abandoned to the tender mercies of the enemy.

Thus is the effectiveness of the winner’s strategy proved. It becomes virtually certain that the USA will either fail to respond to the next emergency or fail to prevail militarily if it does respond.

The full effects of the vigorous martial response of President Bush to the attacks of Sept. 11 will not be known for decades. But if history is any indicator, military courage, persistence and a capacity to kill the enemy in large numbers usually work to the benefit of such nations.

Yes, but…military adventures in far-flung lands are a hard sell, and for bad as well as good reasons. Domestic political pressure, exerted by mountebanks and the news media, make the electorate restive. The historical perspective of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars is forgotten, if it was ever known and appreciated. A commitment to Liberty is replaced by commitments to supposed self-interest, even when the military is made up of volunteers only.

Every civilization that has ever existed failed ultimately because it followed policies that made it perceptibly weaker, attracting attack. The pattern is grim: the inevitable consequences of one expedient step reduce the options available in the near future. A narrowed range of possible choices equals reduced adaptability, and when an institution cannot adapt, it must fail.

So where is the USA now? On the brink of decline and fall, already in decline, or climbing to new heights by asserting its principles and making the world a better place?

The natural tendency is to predict catastrophe. That has been popular ever since the first charlatan learned how to exert power over people. Realistic appraisals are best, however, and this is a good one.

Politics Doesn’t Just Make For Strange Bedfellows — It Makes For Vicious Enemies

Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Dick Addington goes before a Congressional committee (hearing broadcast on CSPAN) to testify on CIA torture of Al Qaeda terrorists. Addington says he can’t go into details because Al Qaeda is probably watching, and he does not want to tip them off to anything important. Fair enough? Well, maybe not for everybody; Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) puts it this way: “I’m sure they are watching. I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive.”

So…what, exactly, was that crack supposed to mean??

Well, it can be explained away, like this:

It must be out of context. Even if you’re willing to believe he’s this indecent, surely the media microscope is enough to keep congressmen away from fantasizing publicly about their political enemies being killed by terrorists.

That’s the view of a weblogger who is generally considered a “wingnut,” that is, predisposed to a “neoconservative” interpretation of events.

Others are a bit less charitable. Excerpt:

He meant exactly what he seemed to mean. For these bastards, Al Qaeda is not the enemy; only Americans who stand between themselves and political power are. In some situations, Al Qaeda is a genuine ally in the real war.

How to understand this, and should we bother to try? First, it’s true that the Congressman is, er, displeased with Cheney’s man, whom he views as a despicable political opponent. Second, Delahunt was trying to say something witty, but he’s only half-qualified to do that. Finally, if Al Qaeda bombed Washington DC, those on both sides of the aisle would lose no sleep whatsoever if the bombing killed only their opponents. It’s nasty inside the Beltway, horribly nasty, and that is the real lesson here. The cure? Common sense combined with nonpartisan patriotism. The prognosis? Poor.

(Update: here’s more on the hearing and Addington’s pugnacious attitude during it.)

Did we have this much trouble uniting against the Japanese Empire? That entity was utterly destroyed (remember “unconditional surrender”?), but it did not kill as many of us at Pearl Harbor as bin Laden killed on 11 September 2001. And the dead in Hawaii were almost all military. Somehow, by slaughtering civilians in the thousands, Al Qaeda has managed to drive a wedge between people who should be on the same side. For some, “What do you mean ‘we,’ you damned fascist?” is a legitimate question.

 

Could it be that misbehavior such as that reported immediately above is noted by the public? It could. A recent poll tells us nine percent of the electorate thinks Congress is doing a good job. Yes, you read that right, and it’s not a typo: 9%.

 

Not Quite Charlatans, Not Quite Healers — And Possibly In For A Renaissance

Psychiatrists in general don’t deserve much credit for their efforts. Many if not most go into the field because they have had, or still have, personality problems. The talking cure Freud invented is an unscientific amalgam of fable, speculation, and nonsense. Ultimately, the psychiatric field has been relegated to pushing pills at people who make trouble for their families. Some of those pills are amazingly nasty; the principle, “First of all, do no harm” has been stretched until nearly shredded.

It is, therefore, extremely unusual for the PenPo to note approvingly of the efforts of one of the self-appointed mechanics of the mind. But there it is, an endorsement of sorts. If this physician’s concepts ever become popular, a lot of people will benefit.

Learn more in this interesting article. This guy is on to something.

You’re Federal Supreem Cort Is Standing Gard, Reddy Too Rite Wronngs And Dispens Justise

Hah! If you think the above headline is a mess because it’s littered with errors, consider the following information that comes from a weblogger who paid attention to the recent supreme court decision that struck down Washington DC’s unconstitutional firearms law (the case is known simply as “Heller”):

Comment on to (sic) previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: “Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that…”

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted — commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn’t bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do (sic) to that. Very first thing.

I’d add that at 41 he refers to:

“In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the ‘National Guard of the several States,’ Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10.”

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn’t create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the “National Guard of the Several States.” Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: “The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part…” So I guess he didn’t read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.

And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?

“These things happen, the justices and their staff are not perfect” will not do. The best we can say for these blunders is that they betray quintessential incompetence. Some folks believe the oversights proceed from ideology, which raises a number of questions. Can we discern a pattern that betrays the bias? And why should this news go under-reported? Did you read about it in your paper? Did you learn about this on TV?

Bits And Dribbles Of News You Might Have Missed

Aha! The general concept of the NGO turns out to have a specific meaning to the Bad Guys, and some utility for the Good Guys. That’s the deeper, more important truth behind the account of “…a classic demonstration of how a country can use a mixture of law enforcement, intelligence, military, diplomatic and other mechanisms together, with a great deal of patience and tenacity, to achieve profound results against terrorism.” The multi-layered story reads like a novel, and merits pondering because it opens the discussion to the past and future of NGOs.

In all, these organizations are more influential than all the Bilderberger conferences, CFR and TriLateral Commission gatherings and publications, Skull and Bones reunions, Freemasonic lodges and Bohemian Grove conclaves added together. NGOs are almost always unaccountable, often secretive organizations whose genuine agendas and sources of funding can be extraordinarily difficult to discern. They also attract far less scrutiny than is wise, which makes them ideal instruments for intelligence agencies. They can sometimes go where no one else but the locals can. Do they do more good than bad? No one knows. There’s a book in there somewhere….

 

Oddly enough, some folks did not hear how close Obama came to being killed the other day. It was far more serious than The Big People are willing to admit. Is anyone watching to see whether Hillary ever joins Obama on a flight to a campaign location?

Meanwhile Obama’s critics, still believing that something must stand between the man and his White House, are doing all they can to, er, shoot him down. Hillary’s bitter-enders — or is that a sexist, offensive way to refer to a militant feminist?? — are not about to give up, either.

 

It should be no surprise that some Democrats, still furious over the “swiftboating” of John Kerry, want to pull the same stunt on McCain. Remember these words:

For this to be a “Swift Boating,” people who stayed at the Hanoi Hilton would have to say that McCain was lying about what he did there — or perhaps that his repeated claims that events there were “seared, seared” in his memory are false, and he was never actually there at all — and those people would have to be telling the truth.

Write that down and glue it to the refrigerator. Have your kids memorize it. Repeat it at parties, when the conversation lags at the bowling alley, and when sitting at red lights. People will first consider you a nut, and then, in the fullness of time, a sage. You won’t have to tell everybody where you got this little bit of wisdom; when lionized for your prescience, just nod wisely and take the credit.

You may also take credit for having told family and friends to insulate their homes, buy wool clothing, and stock up on heating oil — in a few years, when the global cooling trend begins to nip at noses and toeses. Global warming? A great many people will not want to talk about it. Until that happy day when the loony demagogues shut up, we can only take comfort in the fact that some media outlets are willing to point out the facts.

 

Do you remember the Rosenbergs, Julius and Ethel? They were executed for treason during peacetime. Many claim they were innocent (similar claims have been made for Alger Hiss). The Rosenberg fable is part of the history of today’s “progressive” politics. The facts are on the internet, in case you have an interest in Cold War history. And yes, you can follow a link and Google a bit to learn more about the Hiss case. He was a Soviet spy, too.

 

Here are a couple of stories that should get your attention, and possibly your goat as well. Begin with a look at this outline of how the petroleum industry and government work together to…unh, to do what, exactly? Follow up with another of those “how did we ever get into this mess in the first place, it’s the camel putting his nose under the tent flap, isn’t it” stories. Whom should we shoot first, the mass murderer or the newspaper publisher?

 

And of course Iran. A multiple rocket launch? Don’t believe it. The mullahs have learned from watching CNN and reading AP news stories, so the the pictures you saw were Photoshopped. No, really! Interestingly enough, the weblogger who demonstrated that Mad Mary Mapes and Dan Rather (of CBS — remember that outfit?) were using fake documents to swing the US presidential election has exposed the mullahs’ fakery.

Still worried? For hard facts on those Iranian Roman candles, read this explanation of what actually happened.

Confusing Problems With Difficulties Makes For Absurdities

Utopia is an ineradicable constant in political philosophy, the impossible dream that has sent hundreds of millions to needless death, enslaved much if not most of humanity at one time or another, and caused astronomical levels of suffering. It also worms its way into the political system as a series of “reforms,” such as socialized medicine. Today’s Utopia Watch report deals with yet another “solution” to the “problem” of firearms deaths, and it’s a knee-slapper of a fantasy:

At long last, “progressives” admit that a free market, unimpeded by feckless, off-target governmental restrictions, should be allowed to solve a social problem. Good news? Well… no. Bad news, because the proposal begins by assuming, without evidence or argument, that an honest participant (the firearms industry) in that free market is responsible for crime, and then suggests that if that industry cannot do what the government cannot, it must be held to account. It’s only natural to ask why, since the authors of this proposal state that “The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing.”

They don’t “seem” to be failures, they are failures. As you may have noticed, murderers don’t obey laws, even firearms prohibitions. Stopping crime is — you guessed it — an unattainable Utopian fantasy, and punishing it is very often impossible and/or ineffective. Perhaps some crime can be discouraged, but we don’t know to what degree.

So how can we compel the manufacturers to do the impossible, namely make decent people out of criminals? It’s not immediately explicit in this Mad Hatter’s plan, but there is the mention of “each company’s quota,” and later we learn that there may be “reductions mandated” for some models of firearms, depending. Manufacturers may be hit with fines, as well, “…substantial financial penalties that would hike the cost of the guns they make and drive home the huge negative social consequences they now cause.”

Regarding that last quote, two observations. First, the claimed cause-effect relationship does not exist, but the authors of this proposal continue to assume it does, and try to slip that assumption past us. Second, anyone who thinks that the fact of homicide needs to be “driven home” must also believe that a painless, harmless, free and fun cancer cure will prove unpopular. The crafters of Utopian schemes always misunderstand how humans think and feel; that ignorance scuttles the perfectly planned society very early on.

Finally: “If some gun makers managed to reduce the gun deaths caused by their product even faster than the rules required, they could sell that excess to other companies.” Sort of like carbon offsets, eh? Whoa! Now that’s not cynical!!

While we are at it, how about using the same approach for criminal vehicular homicides? Auto manufacturers could be induced to try to limit them. How? First, using police records, we identify the auto models used in the preponderance of deliberate, fatal, vehicular assaults. Production of those types of cars could be limited and subject to a trade in offsets. General Motors (maker of the GMC “Bonecrusher,” popularly known as the solution to various “relationship” problems) could buy offsets from Ford (whose similar but less popular pickup truck is more socially responsible) and then make more of the fell vehicles than its quota; how cool is that?

And just imagine the cascade of possibilities that begins when we address the social problem of rape! Whodunnit? Who’s to blame for all those rapes, excluding, of course, the rapists themselves?? Physicians performing circumcisions, or maybe sex education teachers? Hey, dirty magazines! And don’t forget Paris Hilton, she’s such a tease!

Heck, even if we can’t figure out how to prevent all rape, maybe we can devise an offset program for that social ill. We’ll slow down the naughty boys and reward the good guys. The Rape Help Line 800 number will take on a whole new meaning…”Hi, I need to know how much an offset goes for today. — Oh? Gosh, that’s expensive….That’s for a blonde, you say? So how about a bleached blonde, or maybe some dirty brunette who’s past her prime? And hurry up, OK?”

Oh, boy, now that we see the genius of this offset thingy, the future looks bright…as we trip blithely toward Utopia…!!

Reality intrudes. Crime consists in the act, not the tool. Further, offfsets of whatever sort legitimize licentiousness. That’s against our principles. I should not be permitted to be bad because you are good. Why and when did we lose sight of these facts?

How Barack Hussein Obama Can Win The Election — Simple Rules Which, If He Has An IQ Above Room Temperature, He Will Follow, And Which Will Absolutely Guarantee Him The White House

There’s nothing to it, really. Obama could whip McCain, and without breaking a sweat. Could. He might blow it. So here’s what the PenPo would tell him, if he asked:

1. Don’t worry about “flip-flopping.” Sure, you have to change your positions now, because a lot of what you said in past months and years was just shooting from the lip, and almost all of that was pretty sappy. Pay no mind. You have the “progressives” in your pocket, because for those ideologues, there simply is no alternative to you on the ticket (bless the Electoral College for that); and of course the Neanderthal right will hate you no matter how far you slither toward their positions (in fact, they will curse you as an unprincipled, power-hungry rascal for starting to make sense). Just get yourself some good advisors and speech-writers, and ignore the twists and turns your rhetoric will have to make. It won’t hurt you at the polls, not at all.

[Related web pages: from the UK and the USA. Then here’s a recent one that suggests Obama is not handling the situation well.]

2. Ignore John McCain. Don’t ever respond to his attacks, don’t debate him under any circumstances, don’t refer to him by name (except to make a “slip of the tongue” in one speech, calling him “Bush”), don’t give his positions on any issues the time of day. You don’t have to deal with him, and brushing him aside without glancing his way will work wonders with the voters. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that his clumsy delivery of speeches and inability to hold his own in a debate give you an opportunity; one only debates one’s equals, and he’s a loser. You can refer to “the Republicans,” but only to imply that they are of a piece, and that McCain in the White House will be just Bush III.

When pressed, say, “Debate? A debate is theatre, not politics. It’s just two people trying to trap and make fools of each other, not a chance for the voters to compare platforms. Read what the man publishes, watch his ads on TV, and compare that to my stand on the issues. And remember, Lincoln lost the Lincoln-Douglas debate.”

The voters are primed and ready: they desperately want to vote against Bush. So let them. Hope and pray that Bush will campaign for McCain, but expect that McCain is too smart to allow that.

3. Bring up a few hot-button issues. Here’s a short list, and if you have the sense God gives houseplants, you won’t add to it:

A. You will make domestic airplane travel safe and more comfortable. Bush wrecked the Federal Air Marshal Service with cronyism and incompetence, and you will restore it and use it properly. The FAA and CAB need to be given some direction, the airline industry is in a shambles that you can do something about, and the public needs to know that its central government is doing the right and sensible thing for a change.

B. Veterans, from WWII, Korea, Grenada, Vietnam and Bush’s stupid wars are not getting fair treatment, which is an absolute disgrace. You will reform the VA, make it responsive to veterans, and if you get any opposition from lazy, empire-building bureaucrats, there will be heads on your desk. “Support the troops” has been a cynical, hypocritical GOP slogan that covers up a huge scandal. You will expose the scope and depth of the scandal, throw some bureaucrats in jail or at least out on the street, and clean up the mess. This will resonate strongly, even with the inbred gun-hugging simpletons who wouldn’t vote for you if they thought you were Jesus Himself.

C. Immigration must be reformed. Never mind the fence — don’t talk about it unless you have to, and just give it a lukewarm endorsement. Make these points over and over: no one can look at an alien’s passport and tell whether he is in the country legally (true, though you almost certainly did not know that), it is grossly unfair and inhumane to deal with applicants for immigration and those who have illegally immigrated differently, the USA cannot take in even one-tenth of the people who want to come here, and finally, don’t we all realize that this is a fertile area for corruption? You can score big with this one, and take votes from McCain, who is a nincompoop on immigration.

D. Multiculturalism is not to become the unofficial doctrine that swamps all others. The USA is distinct, and need not be a kind of UN General Assembly. Our way of life is unique, and multiculturalism does not describe that uniqueness, nor does it provide a principled model for us to emulate. Let it go at that; don’t get into philosophical ruminations or debates. Let the gullible voters fill in the details as they see fit.

For the rest of it, skip lightly over the issues. Don’t get into explaining what you said, don’t be distracted by this or that article or column in the press (those guys are with you 100% anyway), don’t dwell on anything except the four points above. You have come this far, and even defeated an army of blood-in-the-eye feminists (no small accomplishment, that) by being vague and dreamy, allowing the voters to fill in your many blanks, so why stop now?

4. Curb your wife. You already have a problem with women because of Hillary, and you already have a problem with some fence-sitting white voters who want to vote for you but will shy away at the last minute if you make a mistake. Letting your wife talk is a mistake. Her model should be Barbara Bush. Don’t say a word about this in public, and make sure the policy is discussed only in the innermost and most intimate of your circles of advisors, but stop your wife from saying things. That means she should just smile and repeat a few stock phrases, such as, “So nice to see you,” “Thank you for your support,” and “I love your (haircut, dress, shoes, suit, shirt, tie, blouse, etc).” Remember: everything she says and does is being recorded on video, and the racist GOP will use it against you. Slip her a tranquilizer if you have to, but get her under control, 24 hours a day.

5. Act like a winner. Lots of, “We are going to clean up the (whatever) mess,” “This country will start healing and getting better as soon as we put true leadership in place,” and so on. Don’t adopt the “fight” or “combat” metaphor. You are not fighting, you are not the underdog, you don’t have a struggle ahead, you don’t need help. You are THE man, and the future is yours. Tell people that. The press is with you, all the black voters are with you, millions of white voters are dying to get rid of Bush and prove that not all white people are bigots…shoot, the White House is yours. Stick with “clean up,” “reform,” “put right,” “do something rational for a change” metaphors.

6. Be calm, cool and collected when dealing with Hillary. Begin by facing facts. Never mind what she says in public, she’s mad as hell, hissing spitting furious, and if she can take you down and take your place, she will. Her supporters have caused you to drop from 59 percent support among registered Democrats to 54 percent. These feminists are livid, and they don’t intend to shut up. How many will actually vote for McCain is the great question that hangs over your campaign. There are only two things you can do about this:

The first is NOT name Hillary your VP. If you screw this up, every day of your presidency, Hillary will be doing things you can’t control, Slick will be disgracing himself and his family yet again, and you will have nightmares in which Hillary sticks pins in a voodoo doll of you, chanting, “Redneck assassin, redneck assassin….”

You may ask why, then, Hillary is campaigning with you, for you. The answer is easy: she’s deeply in debt, and she wants the party to pay her bills. You have to toss that one into Dean’s lap.

So set Hillary aside. It will cost you the votes of some rabid single-issue voters, but you can win without them, and you don’t want to sabotage your presidency.

Second, tell the female voters that you have an agenda that is not just gender-blind, but a kind of compensatory, affirmative action plan. When the opportunity affords, slip in a few words about how an end to racism in politics also means an end to sexism, because the two go hand in hand. When talking (briefly!) about tokenism, mention that women don’t need to be tokens. Use the civil service as an example of merit pay that industry should adopt. Be a quiet, determined feminist, and let it go at that. The mad dogs are lost to you in any event; they are not going to help you when you are in office, whether they voted for you or not, because they live in a fantasy world of hate, bitterness and blind ideology. Let them go.

That said, expect a nasty surprise at the convention. It’s unlikely to happen, but you need to be prepared. Hillary’s lunatic supporters will do all they can to create chaos and hijack the nomination for her; the question is, will the insurgents be numerous? Hillary won’t endorse the rebellion, but she won’t privately demand that her supporters stand down, and she may send you a very ambiguously-worded, “nuanced” threat to bring the building down if she’s not your VP. Never mind, it’s just a bluff; the distaff brigades are noisy but they can be stared down. When you are blamed for Wisconsin and Florida, say, “The Democratic Party set the rules. Those who believe in fair play, those who are principled, follow the rules.” When there is a floor fight, say, “If you want to deny the nomination to the candidate best qualified to remove the GOP oligarchy from the executive branch, then so be it. You know that if I am the nominee, I will win. That’s all anyone can say with certainty. I bow to the will of the Party.”

Explanation: many of your fellow Democrats have been emotionally traumatized by disappointment; that hurts, and all anger comes from hurt. Your party is fragmented and feuding. Let the pot boil, and know that it will cool down; Democrats will remember that the news media are with you, not with Hillary, and realize that she will be savaged in the press for staging a last-minute coup. For now at least, condemnation by the media means big trouble for a candidate (in a few years, it won’t, because the media are squandering their credibility and political capital). Maintain your dignity, don’t preach, always portray yourself as the principled candidate, and you will survive any reasonably likely FemiNazi Putsch.

7. What to say about firearms legislation. This one will hurt you, because there aren’t twenty shooters/hunters in the nation that believe you genuinely agree with them on the Second Amendment; almost every single one of them thinks you are a bloody liar, and that’s that. You don’t want to scare off the “progressives,” and it won’t do you any good to court the NRA types, so say this: “The issues of firearms regulation are complex, and it should be noted that the president has little to do with them. Local governments do, however, and the federal judiciary does, ultimately. When I nominate men and women for the federal courts, I will be very careful to see that they are ethically qualified individuals who care deeply about the safety of the public. In time, these additions to the judicial system will shape the future, and responsible, judicially valid firearms legislation will be an integral part of that process.” See? It’s easy! (Never mind that the smart gun nuts will be scared witless by your plan undemocratically to make law by abusing the judicial system and process; most people wouldn’t understand what you are up to, even if it were explained to them.)

8. Iran-Iraq and Islam. Relax! This is not a genuine problem. See point 1, above. You don’t have to say much at all, as you will be “supporting the troops” with your VA reform, and your advisors can be depended upon to tell you that your plan to win over the Iranian government by parachuting packets of Oreo cookies onto the mullahs’ roofs is not to be mentioned in public. Take your people’s advice, and keep going. Say things like, “Every policy must adapt, as circumstances shift. I won’t be the sort of president who keeps trying to push a rope.” The public will eat this empty stuff up; the press is on your side (ask any last-ditch Hillary supporter), and people will say they like your style because you are flexible. Ignore the heckler who pipes up, “Yeah, Pontius Pilate and Benedict Arnold were flexible!”

Summary. The tip is, let the voters fill in the blanks. They have done that right along, and look where it got you. Follow this simple PenPo plan, and you will be president for four years. Study Jimmy Carter, and learn from that Cracker, and you can be president for eight years.

Closing invocation: May heaven, or some benevolent higher power, help the United States of America in this time of testing.