Politics

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has become a target. In his blog Adams laments, "Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed."

Steve Benen, writing for the Rachel Maddow blog, boasts about deficit reduction in Barack Obama's presidency. Responding to Republican criticism that the deficit is "out of control", Benen asserts, "Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion."

But has it, really?

On Tuesday Donald Trump made the following remarks about his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

Clinton supporters immediately denounced Trump, alleging that he was inciting violence.

A Denver Post letter to the editor by Brian Marein outlines a way Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson could win the presidency without winning the popular vote. He only needs to win one state.

If no candidate wins an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. Thus, if Johnson were to win, say, Colorado while Trump and Clinton split all other electoral votes 50-50, the House would pick the winner.

Ruth Graham, writing for Slate, looks at the demise of the religious right and wonders about the prospects for a different religious and political alignment.

Scott Adams is a funny guy. His Dilbert comic strip has been skewering the irrationalities of the workplace for more than two decades. But lately Adams has taken time away from his busy schedule of drawing pictures to explain—apparently in all seriousness—why he, as a certified hypnotist, believes Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.

In the previous two posts, we've looked at David French's argument for a God-given right to self-defense. Taking the same approach as 19th-century supporters of slavery, French gathered a set of proof texts that appeared to support his case.

In the previous post I looked at some of David French's arguments for a biblical right to self defense. French has combed the Bible and marshalled a handful of isolated verses that he believes give him the right to use deadly force. When examined in context, his first three verses failed to make the case.

French next turns to the book of Esther. For the first time, French finds two verses in the same Bible book.

Journalist and blogger David French believes passionately that the constitutional "right to bear arms" is rooted in a more ancient God-given right. "It is quite clear," says French, "that God has not merely sanctioned the right of self defense but has explicitly approved even the use of deadly force to protect human life."