Tag Archives: Constitution

Outrage

That’s a frequent position of so many, if not all, liberals.

They are constantly outraged about something and just can’t let it go. No matter nor event is too small to be above (below?) outrage.

The latest is the Trump video with Billy Bush, wherein Trump sounds like a frat boy. Of course liberals are “outraged.” As are more than a few Republicans.

That Trump spoke as he did shouldn’t surprise many. He’s known as a crude braggard. The surprising thing to me is that more of these haven’t appeared. They should, I think, be about as remarkable as Bob Costas talking about sports or King Barry talking about himself.

And, let’s be honest, has no one spoken this way about the opposite sex amongst “friends”? Seriously. I’m pretty sure even Hillary Clinton, at least when she was younger, might have a few times lasciviously spoken of some desirable amongst her fellow liberal feminists and journalist pals.

Heather Mac Donald, in the always readable City Journal, hits this topic perfectly in “Trumped-Up Outrage.”

She notes the left’s supernova of hypocrisy. The left has been the encourager for decades of the “Let it all hang out and don’t be judgmental about it” mode of behavior. Isn’t it the left that tells us the unbridled id is the source of truth? Isn’t it the left that killed sexual “morality” and “old-fashioned” social values? Didn’t they dance on the grave of “Victorian Values” and “Eisenhowerian/1950’s” square America? Isn’t “Getting Your Groove On” and “Hooking Up” the desired goal of all interaction according to the left?

Mac Donald is particularly harsh on the left’s schizo approach to campus life wherein women are encouraged to act like rabbits in heat on the one hand, yet we are to be aware of the “Campus Rape Epidemic” and also be utterly focused on the brittle shrinking violets on campus who need constant protection from language and behavior which they disagree with or don’t like and must have “safe spaces” where they can shelter from the harsh or mildly uncomfortable realities of life.

As we saw during the Clinton years, such behavior can be quickly excused and buried. All one needs are flexible morals, a single-minded focus on power and a compliant puppet media.

I ask you this, if Donald Trump were the nominee of the the Democratic Party and, say, Mitt Romney the Republican Party, would this video have ever surfaced?

Now to look at the Republicans running for the tall grass. Many of them are the usual RINO suspects and more than a few had not even endorsed Trump – yet suddenly the media treats them as respectable party grandees. That was to be expected. The worrisome thing for me is the more pragmatic conservatives who suggest that Trump should resign or step aside.

I don’t know what they could be thinking. Perhaps they have become delusional in the way that people facing some horrible decision become delusional or focus on side issues.

Trump is not leaving nor is some white knight coming to our rescue. The simple reality is that it’s either Trump or Clinton. Ronald Reagan is not coming from the grave to save the day.

I say it again, it’s either Trump or Clinton. It’s either an imperfect vessel or a black hole of evil from which no goodness of light can emanate. Take your pick.

Trump might not be a very good though constantly disappointing president. We don’t know.

What we do know is that Clinton will be at permanent war with conservatives and the Constitution. She will stop at nothing to destroy her enemies, expand the size of regulatory state, put the populace into the service of the Democratic Party and under the boot of the central government.

All the while fattening her wallet and those of her cronies.

Her little dog, Grinch Kaine, is less personally corrupt but even more committed to building the socialist state.

If Trump loses, we’ll almost certainly have eight years of Clinton (unless she dies) and then we’ll be fighting the same battle in 2024. There likely won’t be some kind of return to sanity in 2020, as many seem to imagine, because by that time a whole generation of “yutes” will have grown up knowing nothing but Mother Government and the liberal-controlled culture, while their Obama-loving/Clinton-excusing procreators will have never educated them as to the real birds and bees. The only thing they will know is that the past was bad and filled with racists, sexists, greedy robber barons and other oppressors and exploiters who ruined everything and they knew nothing of any use to the sophisticated modern person. The past should be ignored.

These man-children will have no concept of personal responsibility, independence and self-sufficiency. To them everything will come via the government or be overseen by elite school-educated enlightened (and highly-compensated) technocrats and all social interaction will be overseen by the same as well while a great purge of those uttering “unacceptable” speech is embarked upon.

Businesses of any size will act as government surrogates, if they want to survive and provide “employment” for legions of “right-thinking” party supporters. They will also be holding pens for bureaucrats and the well-connected who will be richly compensated for their good service. People with unacceptable views or those engaging in “hate” speech will be fired of pushed out through social and managerial pressure. Firms retaining “unacceptable” people will find themselves ineligible for government contracts or government-regulated business, under regulatory investigation (including from newly-minted cultural commissars), the victim of social campaigns from NGOs empowered and financed by the government and agitation from within by right-minded, culturally progressive “employees.”

The U.S. will resemble an enormous public school, with the president being the principal, politicians and bureaucrats being the teachers and staff while the rest of us are consigned to learn how to be proper, politically correct people. All the great angsts of growing up will manifest themselves as society-wide problems that can never be solved, yet will consume so much human energy. The touching but firm guiding hand of elementary school through the social awkwardness of junior high to the hormonal frustration and constant feeling of inadequacy will be the life, while one is incapable of being relieved because one will never graduate to adulthood. You will be a child and always will be…

Now let Mother Government tuck you in and keep you safe from those haters who want to oppress you. Don’t forget to pay your taxes and do everything I say, my little genius. Maybe there’ll be a treat for you in the morning. Mommy knows best.

All “national” elections will then depend on who can seem the coolest, promise the most goodies and offer the greatest protection of the personal smartphone-controlled cocoon. And we know which party is best at that.

Reality will have been banished until it can no longer be denied when it returns in some kind of quasi-Biblesque deluge.

Is Trump “Unqualified” to Be President?

That Donald Trump is “unqualified” to be president is the latest meme peddled by Democrats, their Republican allies and, of course, the Democratic parrots known as the mainstream media.

So is Donald Trump “unqualified” to be president?

Here’s the relevant language from a document called the United States Constitution. You might have heard of it.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Amendment XIV Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump meets all those criteria so he is qualified to be president.

I’m sure there are some very clever folks, many of them with Ivy League degrees, who will play the semantics game. “That’s ‘eligibility’ not ‘qualified,’” they’ll cluck.

These will be the same people who voted for a wet-behind-the-ears senator with a nonexistent record as a state legislator, an undistinguished career as a part-time contract lecturer at a university, a checkered past as a “community organizer” and an even sketchier academic career. His only success looked to have been to write an autobiography before he had done anything. He was also good at guilting white liberals with his black skin.

These people are also backing a woman who should be on trial; should be disbarred; who has a past of numerous legal violations; has aided and abetted numerous other crimes of accomplices; had a disastrous period as Secretary of State; had an undistinguished career as a senator; lies with a rare abandon; has lived off the taxpayer much of her life; and enabled her husband’s numerous crimes and misdemeanors as president.

On the other hand, Trump can point to successfully building things, employing people and working with large corporations and local governments. One can also point to failing on some of his projects as well.

The semantictarians are using the rubric that Trump is not “temperamentally” suited to be president.

Again these are the same people who voted for a two-faced narcissist who kept much of his past hidden (with the able aid of the American news media’s willingness to turn a blind eye).

There is no cuddle factor requirement for the presidency. As for insulting various people and groups, Trump is not much more insulting than Obama. The difference is that Obama insults the right groups while Trump goes after politically and socially correct groups.

As for other elements of of disqualification, that he doesn’t know the name of some obscure foreign politician, well, Obama thought we had 57 states… Trump has also threatened to push around some nations while Obama cowers and apologizes. Bellicosity is not a disqualifier for the presidency. Until King Barry the Apologetic, many presidential candidates had made a strong foreign policy part of their campaign.

What I think is really the point is that Trump, for all his faults (and they are not insubstantial), is not part of the professional political coterie that populates the upper levels of both parties. To narrow this down further, it is a group of (often Ivy League-educated) lawyers and people who have done nothing in their life but live off of the taxpayer in a series of governmental and elected jobs. They have little to no experience in the private sector and what little they have is tied to the government in some way. They have done little to nothing in the way creating jobs, businesses or economic activity (they would vehemently disagree with that, thinking that government is the source of all). They have, in many ways, been parasites living off of the public all of their lives.

These are the so-called “political elites.”

Trump offers a stark contrast to these people. Say what you want, by and large, Trump has had to work with people to get his projects done. Unlike the professional politicians he has usually not been able to simply demand that something be done and it gets done through the power of the government hammer.

I actually like the idea of having someone outside of the cushy, comfortable political ecosphere occupy the White House for a little while. The elites need to be humbled and reminded of what they have and what they should be grateful for (rather than demand as an entitlement).

One last point. During the reign of King Barry the Malignant, people have, perhaps more than with any other president, absorbed the idea of the president as omnipowerful king. That’s one reason they are so edgy about a Trump presidency.

But a Trump presidency will not be the way they fear. He will be constrained, as a president should be. Perhaps he might even, in a case of opposite day, remind people of how limited and small the presidency can and should be.

Greg Abbott for President!

A must read from Glenn Reynolds in USA Today, “Blow Up the Administrative State.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s suggestions are all good and several don’t even require Constitutional amendments to be enacted — merely the courage to enforce the law, tradition and Constitution.

We’re All Just Renters Now

You might think you own…

But you don’t in the mind of liberals, Democrats, the Supreme Court or the federal government.

The original concept of the United States under the Founders was that it would be a group of states mostly populated by yeoman farmers along with small scale business owners and service providers plus a handful of religious communities living pretty much their own lifestyles. Each man would be his own master, like a little lord. Most, if not all, adult males would own their own property or aspire to. Property owners had the exclusive right to vote in some places. It was kind of a “having skin in the game” approach.

In that construct, the individual is powerful. The individual has primacy. Government serves the individual and is devolved to the state or county level while minimalized at the federal level and when individual and government come into conflict, the individual should win out. The approach is to err on the side of the individual. In fact, local government would be made up of those individuals, rather than a faction of professional bureaucrats and politicians. That was the theory, anyway.

That was the theory, I should say. Of course no battle plan survives its first encounter with the enemy — just ask the farmers of western Pennsylvania, c. 1791.

Individual power has been eroding for centuries. One might start with the Whiskey Rebellion. It certainly took a turn for the worst with the Civil War. It’s been noted that it was there that the United “States” became the “United States,” that the agglomeration became the unitary; the needs and desires of the federal government overrode the powers of the individual states.

After a few post-Civil War decades, with some starts and stops with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson restarted the centralizing machinery. Once Franklin Roosevelt was installed, the die was set.

We are no longer masters of our world. We are viewed as serving the government. We provide its room and board. We are subject to its interests. When the individual comes into conflict with the government, the government wins. The government has to win.

An irresistible government increases its power daily, hourly, all at the expense of individual liberty.

Land owners are no longer able to determine what they want to do with their land. Dozens of agencies (and third-party activists conducting lawfare) claw at the land owner, overseeing everything he does. Examining every detail: determining what can and can’t be built, grown, tended to, stored, modified, etc.; thwarting attempts to improve it, make it profitable. You don’t own your land. You might pay taxes on it but it is controlled by someone else. You can’t will it to someone without being relieved of a portion of it. In reality you’re really just a tenant. And you best behave or you could be forced to give up that land.

Businessmen find themselves filling out numerous forms at all levels of government; subject to diktats, licenses and inspections from all levels of government near and far concerning employees, finances, operation, practices, performance, materials, services and products. Erring even once can produce devastating, even fatal penalties though most of the encumbrances are niggling; rather of the parasite tick living off the host variety. But a hundred ticks can bring down even the strongest animal.

And government-empowered third-party activists find businesses to be a fruitful feeding ground.

This is not new. Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

It’s as true today as it was in 1776. Seemingly most everything in the Declaration of Independence is applicable in these times. Have we come full circle?

We are, in essence, now just fleeting passengers on the ship called United States. We occupy a room or two and when we pass away, someone else will occupy that space. We don’t own it, can’t will it to our children or chosen ones without the ship’s crew’s approval. Our ability to decorate it or make it ours is severely curtailed by the ship’s crew and even some of the louder, bossier, better organized passengers. We do not decide, they decide.

Or perhaps we occupy a location on a bench in the galley called United States. We galley slaves row our oar and as long as we row the government tolerates us and provides us with some food or “benefits.” Disrupt that routine and the eye of authority opens onto you. It does not blink and does not think twice about punishing you. You are its subject. Submit or be tossed overboard.

That we might own our own boat and go our own way, supporting ourselves and our family and friends without the big government ship or its crew is inconceivable to the galley master. “Why it would be chaos! Think of all those ships polluting the ocean, getting in the way, what would be the point? Think of all those galley slaves who don’t have a boat of their own — it just wouldn’t be fair. If not everyone can have a boat then no one can have a boat. And the boats must be equal, as well. No one can have a better boat, that wouldn’t be fair either.”

When King Barry famously said “You didn’t build that” he could have also said, “You don’t own that.” (For a little fun go to the Wiki page for ‘You didn’t build that’ and read all the sophistries trying to argue that Obama didn’t say what he, the greatest communicator evuh!, clearly said.)

Taxpayer Robbery: Fat Girls Can’t Date

I collect government waste stories like some people collect stamps. I won’t point to everyone I run across because that would be a full-time job but this story about a government-funded study of the dating habits or lack thereof of “obese girls” from The Washington Times is too good to overlook.

I love the National Institutes of Health’s response saying the grant “fell under the agency’s research mission to address the full spectrum of human health across all populations of Americans.”

That’s a really broad mandate there, NIH. I’m not completely convinced that’s in the Constitution. Maybe it’s in one of the penumbras… Oy!

There’s an agency (or is it ‘agencies’?) that could use some trimming.

The American taxpayer has no concept of how much money the federal government consumes and wastes. How many taxpayers worked a whole year just to have their full contribution eaten up by this bit of nonsense? A hundred? We deserve better.

FYI, The Washington Times’ website is a bit junky. It’s one of those horrific resource hogs I wrote about in Suicide of the Web.

Repeal Withholding

One of the many ways that our federal and state governments rob citizens is through “withholding.” That’s where the governments make their claims on your salary before you get your salary. The government thinks it has a prior right to your hard-earned living before you get it.

This nefarious practice was initiated in World War II (it had also been used in the northern states during the Civil War/War Between the States to forcefully fund that unpopular war).

Ironically, the Dept. of Treasury acknowledges the Machiavellian intent behind the practice: “This greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer’s awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future.”

I think that taxpayers should feel and understand the amount of money they are handing over to the government. And then ask themselves, “Am I getting my money’s worth?”

The government knows what the answer to that question is.

What if you had to write that big check in April? What if you had to make sure you saved enough money to write that whopper? Wouldn’t you prefer a better accounting of your money? Wouldn’t you begin to think that maybe the government could trim some of its projects and largesse (after all, you had to cut back to make the payment)? Does it really need to declare another 100,000 acres of Utah as a “National Monument”? Does it really need to guarantee a “loan” to Boeing so it can sell some jets to a European airline? Does it really need to give a grant to some academic so he can study the sex life of a toad? Does it really need thousands of six-figured employees aimlessly wandering the halls of Washington? And the list goes on.

Does it really need to spend $3.2 trillion every year, while collecting maybe $2.5 trillion?

What’s been lost is that it’s not the government’s money, especially it’s not it’s money until it is due in taxes. I live in Virginia. It has a particularly galling practice for people who have a freelance or side income. It demands that you estimate what you will make in the next year and pay taxes ahead of time on that income. If you don’t make as much as you expected you have to ask the government for some of your money back at the end of the year. And if you make too much more they might actually penalize you for not being Kreskin and knowing how much you might make. They think they have first dibs on your future income. But in their minds they think they are being kind by letting you prepay in quarterly installments.

We shouldn’t have to ask the government to let us have an allowance — taken from what is our money to begin with.

Defenders of the government believe that the money belongs to the government first and that we should be happy that it lets us keep as much as we get. That is tyranny.

It should be the other way around. One of the best weapons to get governments to live within their means and maybe even start shrinking the federal Leviathan back to its Constitutional role would be to repeal the practice of withholding and let us decide what we do with our money. The government is supposed to be our creature, not we its creature.

Recommended Reading

Robert Tracinski has an excellent piece at The Federalist — Be Kind To Bigots: Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws and I recommend its reading.

This is an idea I’ve grown more fond of as the years have gone by. The truest expressions of free speech, the heart of our founding, are the utterances of unpopular things. It’s of no great courage to say something most everyone agrees with nor does that require a shield of rights for protection.

I’ll write on this in the future but for now give the Tracinski piece your attention, and forward it.