The true "Person of the Year"

Atlanta, GA - Time magazine, the once great publication, chose, earlier this month, as they always do, a “Person of the Year.” While in times past such greats as Charles Lindbergh, Elisabeth II, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill have taken the great honor, this year the weak, indecisive, and oft criticized by both sides of the political spectrum Angela Merkel, head of the nation of Germany, was chosen. She it was that let half a million hungry, ragged, war weary Syrian immigrants into her country earlier this year with nearly no vetting process, and blasted all other nations that did not do the same. Her nation has since closed its doors as her own party considers kicking her out of office.

Merkel is of course not the person of the year. J.J Abrams, the head of ISIS, John Stewart, or Hillary Clinton would all have been better picks for someone who "for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year.”

But my vote goes towards the yellow thing that goes around speaking its own language. No, not the minions, although that’s a tempting choice as well. I’m talking about the patron saint of comedians and disillusioned people everywhere; Donald Trump.

For many years in the political world, a sort of almost Victorian propriety has reigned. Stifling rules that force people to call their greatest enemies “my dear friend” even though we all know it isn’t true. Constant shouts for political correctness and a demanding that nobody say anything offensive to anyone. For a long time, in the winter of political correctness, while we almost all froze to death listening to speeches so full of empty promises, boring rhetoric, and yawn inducing nausea that politics, one of the most important of all endeavors, was in danger of losing its audience, which is, of course, one of the greatest dangers in the world. Loss of freedoms and the rise of dictatorships thrive in darkness disinterest.

There are plenty of things not to like. You don’t have to agree with Donald Trump on one single thing. But he has at least put the fire back into politics, and into the most important race in the entire world. For a long time there was a suffocation in the nether world of political conversation. I don’t know how long it will last, Trump might die a horrible political death just days into 2016, although that doesn’t seem overly likely. However, 2015 will forever be remembered, not as the year that some German bureaucrat did some very forgettable things, but rather, 2015 will be thought of as the Year of Trump, the year that, for a little while at least, if even for one fleeting second, the billionaire put the air back in our political lungs, and let us all breathe again.

Andrew C. Abbott

Star Wars: The Force that Never Sleeps

Atlanta, GA— On May 25^th, 1977, Star Wars, (later subtitled “A New Hope”) came out in the theatres. To put into perspective how long ago that was, the last man to be executed by the guillotine in France was put to death seven months later. Jimmy Carter was president, man had first walked on the moon less than a decade before, the Cold War was still going on, the internet was something many had never heard of, and the 2016 presidential race hadn’t even started yet.

 

Since that time there have been five more films, too many books to count, fan films, an animated show, and billions of dollars made off of George Lucas’ idea. Everywhere you go you are met with Star Wars images and paraphernalia. Lego sets, coloring books, quotes, references, and people that think they know how to talk like either Jar-Jar or Yoda.

Yet for all that, the secret to the franchise’s success seems allusive. After all, in the traditional sense of the word, it isn’t even a franchise, the movies came first.  The acting is often wooden, and sometimes downright dreadful. It is filled with overly animated scenes that can make you bleary eyed, and the story itself swings from helplessly complex to little more than family feud. The stories are occasionally stretched, sometimes absolutely ludicrous. Case in point is the final installment of the first trilogy, The Return of the Jedi, when Hans Solo’s master strategy is to tap a storm trooper on the shoulder and run the other way.

Then there are the many inconsistencies and glaring problems in the  story lines; for instance, if Yoda and company are so powerful that even a teenager trained in the Jedi arts  can feel the movement of tiny worms in the next room, (Attack of the Clones) why can’t they tell that the emperor, who they are always hanging out with, is planning on putting them to death? And if these guys have all this ultra-modern equipment so that they can whiz around in spaceships or create wormholes at will, why are they still using swords?

It’s hard to say why we all like Star Wars, maybe George Lucas has played Jedi mind tricks on us all to so that we will mindlessly watch his stuff whether its good or not.

 

More likely, however, is that the epicenes of Star Wars, combined with the fact that there is a little something for everyone, is what gives the tale its massive audience. And that audience keeps coming back despite the fact that they hate some characters, don’t like some story lines, and say that some of the movies were horrible.

The tale is much like a mirror, which will allow you to cast your own ideas onto its reflective surface and find something you can relate to. If you are prolife, there is a line in Revenge of the Sith that you will say supports your cause. If you are into eastern mysticism, the Jedi are your friends. If you are into political allegories, there is plenty in this work to either support arguments that big government is big, or that it is bad. If you are a Catholic you might like the fact that much of Star Wars revolved around a character born of immaculate conception -virgin birth.

All throughout history mankind has had his legends. The Greeks had Homer’s Odyssey, the Romans had their Romulus and Remus. The ancient Germans, living in the dark depths of their never ending forests, told each other tales of golems and horrors, some of which have survived to this day. But throughout the world, all of these legends had their heroes. From China to Peru, from London to Baghdad, the stories of heroes as different and varied as the lumber jack in little red riding hood, Sung Su, King Arthur, and Beowulf have captured the imaginations of generations of earth dwellers.

And now Star Wars is one of our legends, one of the epics of our time, as much as Hobbit, Harry Potter, or Captain America is.

Some might protest that Star Wars is different, King Arthur and Sung Su were based on real people, and the world of Lucas is pure fantasy. But that isn’t quite true. Not really. Maybe there never was a grand Republic, maybe Anakin and Luke never lived, but just like any great epic, they didn’t need to. They were based on the emotions, the struggle between light and darkness, that all of mankind has always been involved in. And, much like the true struggle, there are times when the darkness triumphs-for a time. But in the end the light always wins, weather it is Beowulf defeating the dragon at last, David killing Goliath, Dr. Who destroying the Daleks, Luke bringing down his enemies, or Jesus, in the ultimate story upon which all others, both true and legend are based, finishing off Satan.

Star Wars is nothing more than the most recent reincarnation of a very old tale that began a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…

May the force be with you.

Andrew C. Abbott

When Cruz Controlled

Atlanta, GA— In the fifth battle of the great Hunger for Power Games, the Tributes once again squared off in the endless war to become the most powerful human being alive on planet earth. In another beautiful venue in Vegas, hosted by America’s second most powerful cable network, CNN, and moderated by Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, and conservative talk show host Hew Hewitt, last night was quite a rollicking affair.

The moderators did well, especially Blitzer, beating down Cruz until he stopped stepping out of line, laying down the law on the unruly and sometimes downright unmannered John Kasich, and handling disturbances from disturbed audience members very well.

As for the warriors themselves, there was one that again stood out above the rest. He was the one that, in the pre-debate, one CNN pundit called “the man of the moment.” It was, of course, Ted Cruz. Cruz once again reminded Americans why he has risen to second place nationally and first in the all-important state of Iowa. Staying out of useless arguments with Donald Trump, as he had promised, Cruz brought biting attacks against the Democrats, saying that “Hillary and Obama” were looking for a “purple unicorn” when it comes to finding moderate rebels to replace the dictators that are fighting radical terrorism.

Cruz had the best line of the night, with his “All horse thieves are Democrats, but not all Democrats are horse thieves,” zinger, seconded nicely by his quip that he will build a wall along our southern border to keep out terrorists, illegal immigrants, and drugs, and that he would make Donald Trump pay for it. I expect Cruz to carry on from this debate to even better momentum across the nation.

The winner of the last debate, Marco Rubio, was partly outshined last night by Cruz, although he still did well. Rand Paul hurt him more than once, and Cruz went after him in a way we haven’t seen before. Rubio is a brilliant general in the war for the nomination, but his flank is horribly exposed when it comes to immigration and granting legal amnesty to millions who came to this country knowingly in an illegal fashion. While Rubio constantly tries to pit himself as tough on foreign policy, which is something many primary voters in the GOP want, he also has a weakness in that he could be portrayed as putting temporary security ahead of liberty, which is a cardinal sin, no matter who is doing it, and no matter how good their intentions are.

Last night could just be a bump for Rubio on his eventual drive for the nomination, something he is well poised to win, along with only two or three others or it could signal, looking back in a few months, the beginning of the end of the junior senator from Florida.

Donald Trump had his first really great night. He sounded like a statesmen, like a man who really cared about people, like a man who desperately wanted to save his country. He mercifully explained his “shut down the internet” comments at last, proving he is not simply an Asian Style despot who wants to end free speech. Trump could have won the debate last night with his calmness, his refusal to attack Cruz, and even defending of the senator, except for his face making at Jeb Bush. Bush deserved Trump’s “I’m at 42 and you’re at 3,” and maybe even a little mocking for acting like he was tough, but Trump didn’t need to do it. Trump is helped by the debate for his overall performance, but he needs to keep working on his self-control.

Carly Fiorina wore a cross last night, presumably because many evangelicals are not sure about her, and she wants to prove to them that she is one of them. While Trump was busy sniping, she had her best line of the night; “Margaret Thatcher said if you want something talked about, you ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.” Mrs. Fiorina continues to lag in the polls, and I do not expect her to win, but she once again proved -with her clear understanding of foreign policy and belief that liberty should not be sacrificed for security- that she deserves a look as a potential secretary of state.

Ben Carson had a horrible night, right from his opening statement when he asked for a moment of silence for the San Bernardino victims. I have no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Carson was anything other than completely sincere in his gesture, but this was a political debate, and such a move had no place. If Mr. Carson felt such a thing was needed, he could have asked Mr. Blitzer before the debate, and I am sure the moderator, being a decent man, would have been more than happy to oblige. Carson did poorly the entire night, and in the end I was left struggling to remember anything of note he had said. He will probably continue to fall in the polls, which I have predicted from the day he got in.

Rand Paul did not have his blitzkrieg night as he did last time, but he did do fairly well, once again blasting out his message of freedom first for all the world to hear. He just barely made it into this debate by the skin of his teeth, despite doing fairly well in Iowa. This might have been his last debate in primetime, but he will continue to be a shining light for lovers of liberty the world over, not matter what he does. And, who knows, if his upward momentum continues in Iowa, he just might be one of the top three there.

Chris Christi had another good debate, although he will never win the nomination for several reasons, among them the one that Rand Paul pointed out last night. Some people think he shut down a bridge because he was mad. Because the field is so crowded, Christie has avoided constant, wall to wall coverage of his past, but if he were to move up in the polls, you can be sure the mud would start flying until he was buried alive under it.

John Kasich…the governor from Ohio seems to live in a world of puffy white clouds, lemon drops, light blue skies and children’s nursery rhymes. The world is a dangerous place, not built for those who use their opening statements to beg everybody to be nice to each other, and make the millionth reiteration of the tired line “we are not Republicans first or Democrats first, we are Americans first.” Kasich tried to interrupt everybody again, although fortunately Blitzer shut him down. Kasich had nothing original to say, and nothing worth anyone’s time. Maybe now he will just leave, but I’m not holding my breath.

And finally, our old friend Jeb Bush. Exactly a year ago today, Jeb Bush announced that he was running for president. At the time I said that he was in fourth place, and I hoped he stayed there. Well, he hasn’t, he’s fallen even further. He was supposed to ride his name and his massive war chest like a magic carpet all the way to the White House. Jeb forgot, however, that one little thing that so many pundits forget or simply fail to mention when making political plans and predictions, and that is the people. The people just don’t want Jeb. They just really don’t. It’s not that he says highly offensive things, like Trump, or that he has little experience, like Carson. It’s just that they don’t want him. It’s not that they don’t know who he is, like Graham; it’s worse, they know him, and they still don’t want him.

Mr. Bush has spent well over 30 million dollars in early voting states, and still his message continues to drag. Last night he sounded pedantic, annoyed. It was as if he still cannot understand that nobody wants him. The Washington Post this morning asked him to get out of the race for the good of the Republican Party.

If Mr. Bush continues on, he will simply continue to drain funds from the viable candidates who really need them, draw staff from those who could use them, and divide the party even further. The Bushes have had their chance with the country, and it seems that nobody wants a third go round. So Mr. Bush needs to give all of us all what really want for Christmas. That is, to hear the sounds of announcing he’s done.

Andrew C. Abbott

Tis' the Season to Take Offense

Atlanta, GA – You don’t have to like it. You might be an atheist that believes in neither God nor Santa Claus. You might be a part of the roughly 8% of Americans, according to Gallup, who will not be celebrating Christmas this year. You might be one of those of who gets offended when somebody says Merry Christmas, or ho ho, ho, but, you can’t deny, its Christmas time again, and more than a third of the world celebrates it as a holiday.

The war over Christmas has been raging for two thousand years, ever since it’s first protractor, Herod, tried to nip it in the bud by mass infanticide. Fortunately the antics of the anti-Christmas crowd have mellowed since those days, now relegated to Starbucks, (if they are indeed anti-Christmas), only coloring their cups red rather than saying Merry Christmas, Buick calling it a “Holiday Sale,” and a large school in Italy canceling their Christmas Concert because it might offend Muslims.

Christians and others who simply enjoy the greatest holiday ever have fought back in various ways. At Starbucks they have retaliated by telling the people at the counter their name is “Merry Christmas,” so that when their order is ready, the server will be forced to call out “Merry Christmas” for all coffee lovers to hear. In Italy, at that school of a 1,000 or so students, where the principle canceled the Christmas Concert, renamed it “Winterval,” and planned it for January, so as not to offend any of the 250 students who aren’t Christians, the Catholic Church and the prime minister of Italy lambasted the principle, who resigned in shame, as even the non-Christians of the school complained, saying they liked Christmas.

Of course, Christmas in America does have its proponents in the mainstream. Ted Cruz, who sent out an email to supporters to remind them that he feels "real Americans" don’t care about offending people, and so they should say “Merry Christmas.” And there is Wal Mart, where every aisle, it seems, greets you with a massive placard crying “Merry Christmas!”

In past years, Americans have made strides in various places against possible hate speech, attempting to defend those who love Christmas from those who get offended because a baby was born to save their eternal soul from hell. In Texas, a few years ago, a law was passed protecting anyone who says Merry Christmas from discrimination.

There are those who say that there is a war on Christmas. That may be true, as a friend of mine tells me her boss has ordered her not to say “Merry Christmas” because someone might get offended. She has to instead say “Happy Holidays,” like the people wouldn’t know what holiday she might be implying. But it would seem really that there is a war on sanity. If you curl up into a ball and cry because you see a nativity scene, or if Santa, while giving you free gifts, says “Merry Christmas,” you post on twitter that he’s a hater, you have problems. If you are such a person, I believe there are still mental hospitals alive and well across this country. You should really check one out.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Andrew C. Abbott

What will Happen, if Hillary falls

Atlanta, GA – Even with the recent revelations that the Pentagon was ready to send in extra forces to save our ambassador on that fateful night in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton remains unlikely to arrested, indicted, censored, or even written a ticket for her many supposed or real violations of the law during her time as Secretary of State and in connection with the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation.

Even so, it is barely possible that something could still happen. The other shoe could drop, the FBI could announce that they have found enough evidence to indict, or the Department of Justice might decide that they need to drag Mrs. Clinton into court. So it is not too early to start wondering just what the Democratic Party will do if its star character, indeed, almost its only character, falls off the stage.

It does not seem likely that Hillary would continue on her Presidential Campaign, if she were actually indicted and taken to court. She would of course release press statements saying that it was all a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” she will say she is “disappointed” by what is going on, but then she is likely to announce a “suspension” of her campaign for “the time being.” In other words she would then be in full panic mode, running for the hills, and screaming and crying behind closed doors.

But while the news, were all of this to happen, would be fixated on the grand display of the Fall of the House of Clinton, the Democratic leaders would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out what to do. Pundits call everything “unprecedented” because it just sounds so awesome, but your front runner getting arrested, leaving almost half the nation with no real, viable person to vote for would truly be unprecedented in the American experience.

Some might think that the Democrats will bring in somebody from the bullpen. But that doesn’t seem very likely. The Castro brothers are too young and do not have the name recognition, while anyone else who might consider is either a national joke, (Biden) too old for this, (Gore), or legally ineligible, (Bill Clinton.)

One thing that will not happen is that the Democrats will not all run to Sanders. That would be a recipe for a 49 state Republican landslide. The guy thinks women want to be raped, and he wants to give free college to everyone.

So what would be the answer? Two words: Martin O’Malley.

Most people have probably never heard of him, and for the moment he only running to make Hillary look like she has some kind of completion. He has less chance of winning this Lindsey Graham, and that’s saying something.

But if Hillary were to go down, we would suddenly see a “Captain America” moment. One of those times when someone is very weak politically, nothing more than a skinny bag of bones. But the party needs them. So a special serum, called “hype” is prepared. When the doors open up again to reveal our hero, he is big muscled, faster than the fastest, and can knock your head off with one punch.

Hillary is doing fine right now. But if she ever falls off the cliff, the serum will be injected into O’Malley. You can count on it. It doesn’t mean he will win, he probably wouldn’t. But somebody has to carry the party line, somebody has to pretend they care about all this politics stuff. So that is what will happen, if Hillary falls.

Andrew C. Abbott

Who is to blame for terrorism?

When the Cambrian Measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace, They swore if we gave them our weapons the wars of the tribes would cease… –Rudyard Kipling

On June 17, Charleston, South Carolina, Dyllan Roof entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and began the horrific mass shooting that would leave nine dead. Dyllan Roof was, as has been pointed out by a now famous cover of the New York Daily News, a terrorist.

But that same paper, in a monumental breach of professional reporting, dropped all pretense of being fair and balanced, dropped all pretense of following the long history of journalism, where you report the facts, not your own radical opinions. After calling Roof a terrorist, the Daily News, over a picture of Wayne LaPierre, a caption reads “And so is this man.”

What was Mr. LaPierre’s crime that caused him to be dubbed a terrorist on the front page of a so called “newspaper”? He is the executive vice president of the NRA, and he agrees with the founding fathers that guns are a right that shall not be infringed.

In recent weeks, when the Planned Parenthood shooting happened, many people seemed very confused as to the nature of the attacks. Many said that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and indeed, anybody that is a modern progressive who understands that the way of the future is more guns, less gun free zones, and more liberty for gun owners is to blame because of some crazed maniacs.

When Dyllan Roof shot up a church, we didn’t blame atheism for causing him to be anti-Christian, because of course we realized that it wasn’t Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins fault. When Muslims cut off people’s heads, bomb buildings, shoot people in San Bernardino, we don’t blame Islam. We blame the radical terrorists themselves; because of course it’s their fault and no else’s.

One of the most glaringly idiotic statements about the most recent, horrific mass shootings, came, unsurprisingly, from The Huffington Post, or, as you may know it, that place where they believe in flying pigs. The Post actually called the San Bernardino terrorist massacre “gun inspired.” Of course, it was no more “gun inspired” than Cain’s attack on Abel was “rock inspired.” It was sin inspired. It was hatred inspired. It was radical Islam inspired.

The mantra seems to be, from many of those who are anti-progress and refuse to learn from history, that because there are innocent victims that are being horribly murdered we need to do something, and that is true. But then the mantra becomes that we need to disarm ourselves. Which makes sense-not at all. An unarmed society is much like a sheep herd, vulnerable, helpless, and forcibly led by any shepherd with the will to do so.

Hillary Clinton and her allies shout out that “we do not want to take away all your guns. Just the dangerous ones.” But, as has been pointed out, “If they can ban one, they can ban them all.”

The deaths of innocent victims should be a time grieving and then striking back at the root causes of such mass shootings. Clinical insanity, sin, radical Islam, etc. The tools used in them are barely important. If we took away all guns we would have mass stabbings, just ask China.

Ted Cruz isn’t a terrorist, and neither is Wayne LaPierre, but I do know that the person who called him that isn’t a journalist.

The poem I began with, by Rudyard Kipling, continues on from the promises of perpetual peace by saying: But when we disarmed they sold us, and delivered us bound to our foes.

Thus is the end of all such endeavors.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed.

No matter what.

Andrew C. Abbott

I'd Call Them Infantile, but Babies don't get offended

 

 

The best cure for bad speech is more speech. –John S. Mills

Calvert City, KY – Students in America have recently been asking for “safe spaces.” Places where they can be free from anything offensive. It is, of course, the worst idea since someone invented chocolate covered beetles.

The idea is that the safe spaces would be a place where students could go to help lay salve their damaged egos, lick their wounds, and cry in quiet because someone out there disagrees with them. It would sort of be to free speech what gun safe zones are to guns.

Supposedly, when one group of students was recently offended by a debate happening on a campus: “A ‘safe space’ was created for students upset by the debate; the space included cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of puppies.”

Besides the fact that if the government were to start mandating safe spaces of any kind, where free speech was not allowed, it would be violating the constitution and beginning an Orwellian society where the “safe spaces” would grow and grow until there was nowhere left anyone could say what they believed-besides all that, practicality makes them an impossibility.

For instance, what sort of people shall be allowed in? Can a white supremacist or a black supremacist retreat here and demand that anyone of other ethnicity not be allowed in? What if a practicing nudist decides to flee to the safe spaces and demand that everyone else take off their clothes, because the nudist finds such things offensive? What if a Muslim wants to take refuge there, and demands that all gays be cast out, because they are antithetical to the Islam? Or, vice versa, what if the gays want to kick the Muslims out?

What if the Catholics want to kick the atheists out, or the atheists want to kick out someone who is tired of hearing about evolution, and has taken refuge here to watch videos about creationism.

Shall we have a safe space for everyone? For each ethnicity, for each religion, for each political party and each way of thought? For, if we do that, if we run for the hills because we are being offended, if we hide in our own cocoons and refuse to talk to anyone to disagrees with us or might offend us, and demand that the government keep them away from our ears and eyes, we will be right back where we started sixty years ago, with the whites and the blacks and the Catholics and the Protestants and the Atheists all living in their own areas, and hating and misunderstanding anyone outside of their own sheltered place.

We don’t need safe spaces, and we can’t have them if we want to keep our country going. However, for those that really need them, there are already safe spaces…it’s called your home. Go there. If your family disagrees with you, move to your own place. Some might cry “but the internet, the internet is still in my home, and there are people on there that disagree with me and offend me!” Then, to you I would say stop sucking your thumb, and start arguing. Debate until you are blue in the face. For that is the purpose of free speech. We are to strive to convert others to our opinions, not demand that they not share theirs.

And if you are a horrible debater, and you must be, if you want a safe space, then to you I would say go to your internet router, take a look at all those flashy lights, and turn it off. Now your safe. Safe from ever learning anything, safe from ever being stretched, safe from ever being offended. Congratulations, you have at last created your own dystopia.

Good luck.

 

Andrew C. Abbott

Trump has one A on his scorecard



The Trumps

Calvert City, KY - There are many reasons, if one were looking for them, to dislike Donald Trump; it’s like a buffet, a little something for everyone. If you are Muslim, you might not like that some believe he wants to make all Muslim’s go on a registry like a modern version of Hitler’s yellow stars. If you are an illegal immigrant, someone who came into America either in an illegal fashion or overstayed your visa, thus breaking the law of the land and making yourself a criminal outlaw, you might not like that Mr. Trump wants to deport you. If you are a woman you might not like the things that Mr. Trump has said that might cause you to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Trump is a sexist.

However, there is one thing that is must be said the Republican candidate for the nomination for presidency is doing that all candidates ought to. Namely, Mr. Trump is comfortable with his wealth.

In his new book, Crippled America, Mr. Trump’s outline for what he would do as president, there is, in the center of book, a picture of the Trump family. Daddy, mommy, and all the kiddies. If you didn’t know better you might think that you were looking at an image of a Russian Czar before the fall. The background gives the impression of polished gold, which it just might be, while the entire picture gives you the feeling that you are gazing upon some of the Emperors of Constantinople come to life once more.

But for all that, Mr. Trump, the billionaire, has embraced his wealth in a way the vastly wealthy Mitt Romney was never able to do. In his announcement speech, despite all the mocking it engendered on Late-night, Trump proudly took out a paper and read off just how rich he is. Since then, in his stump speech and, it seems, every interview that he gives from within the cavernous halls of Trump Tower, Mr. Trump repeats the same phrase over and over again, “I’m really rich.” “Don’t forget, I’ve made a lot of money.” “I’m really good at business, I’ve made a lot of money.” “I’ve been really successful, I’ve made my pile.” “Hey, I’m really rich.”

Mr. Trump constantly is busy touting his business experience and success as reasons he should be selected as president, but there is more to his bragging, if you want to call it that. He not only touts his business, he touts himself and his worldly riches. Showing off his personal “Trump” helicopter at the Iowa State Fair and giving rides in it to children is one such example.

Although being comfortable with one’s wealth might seem to some observers as simply braggadocio or worse, there is more to it than that. There was a time when presidential candidates were completely comfortable with admitting that they were not the boy next door. The Kennedys made no secret that they were rich, their children had nannies to look after them, and on hot summer days they went boating rather than working. Ted, when he ran for president, publicly said he’d never worked a day of menial labor in his life. The Roosevelts, (Theodore) lived in mansions and made no secret of it.

We can’t all be rich, not all of us can ride in the toboggans with the Russian lords chasing after the hounds. Some are destined to be the ones mucking out the horse stalls. However, presidential candidates need to accept their place as the poser children of successful capitalism and free market principles. When a person or a family has worked hard, or, in the Trumps case, very, very, very hard, and their fellow citizens have rewarded their efforts by paying for their services and making them wealthy, they should be comfortable with it. They should welcome it and explain why they have money. It didn’t grow on trees on the roof of Trump Tower, and Donald wasn’t robbing banks. It was investment and work, which was rewarded. They don’t have to wear crowns of rubies or bathe in bathtubs made of diamonds in public, but candidates need to explain how the system works, and use it as an argument against the evils of communism and variations thereof.

Somehow Mitt Romney never understood that, or perhaps he was afraid others would not, not realizing that if public opinion ever turns against the rich, and when it does that, it will quickly turn against free market capitalism, and then we will have anarchy followed by tyranny.

You don’t have to like Donald Trump. But whatever you think of him, racist-sexist or selfless savior, maniac or messiah, Mr. Trump is doing something important for capitalism whether he means to or not. Under the free market, sometimes called capitalism, everyone shares in the national wealth, although unequally. Under communism or socialism, it is true that there is no income gap, because everyone equally shares the national poverty. Although some claim he’s a bit of a socialist himself, Trump is a walking embodiment of the fact that in a free market, men like himself can invest and create business which create jobs for thousands and services for millions. If someone is not comfortable with their wealth made from this system it might be seen as evidence they are uncomfortable with the system itself, and to be anti-free market is as un-American as burning the flag.

Andrew C. Abbott