Category Archives: Politics

Editorial Endorsement: Paul Yang for Ramsey County Judge

I endorse P. Paul Yang for Seat 20, Ramsey County District Court.

As a lawyer, people occasionally ask me about the judicial races on the November ballot. This year in Ramsey County, there is one important judicial race on the ballot. Like most voters, I normally vote for the incumbents, unless there’s a compelling reason to do otherwise.

In this year’s election for Ramsey County District Court, I believe that there is a compelling reason to vote against one of the incumbents. Therefore, I endorse P. Paul Yang in his challenge to incumbent Judge G. Tony Atwal.

Mr. Yang graduated from my alma mater, Hamline University School of Law, in 2002. A Hmong-American, Mr. Yang came to the United States as a child refugee and was the first in his family to go to college. He is in private practice in St. Paul and also serves as a part-time public defender. Mr. Yang is qualified, and I have no doubt that he will serve honorably if elected.

The incumbent, G. Tony Atwal, was appointed to the bench by Governor Dayton in 2016. On January 1, 2018, Judge Atwal was arrested for Driving While Impaired. He subsequently pleaded guilty and was convicted. This was his second offense.

According to findings of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards:

Prior to his arrest, Judge Atwal stated to the officer: “So, I live right there. I’m Judge Atwal from Ramsey County.” At least three times Judge Atwal asked to be let go and to walk home. In fact, he was arrested near his residence.

That board concluded that Judge Atwal had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Rules 1.2 (promoting confidence in the judiciary) and 1.3 (avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office). Specifically, the board found that Judge Atwal “abused the prestige of judicial office by creating the perception that he was using his position in an attempt to get the police officer to release him instead of arrest him.”

On May 23, 2018, the Board publicly reprimanded Judge Atwal. The board’s order can be seen at this link.

With the seat being up for election within a few months, I believe the Board acted correctly by merely issuing a reprimand and leaving to the voters the ultimate decision of whether Judge Atwal should be removed. And I believe the voters should take that action.

I wish no ill will toward Judge Atwal, and I wish him the best in his legal career. As far as I know, he has served his official duties diligently. But I also believe that the Rule of Law demands that there should be no doubt that judges are acting for the public good, and not in their own self interest. In my opinion, Judge Atwal’s actions when he was stopped called this into question. Mr. Yang is in a stronger position to demonstrate the integrity of the judiciary, and he should be elected for that reason.

It takes a great deal of courage for a practicing attorney to place his name on the ballot to challenge a judge before whom he might appear. Mr. Yang (and Elliott Nickell, another attorney who was defeated in the primary) took that courageous action. I’ll be voting for Mr. Yang for Seat 20.

Incidentally, there are actually two Yangs on the judicial ballot. The other candidate, Adam Yang is running for the open seat, Seat 11, against Scott Michael Flaherty. Both of those candidates appear well qualified, and I am not making an endorsement of either.

When confronted with the ballot, please remember to vote for Paul Yang. If you forget the first names, remember that he is the only Yang who is running against an incumbent. Or, you really can’t go wrong if you simply vote for both of the candidates named Yang.

This page was prepared and paid for by attorney Richard Clem, who is solely responsible for its content. Not authorized or paid for by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Photo credit: PaulYangForJudge.com.

1958 Portable Phonograph

The young woman shown here on the cover of the September 1958 issue of Electronics Illustrated is listening wistfully to some music courtesy of the portable phonograph she constructed according to the plans contained in that issue.

She was able to put the project together in just a few hours, and it allowed her to listen to music wherever she pleased, thanks to the fact that the set ran entirely on batteries. Both the motor (three speeds–45, 33, and 16 RPM) and the amplifier were powered by four flashlight batteries, and the completed phonograph was no larger than a small overnight bag, light enough for a child to carry.

The circuit consisted of two CK722 transistors, as well as a 2N255 mounted on a heatsink, which provided enough power to drive the speaker. Volume was said to be adequate for dancing and mood music, although the article pointed out that it was not a high fidelity instrument.

While there’s no way of knowing for sure, it’s likely that she is being entertained by a former Vice President of the United States. Topping the charts that month was “It’s All In The Game” performed by Tommy Edwards, which you can listen to in the video below.

Charles Dawes. Wikipedia image.

The melody of that song, originally unimaginatively entitled “Melody in A Major,” was composed in 1911 by Charles G. Dawes, who went on to become Vice President under Calvin Coolidge and earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925. Under President Hoover, Dawes served as ambassador to the United Kingdom. The song has the distinction of being the only number one single to have been composed by a Vice President of the United States. The Wikipedia entry for the song incorrectly states that the song is the only one to have been composed by a Nobel laureate, but the Dawes biography points out that this distinction is now shared with Bob Dylan. Dawes shares with Sonny Bono the distinction of being the only members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives to be credited with a number one hit.

In addition to being a banker, composer, diplomat, soldier, and politician, Dawes was a rather prolific author, as can be seen at his Amazon author page. A 2016 edition of his Journal of the Great War is still available.

Ranked Voting Strategy

Wikipedia image.

As explained below, there are three things to remember about ranked voting:

Vote for as many candidates as you have choices, as long as some of them are less objectionable than others.
All other things being equal, vote for the less popular candidate before you vote for the more popular candidate.
Never vote for the same person more than once.

Both Minneapolis and St. Paul will be using “ranked voting” in the mayoral election this year. There is no primary election, and in St. Paul, there are 10 candidates running in the general election. You are allowed to vote for your top six choices. In other words, there are six different elections you can vote for. Minneapolis has similar numbers. You will vote for your first choice, and that is one election. Then, you will vote for your second choice, and that appears on the ballot as an entirely different race. This continues through your sixth choice. You can make any number of choices, between zero and six. Minneapolis has a similar number of candidates and choices.

As an election judge, I am allowed to explain the basic mechanics of voting, but I am limited in what I am allowed to explain. In particular, I am not allowed to explain to voters anything that might be perceived as “strategy” in using your six votes. So as a citizen, let me explain a bit about strategy.

A winner will generally not be selected unless that person has a majority (defined as 50% plus one vote). At first, the votes will be counted as usual. On election night, you will see the name of the candidate who won the most votes as first choice. If that person has a majority (50% plus one vote), then that candidate will be the winner. But it is extremely unlikely this will happen. Chances are, none of the candidates will receive more than 50%. Therefore, vote counting will continue on Thursday morning.

On Thursday morning, the second round will begin. One candidate (the one receiving the least votes) will be eliminated. If you voted for anyone else, then your vote will not change. Your first choice will remain your vote.

Election judges (which will include me) will then remove the ballots of the people who voted for the eliminated candidate. We will look at the second choice, but only on those ballots. Then, we will place those ballots in with the original ballots for that candidate.

We will then count the ballots a second time. If someone now has a majority, then that candidate will win. If no candidate has a majority (which is still extremely likely), then the counting will move to the thrid round. Again, one candidate will be eliminated. All of that candidate’s votes (which might have been the voter’s first or second choice) will be removed. We will then look at the next choice on those ballots (which might be the second choice or third choice), and add those ballots to the count for that candidate.

This process will continue, probably several times, until some candidate has a majority. It is likely that the winner will not be known until Saturday, after several rounds of counting have been done.

We can argue all day about whether this is a good system or a bad system. But that doesn’t matter. If you live in Minneapolis or St. Paul, this is the system you need to deal with. And if you want the maximum impact from your vote, then you need to think about strategy.

First of all, if you believe that some of the candidates are worse than other candidates, then you should take advantage of your ranked voting to make sure that the person you do not like is defeated. In other words, if there are evil candidates and lesser evil candidates, then it is in your best interest to vote for the lesser evils at some point in the voting.

If you vote for only one candidate, then there is a 9/10 chance that your candidate will be eliminated. Once your preferred candidate is eliminated, then only your other ranked choices will prevent the worst candidate from being elected.

In other words, if you learn on Saturday that candidate X, whom you hate, has been elected, and that even candidate Y would have been better, then it’s your fault if you failed to vote for candidate Y. Your failure to vote for candidate Y, even though you had the opportunity, meant that the even worse candidate, X, was elected.

Therefore, if, in your opinion, six candidates are better than the other four, then you should vote for all six of those candidates. If you fail to do so, then you are responsible for one of those four bad candidates winning. Please do not blame others if one of those four wins, because by not voting all of your choices, you are responsible. So at the very least, you need to look at all ten candidates and decide which four you want the least. Then, vote for the other six, in your order of preference, even if you have to hold your nose to vote for some of them.

If there is more than one candidate whom you prefer approximately the same amount, then there is another consideration. One candidate will be eliminated after the first round. If you vote for that candidate as your second choice, then your vote will not count.

This is important to remember, because there might be some candidate you really like, but you do not believe that candidate has a very good chance of winning. If that is the case, then you should vote for that candidate as one of your first choices, rather than as one of your last choices.

Let’s say, for example, that you like candidate A, but you don’t think he or she has a very good chance of winning. You like candidate B about as well, but you think they have a better chance of winning.

In this case, your best strategy is to vote for candidate A as your first choice, and candidate B as your second choice. TO see why, let’s look at how your one vote could make a difference.

Let’s say that in the first round, you vote for candidate A. Candidate B, who you also like, failed to get a majority by a single vote. If you had voted for B, then B would have won. Your vote cost that candidate the election–but only in the first round.

But no matter how many rounds the election goes, that candidate will eventually win, because you voted for them. Eventually, your other candidates will be eliminated. And eventually, your one vote will be cast in favor of candidate B. Since candidate B lost the first round by only one vote–your vote, it turns out–it is impossible for any other candidate to win. Since your guy is only one vote short of a majority, it is impossible for any other candidate to get 50% plus one vote. The best they can possibly get is 50% minus one vote, which is not enough to win the election.

However, if you voted for B because you thought B was more likely to win, then this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If A does not get enough votes in the first round, then A will be eliminated. Your vote for A as second choice will not count, because A has already been eliminated.

Therefore, all other things being equal, it is to your benefit to vote for the less popular candidates as your first choices. If they are truly unpopular, then they will be eliminated, but you will still get to vote for the more popular candidate in the next round. And even though you ranked them lower, you will still cast the deciding vote for them.

In summary, if you want to be a responsible voter, then you should vote for six candidates, even if your sixth choice is deeply flawed, as long as choices 7 through 10 are more flawed. If a candidate you do not want wins the election, then you have no valid reason to complain, because you could have voted against that person but chose not to do so.

And if you want to vote in the most strategically beneficial way, then you should vote for less popular candidates as a higher rank than more popular candidates.

Finally, it should be noted that there is absolutely no benefit to voting for the same candidate as more than one choice. For example, assume you vote for C as both your first choice and your second choice. As long as C is still in the running, then your vote will be counted for C, no matter how many rounds the counting goes. Nobody will ever look at who your second choice was.

But if C is eliminated at some point, then the judges will look at your second choice. If C is your second choice, then this vote will not count, because C has already been eliminated. Therefore, there is no rational reason for voting for the same candidate more than once. Your second vote will not help them, and you have deprived yourself of the opportunity to vote for another candidate.

In summary, here is how you should rationally cast your ballot:

Vote for as many candidates as you have choices, as long as some of them are less objectionalbe than others.
All other things being equal, vote for the less popular candidate before you vote for the more popular candidate.
Never vote for the same person more than once.

All of the foregoing advice is non-partisan, and is equally applicable whether you are on the left or right. To view my personal endorsements in the St. Paul election, please see my earlier post.

This post was prepared and paid for by Richard P. Clem, who is solely responsible for its content, and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

St. Paul Mayoral Endorsements

Vision of Peace statue, St. Paul City Hall. Wikipedia photo.

This year’s St. Paul mayoral race will once again feature ranked voting. There is no primary election–everyone who filed to run for office will be on the November general election ballot. Since there are ten candidates, it’s unlikely that any will get a majority on the first round. To make sure that your vote counts, you are allowed to vote for up to six candidates, and rank those candidates according to your preference.

For the official explanation of ranked voting, see the Ramsey County Elections website.

In the first round of counting, if one candidate gets a majority, then the race is over, and that candidate is the winner. This is the same as any other election. But that’s unlikely to happen. So the race will move to the second round. One candidate will be eliminated, and that candidate’s ballots will be physically removed from the count.

For the second round, the judges will take a look at the second choice of the removed ballots, and those ballots will be awarded to the voter’s second choice candidate.

Ballots are counted again, and another candidate is eliminated. This process continues until some candidate has a majority.

The key rules to remember are:

If you really hate some candidate, then you should not vote for them at all. Even if you vote for them in last place, that is potentially a vote for them.
Your second place vote will be considered only if your first choice has been eliminated from the race. Therefore, you should not vote for the same candidate twice. Your ballot will still be counted in the first round, but you do your candidate absolutely no good by voting more than once. The election judges will only look at the second choice if your first choice is already eliminated. And if you’re voting for someone who is already eliminated, the vote won’t count.
Ranked voting gives you the opportunity to vote for someone you don’t think will win, without the proverbial risk of “throwing away your vote.” If your guy loses, then your second choice will still get your vote. And maybe your guy won’t lose. So there is a strong incentive to vote for the person you really want, even if you don’t believe that they will win. You’ll still get a chance to vote for your second choice.

Therefore, you are faced with coming up with a list of six candidates that you can live with, and you must rank them in order of preference. Since there are so many names, you might want to make a written list and bring it to the polling place. As long as you take your list home with you when you are done, this is perfectly acceptable.

And here is our list. We endorse the following candidates for mayor in the following order. We list only six, because that’s the maximum number we can vote for. The six on our list are better than the other four, in our opinion.

As explained below, here are our endorsements, in order:

You can find the list of all candidates at the Secretary of State website.

1. Chris Holbrook

ChrisHolbrook.org image.

Our first choice is state Libertarian party chair Chris Holbrook. Did you vote for Gary Johnson for president in 2016? We endorsed him, and I voted for him. I talked to a lot of people who wanted to vote for him but didn’t, because they didn’t want to “waste their vote” by voting for someone they thought would lose.

I never quite understood this. I thought the whole point of an election was to decide who was going to win, and you don’t know who wins until after people vote. So not voting for someone just because they’re going to lose doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you know to a certainty that your guy is going to lose, then you ought to just stay home. And if the other guy is going to win anyway, then you also may as well just stay home. But some people think this way, and that is their right.

But thanks to ranked voting, you no longer have to worry if your guy is going to lose. If he does lose, then your vote still gets counted, because as soon as your guy is out of the running, then they immediately count your second choice. And maybe your guy won’t lose!

So if you toyed with the idea of voting for Gary Johnson, here’s your chance. Johnson even endorsed Holbrook in 2014 when Holbrook ran for governor. Holbrook isn’t spending any money on the campaign. He’s not putting up signs. He’s not knocking on doors. But it’s about time that we elect a libertarian.

2. Tim Holden

Of the remaining candidates, we believe that Tim Holden best supports our fiscally conservative and free-market principles. Over the past decades, politicians have been quick to jump on board with programs that amount to welfare for millionaires. Whether it’s trains or stadiums, we believe that Holden is the least likely of the remaining candidates to advocate raiding the public treasury to finance some private business venture.

3. Trahern Crews

Facebook image.

Our third choice is Trahern Crews. We probably differ with him politically on a great many issues, such as his support of the $15 minimum wage. But it does appear that Crews has a true heart for the poor, rather than just giving the poor lip service, which seems to be the norm these days. He opposed property tax exemptions for a private stadium, and he’s expressed skepticism toward organized trash collection, saying that he favors the free market.

We have no doubt that he will serve honorably if elected, and his proven reputation as a peacemaker in the community indicates that he will be respectful of opposing viewpoints.

4. Barnabas Joshua Yshua

MSPVotes Photo

We still have three slots we need to fill in order to complete our ballot. We don’t like many of the other candidates, but we conclude that perhaps Barnabas Joshua Yshua will rise to the occasion if St. Paul voters decide that he should be their mayor. Mr. Yshua is a resident of St. Paul’s Union Gospel Mission. He’s never held public office.

But he’s never voted in favor of running taxpayer funded trains down the middle of the street. He’s never voted in favor of using tax dollars to build a stadium for billionaire owners or millionaire players. And we hope he never will. He says that he has no political agenda other than helping others. We have no reason do doubt him, and without hesitation, he is our fourth choice for mayor.

5. Sharon Anderson

Perennial Candidate Sharon Anderson. MSPVotes photo.

We still have two more slots to fill. The name Sharon Anderson has been on virtually every election ballot in Minnesota since the 1970’s. One year, she won the primary and became the Republican candidate for attorney general, presumably because her name was the same as a popular television personality. In press reports, Ms. Anderson’s name is almost always prefaced with the phrase “perennial candidate.” If you look up “perennial candidate” in the dictionary, you will probably see her picture. I’ve never voted for her before in my life, despite her name appearing on countless ballots. But there’s a first time for everything, and this year I’ll vote for her, because she is better than the other five candidates. She is my fifth choice to serve as mayor of St. Paul. I have no reason to believe that she will not serve honorably if elected, although I’m sure her tenure in office will be colorful.

6. Dai Thao

MSPVotes photo.

By the time we get to our sixth choice, we have to start dealing with the DFL, and we recognize that the DFL has made a mess of Minnesota politics. So we need to start thinking about the least worst of the remaining candidates. After giving the matter serious consideration, we conclude that Dai Thao is the least worst, and he is our sixth choice for mayor of St. Paul. He’s been accused of bribery, but the alleged conduct doesn’t strike us as being much worse than is typical of DFL politicians. Thao’s problem in that case seems to be that he was a bit indelicate in how he expressed the kind of proposition that many politicians engage in on a regular basis. At the very least, as a Hmong American, Thao does bring some needed diversity to city hall. In short, he’s better than the other four candidates. So through the magic of ranked voting, we have an opportunity to vote against those other four. Thao is our sixth choice for mayor.

This page was prepared and paid for by Richard P. Clem, and is not approved by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Justice William O. Douglas, 1947

Shown here 70 years ago at the soda fountain of a drug store near the U.S. Supreme Court is Associate Justice William O. Douglas.

The 17 year old soda jerk serving him is his daughter, Mildred Douglas, and the picture appeared in the February 24, 1947, issue of Life magazine. According to the magazine, she was somewhat abashed by the publicity, and announced that she took the job for the money, earning 65 cents per hour. Her younger brother, Bill, 14, had a paper route.

Douglas was four times married and three times divorced. He divorced Mildred’s mother, also named Mildred, in 1953. The children were subsequently estranged from their father, and the younger Mildred was later quoted as saying that the Justice “never talked to us like we were people” that “when he got angry at us, which was often over the slightest things, he would simply not speak to us for days on end,” and that she “didn’t like him very much because of the way he treated my mother.”

When the elder Mildred died, the Justice was not immediately informed, since neither sibling felt the desire to inform him.

Pres. Trump’s Mad Scientist Uncle

Prof. John G. Trump. Wikiepdia photo.

One of our loyal readers posted a link to a conspiracy buff website pointing out a connection between President Donald Trump and, of all people, Nikola Tesla. Since most internet mentions of Nikola Tesla turn out to be unfounded (or at least unprovable) conspiracy theories, I approached with a bit of skepticism.

I express no opinion as to the conspiracy in question (that the Trump family is involved in a long standing conspiracy to suppress certain Tesla inventions). But I was shocked to learn that there was indeed a connection! President Trump’s uncle, John G. Trump, was a noted professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT, and appears to have spent his career working on the same kinds of high-voltage mad scientist devices that Tesla was famous for. At the time of Tesla’s death in 1943, the U.S. Government had to go through all of Tesla’s possessions and papers, in order to see whether there was anything worthwhile to the war effort. Among those they called in to sift through them was none other than Professor Trump.

After his father’s death, John Trump initially went into the real estate business with his brother, Fred Trump, the father of the future president. Fixing up old houses wasn’t to his liking, so he instead pursued a degree in electrical engineering. He he received his bachelor’s degree from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1929. He followed up with a master’s degree in Physics from Columbia, and in 1933 he received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT). He was on the MIT faculty from 1936 until his retirement in 1973.

Before the war, much of Prof. Trump’s work focused on hospital X-ray machines. Together with Robert J. Van de Graaff (of Van de Graaff generator fame), he developed one of the first million-volt X-ray generators.

As might be expected of the kind of scientist who played around with a million volts, Professor Trump made the pages of Popular Science on three occasions.

For example, the April 1937 issue discusses the X-ray machine shown here. It was designed by Prof. Trump along with Dr. Richard Dresser. It employs a Van de Graaff generator to produce the required million volts.

And in keeping with his apparent status as a mad scientist, Prof. Trump needed a subject on which he could perform his experiments. The lucky subject is described in the magazine’s July 1949 issue. In the photo below, Professor Trump (left, operating the controls) is shown conducting experiments on “Mr. Cruikshank” (shown resting comfortably on the machine), a carefully constructed mannequin.

Professor Trump preparing to send three million volts through Mr. Cruikshank.

Unlike human subjects, Mr. Cruikshank could have film inserted directly in his body to examine the effects of powerful X-rays. Prof. Trump had tested him with three million volts, and he was on the way to Massachussets General Hospital for comparison with the effects of a more modest 250,000 volt machine.

Finally, the magazine’s May 1947 issue mentions Prof. Trump’s work with the Van de Graaff generator as a possible method to directly and conveniently harvest nuclear energy.

References

Dutch Reagan, WHO 1936

Eighty years ago today, the November 14, 1936 issue of Radio Guide carried a profile of the man who would, 44 years later, be elected President of the United States, Dutch Reagan.

As recounted by the magazine, Ronald Reagan walked into WOC radio in Davenport, Iowa, in 1932, looking for a job. The station was at the time synchronized with WHO Des Moines. The program director, Peter MacArthur, asked if he knew anything about football. When Reagan answered in the affirmative, MacArthur told him to stand by a microphone and imagine that he was at a game. The program director listened amazed for fifteen minutes before telling Reagan, “you’re broadcasting the Iowa-Minnesota game!”

When WOC and WHO split in 1932, Reagan went with WHO, where he broadcast the Chicago games by telegraphic report.

The article describes the future president:

He is over six feet tall with the pro- verbial Greek -god physique: broad – shouldered, slim-waisted and a face that would make Venus look twice before running to her man Zeus! And then he can talk, too. Dutch has a smooth -running “gift o’ gab” which never seems to falter, never is at loss for the right word. In short, he has quick wit and a nimble vocabulary, and large, too.

It noted that during his days at Eureka College, where he lettered in several sports, he never allowed anyone to call him Ronald, even though it was his name. The magazine also seemed to think that the young announcer had a future:

But there are new things beckoning. One is a career with the networks.
Like any ambitious announcer, Dutch, who never uses quotation marks about his name, has high hopes toward becoming the Husing or the McNamee of the airwaves, 1937 style. Watch him; he’s stream-lined. He might do it.

Editorial Endorsement: Gary Johnson for President

Today, we interrupt our normal programming and announce our endorsement for President of the United States.

I am a lifelong Republican, and have voted for every Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1980. In some cases, I cast my vote enthusiastically. In other cases, I only reluctantly voted for the nominee. But in each case, I believed that the nominee more or less reflected the principles of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. I am also a card-carrying Republican, both as a precinct officer and delegate to the Minnesota state Republican convention (although the party would certainly be within its rights to remove me for publishing this endorsement.)

For the first time in 36 years, I will be voting for someone other than a Republican for the nation’s highest office. This year, I will be voting for the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson. It is with a certain amount of sadness, but also with hopefulness, that I publicly endorse him.

Obviously, this amounts to a vote against Trump, and I want to explain why I am voting against him. It is not because I subscribe to the conventional wisdom and believe that Trump is Another Hitler, because I don’t think he is. I might be wrong, but it seems to me equally likely that Hillary Clinton would actually turn out to be the Another Hitler. I don’t think she is either, but it’s just about as likely.

The real reason I’m voting against Donald Trump is because he fails to embody the principles for which the Republican Party has stood for over 150 years. First and foremost, the Republican Party is the party of Liberty–and that includes both personal and civil liberties as well as economic liberty. A free people best govern themselves when personal decisions are left to the individual, with an absolute minimum of government coercion. That’s what Republicans believe, and it’s what I’ve always believed.

In the economic realm, this means that every person should be able to succeed or fail on his or her own merits. And as a conservative, I believe that the Free Market is in the least worst way of determining who should succeed and who should fail. If there’s no market for my product or service, then the public is best served if I fail and abandon that product or service in favor of another. My resources and my talents are wasted if I devote them to something the public neither wants nor needs. And the best way to deliver that message to me is to have consumers stop patronizing me.

If another casino is what we need, then the free market should bear that out for someone who wants to take the risk to open one. But the full coercive power of government shouldn’t be called upon to decide that a casino is the highest and best use for private property.

I have no doubt that Donald Trump was a successful businessman. But he did not become a success by means of the free market. For the most part, he became successful because of what are euphemistically called “public-private partnerships,” or what we used to call Mercantilism. (Or what we could call Fascism, as the word was originally defined.) He was successful because the full coercive power of the state sided with him. Perhaps another real estate developer would have been more successful, but we will never know that. The other real estate investor didn’t get the imprimatur of the regulators.

Hillary Clinton is no better. The only difference is that she sat on the other side of the table in many a “public-private partnership.” Her attitude is best exemplified in a 1993 quote in which she said, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.” This was in reference to whether health-care mandates would drive small businesses out of business. It didn’t matter to her, because she dismissed those businesses as “undercapitalized.” But they are undercapitalized only because they are not established players in a given industry. I used to believe the Democrats when they said that they cared for the little person in the fight against big business. But I started to notice that the largest established players in any given industry tend to favor greater government regulation. This is because the established players can bear the costs of overregulation, unlike their “undercapitalized” competitors and startups. It’s merely another way in which the government is able to pick winners and losers. The established competitor is favored by regulation, and innovative newcomers are locked out of the market.

There’s only one logical choice for President, and that is someone who exemplifies those principles that the Republican Party once stood for, and that choice is Gary Johnson. He’s a fiscal conservative, but more importantly, be believes in both personal liberty and economic liberty. He was a successful businessman, not because he received a favored position in a “public-private partnership,” but because he provided goods and services that the public wanted.

I don’t agree with Gary Johnson on every issue. Fortunately, however, he is not running to be the absolute dictator; he is merely running for President of the United States. He cannot act unilaterally on most issues. And critically, he seems to understand the Constitutional limitations of his office and would not act unilaterally.

I won’t catalog every issue on which I disagree, but I will mention the most troubling. Gary Johnson is apparently pro-choice. I am pro-life, and I believe that the state has a legitimate duty to protect innocent human life. To the extent that President Johnson acts in accordance with his stated principles, I will oppose him.

But I’m also aware that the President of the United States does not perform abortions, nor does he order that they be performed. He has no power to permit or outlaw abortion. Donald Trump claims to be pro-life (although he declared himself to be staunchly pro-choice in the past). But whether or not the president is pro-life has little effect on whether innocent lives will be slaughtered. The nation’s policy on abortion should be, in my opinion, properly vested in the state legislatures, who have legislated criminal codes since before the beginning of the Republic. The policy is currently vested (improperly, in my opinion), in the judiciary. But it’s not currently vested in the federal executive branch, nor should it be. So in a sense, whether or not Gary Johnson is pro-life is irrelevant. More importantly, as a proponent of limited government, Johnson himself should see it as irrelevant to his office.

Donald Trump’s sole redeeming quality is his apparent willingness to appoint conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, one of the names that is allegedly on his short list is that of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras. As a committed federalist, Stras, or someone like him, would be an excellent choice for the nation’s high court. Again, Trump’s pledge to nominate someone like Stras is the candidate’s sole redeeming quality.

But frankly, I don’t trust Donald Trump enough to vote for him based upon one single pledge. And given Gary Johnson’s apparent willingness to embrace the U.S. Constitution, I do trust him to appoint constitutionalist judges, even if he has not yet named names.

Roe v. Wade won’t be overruled by the executive branch, no matter how zealously pro-life the president happens to be. And it certainly won’t be overruled just because the candidate says that he’s pro-life, despite a long history of saying that he’s pro-choice. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is a constitutional aberration that ought to be overruled. I believe that a constitutionalist judge would agree if the issue were squarely presented. And I believe that Gary Johnson is the most likely presidential candidate to appoint constitutionalist judges.

In short, Gary Johnson is not a perfect candidate. But he is the closest to a perfect candidate that I’ve seen in the past 20 years. More than any other candidate in the race, he best exemplifies the values of the Republican Party, whether or not he bears that label.

And no, I don’t believe that I am “wasting” my vote by voting for Gary Johnson. I have never voted for a candidate merely because I though he or she was going to win. In fact, as a Republican in a staunchly Democratic state, I rarely vote for the winning candidate. For example, I don’t believe that I have ever voted for a candidate for the state legislature who actually won. In every single legislative race since 1980, I have voted for the loser every single time. For 18 straight elections, I have consistently voted for the losing candidate. I’ve volunteered for losing candidates, knowing full well that they were going to lose. I’ve even served as the campaign treasurer for a losing candidate, knowing full well that she was going to lose. But I never considered my vote wasted. The purpose of the whole exercise is to determine who the majority supports. And for that process to work, the people voting for the minority candidate must see their candidate lose.

This year, it’s quite likelty that I’ll be voting for the losing candidate for President. But that’s nothing new for me. Even if I do vote for the loser, I won’t consider my vote wasted.

However, I am not convinced that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next President. I’m not the only person who believes that there should be another choice. I’ve seen as many Gary Johnson signs as I have seen signs for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I’ve seen more support for Gary Johnson on social media than I’ve seen for either of the other candidates. If all of those people vote for Gary Johnson, then he might win. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy to vote against him merely because he will lose.

It seems unlikely that Gary Johnson will be the winner as of election night. But it seems quite plausible to me that he will carry enough states to deprive either of the other candidates a majority in the Electoral College. If that happens, then our Constitution calls for the President to be selected by the House of Representatives, voting by State. In that case, the House will be called upon to select the President from among the top three in the Electoral College. In that scenario, it seems likely that Johnson would be elected, as the only palatable compromise candidate. No Democrat is going to vote for Donald Trump, and very few Republicans are going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Johnson is probably the only candidate who can win. Or to put it another way, members of the House would be wasting their vote by casting it for either Trump or Clinton.

Currently, Gary Johnson has more endorsements by major newspapers than Donald Trump. Most recently, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Johnson. For whatever its worth, OneTubeRadio.com now joins them in endorsing Gary Johnson for President.

Tomorrow, we return to our normally scheduled programming, consisting of pictures of old radios.

This page was prepared and paid for by Richard P. Clem. This page is not endorsed by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Minnesota attorney Richard P. Clem is solely responsible for the content of this page.

Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon

Endorsements: Craig Foss for Minnesota Supreme Court, Ryan for Congress, in the August 9 Primary

I’m sure most OneTubeRadio.com readers have been eagerly waiting for my endorsement for the contested Minnesota Supreme Court seat, so here it is.

There are three candidates running in the primary election. Voters are asked to vote for one candidate. One will be eliminated from the race, and the remaining two candidates will appear on the November ballot. This is the only statewide primary election.

The incumbent is Justice Natalie Hudson, who was appointed to the bench in 2015 by Governor Dayton. Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, she served from 2002-2015 on the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and before that as an Asistant Attorney General. She began her legal career in 1982 as a staff attorney for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services. I will probably be voting for Justice Hudson in the November general election. You can read her response to questions by the Minnesota State Bar Association at this link.

Justice Hudson faces two challengers, Craig Foss and Michelle MacDonald.

Mr. Foss unashamedly states that he wants to become an appellate judge because “the demand for legally blind attorneys is not high. So I decided to see if I could get elected to a job.” He is a duly licensed attorney in the State of Minnesota, and has been since 1995. He therefore meets the minimum legal and constitutional requirements for the position he seeks.

Ms. MacDonald is also a duly licensed attorney and has been since 1987. Therefore, she also meets the minimum legal and constitutional requirements to appear on the ballot. Ms. MacDonald also ran for Supreme Court in 2014 and sought, and obtained, the Republican endorsement. I was present at the 2014 state Republican convention when she was nominated, without discussion, after the now dissolved judicial elections committee recommended her nomination. (For the record, I did not vote for her during the otherwise unanimous voice vote.) Unfortunately, the committee recommended her without disclosing that she was then facing criminal charges. She was ultimately found guilty of some (but not all) of those charges. When her criminal charges came to light, the party backpedaled its support and refused to offer her a spot at the Minnesota State Fair. Ms. MacDonald showed up anyway and created a scene.

In 2016, she once again sought the Republican endorsement. This time, with her record known to all of the convention delegates, the party wisely decided not to endorse. In fact, it went a step further and disbanded the judicial nomination committee. I voted with the majority on both of those votes.

For these reasons, I recommend voting against Ms. MacDonald in the upcoming primary. It is very likely that Justice Hudson, because of her incumbent status, will be one of the two top votegetters in the August 9 primary. Therefore, to ensure that Ms. MacDonald does not appear on the November ballot, I will be voting for Craig Foss. There will be two candidates in the November general election. In my opinion, Ms. MacDonald does not have the required judicial temperament to serve on the state’s high court. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Foss would not serve fairly and impartially. Indeed, his disability would probably bring an unrepresented point of view to the high court. I doubt if I’ll vote for him in November, but if he’s elected, I have every reason to believe that he will take his position seriously and will serve with distinction. He would not be an embarrassment to the state or to the legal profession.

Therefore, I endorse Craig Foss for Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in the August 9 primary election.

I also endorse Greg Ryan in the Republican primary for U.S. Congress in the 4th District (St. Paul area).

Attorney Richard P. Clem is solely responsible for the content of this page. This page is prepared and paid for by Richard P. Clem, and is not paid for by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Flag Day 1916

Washington Times, June 14, 1916.

The flag of the United States was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1777, and Flag Day had been celebrated in many places on June 14. But it was a hundred years ago today when it began as a national observance in a big way. In preparation for leading the United States into the European war, President Wilson officially proclaimed June 14, 1916 as Flag Day. The event was marked by a massive parade led by the President, shown here. Billed as a “Preparedness Parade,” Wilson, wearing a straw hat, led the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, where he sat in review. According to the Washington Times, “with shoulders thrown back and head erect, President Wilson, carrying a large silken flag, marched on foot today at the head of Washington’s Preparedness Parade.”

At the White House, a reviewing stand, decked in patriotic colors, had been set up, and the President and his party reviewed the parade as the 60,000 participants passed.

The two in the picture in top hats were the President’s Secret Service detail.

Washington Times, June 12, 1916.

Not surprisingly, Amateur Radio Operators were among those taking part in the Preparedness Parade. As shown here in the order of the parade from the previous day’s Washington Herald, they marched just ahead of the Banks and Trust Companies.

Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon