OF A POST TO COME promised to compare the governing approaches of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with respect to two issues.
The growth of the power of government.
The protection of our rights.
The Growth Of The Power Of Government
Why is it a problem when government is powerful? Government exists to protect our rights. Yet the power we give our government makes government itself a threat to our rights. Therefore, we must choose between giving the government just enough power and giving it too much.
To give our government the resources it needs to defend our rights, we must give our leaders the authority to tax us and spend our money. Nevertheless, the more we allow our government to tax and spend, the more we work for government instead of ourselves. At some point, we risk slavery.
Some decisions which effect a people must be made jointly. Thus, government must sometimes make decisions we would otherwise make for ourselves. So it is that in a nation of free men and women, we have laws that restrict us from harming each other (traffic laws, for example). In a nation of slaves, however, the laws just list a few trivial decisions that the leaders permit the people to make for themselves.
Here is a table that summarizes where the candidates stand. Not certain the information is correct? Then check their web sites. I have only provided links where their positions are not available on their own websites.
Why am I going to vote for Donald Trump? If you check earlier posts on my blog you will find I once supported Senator Ted Cruz. Since Trump and Cruz parted with bad feelings, I am not happy with Trump. I think Trump has a problem with keeping his ego in check, and he gets very nasty when he doesn’t. That said, Trump’s problems ego problems look to be of the ordinary variety. He is not a political pro, and the stresses of running a political campaign are extraordinary. So there is not much reason to expect him to handle those stresses like a pro. Hopefully, he is learning. After you needlessly insult someone, it can be difficult to patch things up.
Still, I have a problem. Like every other voter I have to figure out who to vote for. The two candidate with a serious possibility of winning are either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and I vastly prefer what Donald Trump has promised to do.
But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare. (from here)
Trump has also promised to work to replace Obamacare. I am not sure I will like what he and Congress cook up. Nonetheless, he promises to work for a system that uses free market principles.
Trump will fight for a simpler tax system and to eliminate the death tax.
When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money. (from here)
We should get rid of the income tax. As the paragraph above indicates, the people who advocated the 16th Amendment to our Constitution, created a monster that has funded the excessive growth of our government. Note that Trump’s tax reform does not address Social Security or Medicare, a major part of that 16th Amendment monster.
Trump’s plan includes tax relief for corporations and small business. That would help keep businesses from fleeing our country. Trump would also eliminate the Death Tax. That would also be a boon for small business and increase competition.
Therefore, what Trump proposes is progress. How do we get rid of the 16th Amendment. I expect that would take a Convention of the States.
This issue is the one that kicked off Trump’s campaign. I am not a big fan of the wall or Mexico paying for it. I just want to vet immigrants BEFORE they come into our country.
So we know each people coming into the United States is not a security threat.
Can speak English fluently.
Has a job or some means of support.
Currently, our welfare system is a draw to both legal and illegal immigrants. That’s stupid. We don’t need a welfare system so the Democratic Party can import voters.
In addition, we are allowing terrorists into the country. Instead of trying to help refugees as close to their homeland as possible, we are bringing them here, and we are not separating out the terrorists. There is no good excuse for that.
Trump is running on securing the border and securing our country again. I am happy with that.
School Choice is my main issue. Unless we put education back under parental control, civil servants posing as teachers will continue to indoctrinate children. Am I trying to say I hate teachers? No. Of course not.
When government runs the schools, teachers are civil servants. That is a literal fact. As civil servants, teachers must teach what politicians who pay their salaries want them to teach. What politicians want children to learn very often not good for children. Politicians don’t necessarily love our children, but all them are tempted by power and prestige.
When politicians speak or even their close supporters speak, we have to consider the possibility of deception. Hence, Khizer Khan little speech at the Democratic National Convention should have raised our suspicions. So when I saw Hillary’s DNC ‘Khan’ Job at That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, I decided to take a looksee. Since that post was interesting, but a bit hard to believe, I looked around.
Khizr Khan Has Written Extensively On Sharia Law (dailycaller.com) suggests Khan has religious motivations most Americans would find disagreeable. Nonetheless, the LBGT communities representatives to the Democratic Party’s national convention probably still cheered for Khan. Suicidal, I guess.
When Khan spoke at the convention, it appears he used the death of his son for his own gain. That’s hardly admirable, and we should shame the news media and the politicians who have attacked Donald Trump. They should have known better.
Making the world safe for sin. Sounds like a devious title, I suppose. I admit I intend to be provocative, but point is that we dream of doing such a thing. We know that to sin is wrong, but we each dread giving up our sins. Until we begin to learn wisdom, we would much rather sin.
How would we make the world safe for sin? We cannot. We can only shut up the people who point out our sins. How do we do that? Well, Multiculturalism is one way.
Why do we have such differing worldviews today? Many people want to believe in Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the religious belief that all religious beliefs are equally valid. What Multiculturalism does is turn multicultural into an “ism” by making a multicultural society desirable FOR ITS OWN SAKE. Therefore, we must become tolerant to the point of the ridiculous and beyond.
Even though Multiculturalism is absurdly illogical (THE MYTH OF TOLERANCE), our elites both preach and enforce the doctrine of Multiculturalism. Hence, I have felt the need to complain. Here are a few examples.
Why don’t we discuss politics and religion? Well, it seems the problem is we don’t want to be perceived as having a bias. Some people, perhaps those sneaky conspirators, have us convinced that anyone with a bias is BIGOTED, not objective or neutral.
Supposedly, biased people cannot think reasonably, and they say mean things that offend those who disagree with them, and that’s just not nice. And how do we decide whose opinions are biased? That’s the purpose of political correctness. Any time we say something the offends some sort of “victim group” that is politically incorrect. (from here)
Multiculturalism is a scare tactic designed to silence opposition. We are suppose to gush with love for everyone and be completely nonjudgmental. Multiculturalism works because when we send our children to a public school their teachers indoctrinate them in Multiculturalism. Then they are surprised when they have discipline issues.
So should we put our government in the business of teaching the Bible? As I said here, THE MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT, that would not be a good idea. People who do not believe what the Bible says cannot be trusted to teach it, especially to children. In addition, there are constitutional issues. If you have children, the public school system is nearly a lost cause. It gives politicians (especially the Democratic Party) too many opportunities sell their donors the “right” to indoctrinate other people’s children.
It may take a village to raise a child, but that village is composed of family, friends and neighbors, not politicians and bureaucrats in your state capital or Washington, D.C.
The Purpose Of Government
Some years back I wrote DEISM AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS. In that post, I strove to show that even the supposed Deists had a Christian outlook. Even those who had doubts about the Bible admired its wisdom. Hence, these words found their way into our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (from here)
Why those words? Well, the Founders were not into Multiculturalism. Yet does the meaning of those words seem obvious? Then why has the power of our government grown so great? Did you know that the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of virtue? The Founders recognized the each of us has the right to pursue virtue in his own way, that each of us has the right to aspire to the best beliefs, not beliefs dictated by the state.
It has been 240 years since the crafting of those words. We don’t educate our children the same way the men who wrote those words, signed their names to those words, and fought for the ideas represented by those words were educated. Few spend many hours reading the Bible. Fewer still spend much time delving into writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. We study history through textbooks. We don’t read the literature of the periods we study. So we have a difficult time understanding the thoughts of those who went before us. The lost is incalculable.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. — Isaac Newton (from here)
When we don’t take the time or even make the effort to understand why previous generations believed what they believed and governed themselves as they did, then we repeat history’s disasters. Then we can only hope to learn from our own mistakes.
Can We Appoint Government To Love In Our Place?
Can we appoint government to love in our place? Can we love our neighbors through our government? No. The Sermon On The Mount (Matthew 5-7) records what Jesus taught His disciples as they sat on a mountain over two thousand years ago. Imagine how the religious leaders reacted to these words.
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
When He spoke of love, Jesus spoke of a personal act and of personal sacrifice. Jesus did not speak of legalistic formulas. He spoke of obeying the commandments of God in the spirit with which God gave them to us. Hence, the legalistic righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was not enough. Too often they put on a show of obeying God’s Law, but they did not love God, and they did not love their neighbors. Instead, they loved the acclaim of men.
We cannot rightly say we are charitable because we pay our taxes. We rightly cannot say we are charitable because we make the “rich” pay their “fair share”. At one time I thought I could rightly say such things, but then I realized I was no better than one of those Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites.
When we consider of the morality of taxes, we must consider how the money will be used. As the Declaration of Independence insists, government exists to protect our rights. When we tax our neighbors so as to force them to be charitable (i.e., redistribute the wealth) we commit two sins.
We use the power of government to raid the public treasury, effectively stealing from our neighbors
We tempt our public officials with too much power. We make the same people responsible for both protecting our property rights and giving us other people’s property. Inevitably, some of them abuse this power by buying our votes.
Consider the fact that for decades the news media has referred to Social Security as the third rail of politics. Why? It is well known that old people vote, and, sadly many of those old people will vote to protect Social Security, even though the system is designed to steal money from the young and give it to the old.
Why the wealth transfer? The politicians running the program spend the “excess funds”. The so-called “Trust” Fund is empty. Thus, the lie we call Social Security encourages parents to vote to rob their own children and grandchildren.
Has The American Experiment Failed?
In the comment that generated this post, Tony suggested an experiment. I don’t see much point in adding to what I said in my comment here. Instead, I think this is a good time to remember that in 1776 America began a great experiment. With the ratification of the Constitution, America formed a republic, one designed around a new idea, the protection of each individual’s God-given rights.
Consider why some people detest individualism, especially rugged individualism. The notion of God-given rights gives the individual both the power and the responsibility to live as he believes God would have him live. Thus, the individual must choose what he owes to God and the collective (i.e., the state) (Matthew 22:21).
Those who insist upon empowering the collective insist the state must define our rights, not God. These may worship the appearance of diversity, but they crave a uniformity of thought. These would substitute the ignorant mind of a man for the mind of God.
4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
We must remember that God is our Master, and He is also our Judge. If we limit the power and size of our government to its constitutional functions, some men, left to their own devices, will piggishly horde their wealth and refuse to help the needy. Yet those who do choose to help will be more effective, and the needy will be more appreciative and desirous of helping others as they have been helped.