Weekend at Trump, Hillary and Bernie's

Some thoughts on the events of the weekend....

• The Commie (Sanders) swore to one of his California audiences on Saturday that he plans to continue to "fight" (isn't it great how all liberal politicians "fight" all the time?  It's like they all think they could go eight rounds with Ali) "all the way through the convention".
  
  What this actually means is that he's getting ready to concede the nomination to Hillary Clinton if he loses California on Tuesday, and end his campaign.  If you remember back to the day before the Indiana GOP primary, Ted Cruz also swore to stay in the race "all the way to Cleveland" to an audience of supporters.  By 8:00 Central Time the next night, after a crushing loss to Donald Trump, his campaign was over.
  
  If California goes for Hillary, the Commie is toast.  Best bet of the week.

• Donald Trump has a legitimate concern about the impartiality of the judge in his Trump University case, but doesn't appear capable of appropriately expressing it.  Instead of focusing on the judge's "Mexican" heritage (he was born and raised in Indiana), Trump should be talking about Judge Gonzalo Curiel's membership in a radical organization called "La Raza Lawyers of San Diego", a race-based group that is so racist that its name - La Raza - literally translates to "The Race".
  
  Given Trump's support for a border wall and other strategies to secure the U.S. border with Mexico, he has every reason to be concerned about having this case heard by this specific judge.  Unfortunately, the judge's obviously biased conduct of the case only serves to reinforce that reality.
  
  Trump's unfortunate focus on the judge's "heritage" is entirely wrong-headed.  A focus on his associations and membership in a race-based organization like La Raza is entirely appropriate.

• Many of our fake "news" outlets this morning are focusing on the fact that The Most Corrupt Woman in America, in an interview with George Stephanopoulous yesterday, would not affirmatively state that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution confers a right to keep and bear arms to American citizens.  Instead, she would only talk about the "right" of the government to regulate firearms ownership.
  
  To me, this focus is kind of a big yawner. After all, all Hillary was doing was expressing the commonly-held belief by pretty much all of today's "progressives" that individual Americans don't have rights, but the government does.  That is the basic, fundamental, driving principle behind American progressivism today.  Tell us something we don't know already.
  
  My big question about that particular interview is why in the hell is ABC still allowing George Stephanopoulous, who served as senior advisor to Bill Clinton, has contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and is really nothing more than a lifelong Clinton toady, to interview Hillary Clinton under the pretense of objectivity? 
  
  Even more to the point, why does anyone still watch that crap?  I mean, am I the only one who understands that every question and answer in that "interview" has been vetted and rehearsed beforehand?  This is not "news", it is theatre.  No different than Broadway, though not  nearly as entertaining.

•  Matt Damon took some shots at Donald Trump during a commencement speech at MIT on Saturday. Some of the lines were pretty funny.  Good for him.
  
  My only question is, what is it in the makeup of most actors that compels them to start taking themselves seriously once they have achieved major fame?  We see this happen over and over and over again:  Actors who begin their careers focused on making great films or TV shows, perfecting their craft to the point at which they become fabulously wealthy and start winning awards, who then decide that winning those awards somehow makes them smart people who should then start dictating to the "little people" out in flyover country how they ought to behave.
  
  Rob Reiner, having won an Emmy for All in the Family, has been out there telling us all how to act for 40 years now.  Ted Dansen was great in Cheers, and then spent most of the '90s making all manner of environmental pronouncements that turned out to be false.  Susan Sarandon has been doing it for 25 years or so.  Barbara Streisand has been babbling non-stop for 30.  George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, the list can go on and on and on.
  
  What is it in their makeup that makes such people believe that, because they can act or sing or dance, that means that the "little people" should suddenly look up to them as authority figures?  Even more to the point:  What is is in the make up of so many "little people" that they possess so little self-esteem that they actually do listen and give these pompous Hollywood asses a platform from which to pontificate?
  
  Truly one of life's great mysteries.