Trump’s Racism

Since the House Censure yesterday does not include the text of their concern, it must be assumed that this is it:

In America, if you hate our Country, you are free to leave. The simple fact of the matter is, the four Congresswomen think that America is wicked in its origins, they think that America is even more wicked now, that we are all racist and evil. They’re entitled to their opinion, they’re Americans. Now I’m entitled to my opinion, & I just think they’re left wing cranks.

There is also a quote from Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.  Trump then addresses what he is most angry about: He wants the bitter “four horsemen” to “apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said.’’

Again, let’s be clear, there is not one quote of President Trump’s actual text or verbiage besides individual words (“hate”, “go back” and “invaders”) yet the resolution contains the following three “charges of racism,” and states:

“That the House of Representatives —

“(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;

“(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and

“(3) condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should “go back” to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as “invaders,” and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said and demonstrated his belief that “immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations.”  He consistently supports “keeping America open to all who lawfully seek refuge and asylum.”  Only Democrats reject the “lawfully” part. And yes, he has called illegal aliens who are thugs, gang members, racists, drug traffickers and murders “invaders.”  They are.

Only the Press and members of the Democrat Party has made racist comments, such as NPR saying Trump criticizes, “a group of Democratic lawmakers, all women of color, [who] should ‘go back’ to countries of their ancestry and that they ‘hate’ America.”  Trump never mentions “women of color” or “countries of ancestry.”  And, of course, Nancy Pelosi and other wack jobs call Mr. Trump “a racist” for affirming the three points and attempting to secure them.  Against their wishes.

Ilhan Omar, a Progressive Socialist, is from Mogadishu.  She was born there. The other three are American born.  Rahida Tlaib, a Progressive Socialist, was born  to Palestinian immigrants in Dearborn, Michigan.  Occasio-Cortez, a Progressive Socialist, is an American with a Puerto Rican mother in the Bronx.  Ayana Pressley, a Progressive Socialist, was raised on Chicago’s Northside. More than their “birth origins,” all four Congressional freshmen are Progressive Socialists — supporting and working for State control of all financial, educational, and production interests.  This is foreign to the established American government and Constitution, and representative of the failed policies, corruption, and squalor of Communist principles that Trump loathes.

Mr. Trump clarifies his contempt very specifically by singling out those who accuse America of being built on a “wicked foundation,” and “think that America is even more wicked now, that we are all racist and evil.” (We can assume that Pelosi called him a racist for pointing out that she and the DNC think he’s a racist.)

Wack jobs? Is that racist? Consider Cortez’s bold statement that, “the United States is running concentration camps on our southern border,” to name just one of a host of her wack job comments. Were they “immigrant communities” when Obama’s administration used them?

Or, consider Tlaib’s wack job statement: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  (She later apologized for the “use of the word ‘hypnotize’ and the ugly sentiment it holds.”)

Pressley may win the “wack job” award for her comment on climate change: “we have to talk about climate change in a way that we can also talk about mass incarceration – in a way that allows us to see the relationships between multiple struggles happening together. All of these things that are driving climate change are interconnected. That’s why we have to look through a lens of intersectionality and equity, or it won’t matter what we do.”

Quick to condemn Trump for anything he never said or implied, the House remains notably silent about the Progressive Socialists. They overwhelmingly resolved to avoid their own members’ racism, but never mentioned Tlaib and Omar for their anti-Semitism that instigated the resolution.

It remains a notable curiosity that the House Censure of the President does not include his statements.  It relies entirely on the spin of the Press that injects racism (including Naziism) into anything a Republican or Trump says. As a man they hate, he has no right to his opinion.

Jefferson On the 14th Abusement

Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about what the courts have done to the 14th Amendment, even though it was not written for a generation after his death.

As mentioned before in this series on the abuse of the 14th Amendment, our nation was not born in a vacuum, and the complete fall of East India Trading Co. was fresh on the minds of our free people.

“I hope we shall crush . . .  in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” – Thomas Jefferson, in the early years of the 19th Century.

Asked to speak for the grand 50th Anniversary celebration of the United States, Jefferson (now old and feeble) sent a brief message instead, acknowledging the wonder of 50 years, and July 4th being “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

This address to the people, and the warning to corporations, was abandoned by our courts.  Not all at once, of course, but since the huge (and actually nonexistent) loophole of the 14th Amendment, banks and big business are the “more equal” pigs of George Orwell’s book, 1984.

It happens when corporations ride and Congressional bureaucrats sell saddles.  Even then, Jefferson pushed to have corporations die within a reasonable lifetime.  The horror now is an eternal ruling class named Apple, JP Morgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway, and Microsoft.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to resolve the financial debts of the Civil War and give the federal government power in respect to the rights of newly freed slaves.  Original intent, as originally conceived, is the normal and substantial opinion that “we meant what we said and wrote!”

The outrage against judicial corruption of our Constitution was already was clearly felt by Jefferson by 1819, when he wrote, “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and form into any shape they please.”

We can learn a lot from our Founders’ Wisdom regarding their specific meaning, what they intended for “Constitutional Law,” and the perverse Frankensteinian notion of a “living document.”  Maybe next.  I’m already quite sickened by the contempt of our courts.

 

Directly from God

The next article, Copyrights and Patents, requires this material as background, and it is too significant not to repeat or clarify over and over again.

Samuel Rutherford’s Conclusion: “All civil power is directly from God in its root: God made man a social creature, inclined to be governed by man.  Therefore, God must certainly have put this power in man’s nature.”  Because God and nature intend goodness and peace for mankind, then “God and nature must have given us a power to accomplish this end — and this must be a power of governing ourselves.” 

It must be a power derived from ourselves, by ourselves, and for ourselves together, strictly by the guidance of our Creator and Sustainer.  Today, it is (poorly) reflected in the popular saying, “You aren’t the boss of me.”  Although that cartoon caption contains none of the wisdom, and is generally uttered in a morally questionable context, it is ethically true for self-governed individuals.

Rutherford’s truly noble quote, on which our society was built, “All men are created equal,” comes from this opening conclusion in Lex Rex.  Not only equal in value and quality, but equal in our capacities to live and pursue the functions of free society, including government.  We used to say, “A man’s home is his castle.” We were our own king in our own domain.

William Pitt, Lord of Chatham, gave an impassioned speech in the House of Commons in England.  “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” Yet that was not enough for our new nation.

That uniquely American ideal that “any little boy or girl can grow up to be President,” has been one of our nation’s greatest achievements, once reserved for the world’s de facto high classes, or for ruthless or charismatic revolutionaries.

Rutherford’s text expresses the idea that any idiot can govern, but that is certainly not what “equality” means, nor is it ideal.  What mattered most to Rutherford (and later, Locke) was that every person could (and should) control himself, every citizen could (and must) effect his part in society, and ultimately that we could (and would be expected to) mutually conduct our affairs without external compulsion or significant restraint.

We know what to do and what not to do, in other words. That is, by definition, “civil society.” The primary role of “government,” (controlling, limiting or restricting) is one of restraining, citing, or ultimately punishing those whose bad behavior afflicted others.

The greatest importance goes to the very idea that we must be and will be governed — either by and for ourselves, or by and for somebody else.  Once we chose which course to take, our next decisions were easier to make.

This should help with the next article, Copyrights and Patents.

 

New NAFTA, What Else

Clinton agreed to cooperate fully with the investigation. – ABC New, 2016
Kavanaugh said he would “cooperate” with the investigation. – ABC News, 2018

Did you know that three Republican Senators had their personal information “Doxxed” (released illegally) to the public during the Senate hearings on Judge Kavanaugh?  It was traced to the private server of the House of Representatives, but you didn’t read it on mainstream news.  It was only reported by The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, Fox News, Washington Post, Free Beacon, Huffington Post, etc.  So far, it appears to lead to Maxine Waters office.  No news on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, etc.

Did you know that the third Kavanaugh accuser, Julie Swetnick, was charged in court with falsely accusing a former coworker of sexual misconduct?  She raised hell against a former coworker when she was fired, claiming to be groped.  When it was discovered utterly impossible and unsupported, the company sued her on the employee’s behalf.  You heard nothing if you stick with mainstream news.

It would be nice if our journalists told the truth now and then, even when they didn’t have to.  Sometimes, though, as with news of the enormously successful new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, they have to suck it up and post it.  Even if it is one of the most significant promises Mr. Trump made in Making America Great Again, they still had to report it this morning.  Even though he did it with a screaming Liberal.  They will now try real hard turn it into something bad, like the soaring economy, the employment story, the minority success stories, the small business surge, solid deregulation, the tax cuts, the improving China deal, the new and favorable trend in North Korea, etc.

You might even begin to think they hate Trump because he succeeds and does good things for America.

Fertilizing American Roots

Several of the articles that need to be written need a lot of background.  One of our biggest issues today stems from really unfortunate ignorance of the Founding Principles.  America’s earliest foray into independence, autonomy, and its effort at unity failed.  Under The Articles of Federation, we stumbled.

Our representatives came together in Philadelphia armed with an earnest set of requirements, demands, knowledge and experience.  The Constitution did not grow out of infertile ground.  Although largely theoretical, the Grand Design grew from a wealth of history and exceptional analysis, brilliant political philosophy, and recent discoveries mixed with the still warm memories of life under a tyrannical monarchy.  At the same time, the world’s foreign powers all dropped sail just beyond our banks, waiting for the 13 fledgling colonies to fail.

The many considerations included stinging experience, but also Biblical history, the past culture of the Anglo-Saxons, the often ugly and violent history of Europe, and volumes of considered philosophy from Rutherford, Locke, and the Montesquieu.

Montesquieu might be seen as the source of our particular type of governments.  By his warning, our Founders saw the difficulty in establishing a Republic without it becoming a Monarchy, or a Monarchy without it becoming a Despotism.  Montesquieu saw the perils of a Republic if it grew.  Our several states could handle republican government, and even our growing federation could handle a republic as long as it had the limited powers granted to it by a strict Constitution.  Adding States added jealous republics that would resist the swing to monarchy, and prevent the easy fall into despotic rule.

Many separate and harmful events stripped us of the resistance: most notably, the loss of State control enjoyed by each State appointing its Senate, when Tammany forced New York to lose control of its own legislature; and the period of concessions from Andrew Jackson to the Civil War.  It never occurred to the ratifying voters the trouble that would come from the new Amendments.  Although intended exclusively to prevent savaging the newly freed Negroes by the bitter Southern Democrats, the 14th Amendment has been used to assign hundreds of new despotic decisions and seize the States’ republican controls.

Without fully knowing what we did or how it happened, most Americans see the President as a kind of King, the Congress as an authoritarian Senate, and the Courts as legislators — exactly what Montesquieu predicted from centralizing the dispersed and varied power of our States’ rights.  The Monarchical power increased, and we quickly lost the rights “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Montesquieu published his analysis in 1748.  Our representatives knew it at the Constitutional Convention.  We have forgotten, and now we are reaping the advantages of despotism, “a continuous power shift to the centralized authority,” based, as Montesquieu so clearly saw, “on the accidents that incessantly multiply in a state in proportion to its extent.

 

Greatest Good

An intro to business class in 1977 presented the ideas of economics and production in “modern markets.”  The foundations of every scheme began with the notion that all policies must begin with the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Jeremy Bentham, around 1820, first refered to society’s goal in this way.  He wrote, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.”  Mill echoed the concept, now called “Utilitarianism.”  It has become a kind of “premise” for most pragmatic and socialist positions, but can it ever really work?  No.  Especially not with the “foundation of morals” part.  At best, the greatest good for the greatest number is a hollow ambition, ignoring each of its potential consequences.

“Greatest” is always the core of the problem.  Greatest is not an absolute, but a relative ambition, necessarily meaning “not the best.”  The idea of “greatest good for the greatest number” multiplies that relativity, leaving a theoretically acceptable “improvement” of 1% while benefiting only 51% of the whole.

Pragmatists may laugh and argue that that  would never be enough of a goal to implement such a plan, but it has been demonstrated in Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions, Cambodia’s killing fields, and America’s newly implemented health insurance plan.

America’s foundation took the opposite approach.  We built a great nation on the concept of “Great good and goodness for all who desire and work for them without restraint.”  The concept is readily applicable without killing, crushing, or repressing any percentage, without theft or denial, and with malice toward none.

Rights Revisited

Most of us love our rights, but confusion about those rights indicates a lack of education.  A “right,” according to Webster in the days of our Founding, meant order, “conformity” to the will of God, to the rule of law, and to the good and proper use of justice.  The rights of man are those proper claims of man.  Francis Lieber stated that “the only axiom necessary to understand rights is that ‘because I am a man, I have a right to be a man’.”

The confusion generally originates from how such a claim relates to other people.  Your absolute right to eat, for instance, is not an absolute claim against me to feed you. Nor does your right exclude you from work.  Your right to eat includes your right to find, grow, hunt, and preserve food. . . or earn money and go to the grocery store.

As a Christian, I am aware of a moral obligation (and right) to feed the hungry, and have regularly done so in my adult life, especially feeding dozens of children and their families on a semi-weekly basis for over six years.  That was my right as well as an obligation, and the families were fed.  It worked out well.  Their right, especially for the children, was met by my right to feed them.

Rights and obligations are fraternal.  Remember, Webster called all things “right,” a “conformity.” Think of it this way: just as,  “Because I am a man, I have a right to be a man,” it is equally true that, “Because I am a man, I have an obligation to be a man.”  In my personal experience, my rights have often been painful, and my obligations rewarding.

Thomas Jefferson firmly asserted that, “The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government.”

Some folks on both sides of the aisle pretend to follow such a creed, yet invariably, something eventually reveals that those people mean “equivalent rights,” or “happiness of this special group,” or they change “only” to “among the legitimate objects,” or they add something.  To Jefferson and his America, “Equal rights for every happy individual.”  Every one of us.

God-given rights and obligations of man are full and exclusive to each individual.  The very moment a right becomes a compulsion on another person, or an obligation becomes a demand from someone else, the very heart, soul, and definitions of “rights and responsibilities” absolutely vanish in the face of pure lust and tyranny.

 

 

June Jobs Report

At least on its face, the June Jobs report shows continued growth and good news for American workers.  Nothing spectacular, but another sign of a much needed and long awaited recovery.

Democrats hate it.

The June JobsReport shows what is at stake from the brewing storm of rising health costs, spiraling trade uncertainty & an economy being hollowed out to enrich big corporations & the wealthiest 1 percent. Americans deserve better than the GOP’s raw deal.” – Nancy Pelosi tweet

What is at stake?  It appears minority House boss Nancy is blaming jobs on a poor economy, decreasing trade imbalance, and Reaganomics.

“With slow wage growth, rising health care premiums, and skyrocketing gas prices across the country, Donald Trump’s reckless policies are hurting millions of hardworking families” – DNC Chief Tom Perez

Unlike Nancy, Tom appears to think wage growth and gas prices should come first.  He also implies that jobs are caused by reckless policies.  We should insure everybody somehow, and then get them jobs.  God forbid we do it the other way around.

Neither mentioned unemployment directly.  To do so would sting quite badly if you’ve been an unemployed Democrat for the last ten years, finally getting a job with Trump in office.

So, really, why are wages still stagnant?  We have workers returning in droves.  That shows up in the slight increase in unemployment along with new jobs.  It means workers are still available . . . cheap.  It will take a bit longer to force labor competitiveness.

We had serious health care problems before Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, and we are still suffering from the ACA, or “the Obama and Democrat solution.”  We now spend $10,000 per person on healthcare.  If it was its own “world economy,” our healthcare budget would be the 5th largest in the world.  Our government spends more than any other nation, and we, the people, spend even more privately to get essentially “basic” coverage. (In fact, every penny up to an average $8,000 deductible.)  That is more than a record. Come now, Nancy and Tom, do you really want to blame President Trump for that?

Of course they do, and they blame jobs, too!  What they are really saying, of course, is simply, “We hate that bastard.  Nothing good will ever come from him.  No matter how it looks, we will never participate, encourage, acknowledge or enjoy anything with him at the helm of the Ship of State.

Will this be offered as “good news” anywhere in the media?

What “good news”?

If you are a loyal Democrat, you’ll find yourself saying, “Yeah, what good is a *$%@ job!  It’s bad for the economy, for foreign policy, and it steals from me.  It won’t even pay for my insurance, and it costs too much!”  And you won’t even blink.

What is a Democrat Today?

Some folks in my personal circle can’t help themselves.  They simply need to condemn me for “hating Democrats.”  I take exception to that from two distinct positions: one, I reject the implications, and two, the charge smells like a fart.

Rejecting stupid or corrupt ideas is radically different from rejecting the people who hold them, and among my personal heroes are a number of Democrats — both publicly and privately.

On the other side of that argument, let me ask my accusers why they despise, reject and swear against the ideas of John F. Kennedy, his love for America, sense of free will economics, civil freedom, border security, and hatred for Communism and Socialism?

As in the following quote about The United States:

So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don’t think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong, but the balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.” (He was speaking at a breakfast in Texas.)

In the words of Dezi Arnez, “Splain dat, Lucy!

How can a Liberal be a Liberal and speak of freedom, border security, the desire and work of maintaining vigilance in the fight against Communism, against a welfare State, and against illegal immigration?  That’s not what Liberals do now.  How can a Democrat American President proudly assert that “the balance of power is still on the side of freedom”?  Was Kennedy a Liberal, a Conservative, or Donald Trump?  If you love the history of JFK, you can’t love the modern Democrat Party unless you radically changed.

If JFK was a Democrat then . . . what is a Democrat now?  Why the change?

Capitalism as a Socialist Idea

While writing The Evils of Capitalism, I mentioned that Capitalism is a Socialist invention, “a pejorative coined by Socialists in the 19th Century.”  Nobody condemned me publicly.  That is progress.  On the other hand, identifying our economic system might benefit from comparisons, and eventually it seems that the truth of origins should always win out over the lies of corruption.

Capitalism only exists as an alteration or great perversion of economic liberty.  Never intended as a means of corporate abuse, government control, fascist leanings, or bank corruption of our financial systems, “Capitalism” has grown out of contempt and human perversion of economic liberty.

Liberty itself is the reason, law, and authority of liberty.  Freedom and free men alone can protect a free society.  Economic liberty is no different.  Only when operating within statutory and moral laws,  Adam Smith wrote extensively, do we have the freedom to pursue our interest in our own way, bringing our labor (energy, skill, and efforts) and our capital (goods and finance) into competition and cooperation with other men.  He noted, in fact, that any manipulation of the redistribution of goods to increase or decrease the natural progress of society is subversive to society.  Rulers, he said, become more corrupt the more they try to force such things.  Forcing and freedom are at odds, always.  “[P]reference or restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself.”

According to Natural Liberty, the sovereign has only three duties: to protect society from violence and invasion; to protect, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it (this is called “the exact administration of justice”); and the creation and maintenance of public works and institutions by and for the whole population.  These works can never be for the interest of any individual, or small groups of individuals because favoritism, prejudice and bigotry are the very definition of any “preferential system.”  Corruption always increases in selective application.  As we see in contemporary America, corruption also increases favoritism, prejudice and bigotry.

So what, then, is this corruption called “Capitalism”?  It includes those things that Natural Liberty cannot accommodate.  It is the false and coercive, the preferential and restrictive, the artificial, compulsive, regulatory, oppressive, unfair, and inexact.  It includes artificial markets, wages, competition, and regulation.  And so we fight.

When a Communist or Socialist refers to Capitalism, they mean the flaws and perversions of corporatocracy, greed, fascist collusion and bank abuse.  When believers in Adam Smith and economic liberty refer to Capitalism, they mean abject rejection of those same things.  When greedy corporatists and selfish, fleecing perverts refer to Capitalism, they mean the same things, and they like it.