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.
Since chain emails (particularly those that are tongue in cheek) cannot be trusted, I did some research.
I tried to track down both a rebel flag and an ISIS flag on EBAY. As of now, EBAY seems to exclude both.
Not sure what ADT charges, but it cannot beat free.
The reference to burkas? Since that obviously refers to profiling….
So would it work? Well, if Hillary Clinton gets elected, I suppose this is what I might have to do after I retire. Got save money on a fixed income, but I will have to run the idea of wearing his and her burkas by my wife.
The standard politician avoids tagging anyone except white guys as racists. Supposedly, only white guys can be racists. That proposition is, of course, racist, but the almighty news media enforces it ruthlessly. Why? The Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race. In fact, the Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race (non-white), sex (female), gender preference (anything except straight), religion (secular or non-Christian), disability (disabled), age (old and greedy or young and gullible), wealth (poor or filthy rich), and so forth. Therefore, the Democrats seem bent upon transforming America into a third world country. The world has an abundance of poor non-white people, and their votes are cheaply bought.
You think that is absurd claim? Then consider that Washington Post article carefully. That article affirms that the Trump U judge is a member of a race conscious organization that awarded a scholarship to an illegal alien. Yet it accuses the people who say that of being liars. The Washington Post reports the facts and then seeks to explain them all away. Here are a couple of examples.
“La Raza” which means “The Race” is supposedly an innocuous expression Latinos use to describe themselves. Really? Try googling the term before the controversy over the Trump U judge. Here is a handy link, “la raza”. And don’t forget the obvious. When whites start organizing based upon racial identity, everyone calls it evil. Other than skin color, what is the difference?
When the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund gave a scholarship to an illegal immigrant applicant they did not know the student was here illegally. Their excuse? They did not ask. Since California is a sanctuary state, we really have no idea how many illegal immigrants the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund provided scholarships. One could be a low estimate.
Do Liberal Democrat news media outfits care about the truth, or do they care about winning on their issues? Consider again the fact California is a sanctuary state and why. It is about power. Think about the fact that judge is an Obama appointee. Does anybody seriously believe Obama is going to let the Constitution get between him and what he wants. The Constitution has not stopped Obama with respect to illegal immigration. Would it stop his appointees?
The Constitution has not stopped the Democrats in California with respect to illegal immigration. California is a sanctuary state. Yet Obama and those Democrat politicians in California swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Does The Washington Post have any interest in holding them accountable? No.
So what should we make of The Washington Post award of Four Pinocchios? Hypocrites!
I did not especially like what I saw in Chapter 4. What concerns me is Trump’s determination to get the “best deal.”
There is another way to pay to modernize our military forces. If other countries are depending upon us to protect them, shouldn’t they be willing to make sure we have the capability to do it? Shouldn’t they be willing to pay for the servicemen and servicewomen and the equipment we’re providing?
Depending upon the price of oil, Saudi Arabia earns somewhere between half a billion and a billion dollars every day. They wouldn’t exist, let alone have that wealth, without our protection. We get nothing from them. Nothing.
It’s time to change all that. It’s time to win again.
We’ve got 28,500 wonderful American soldiers on South Korea’s border with North Korea. They’re in harm’s way every single day. They’re the only thing that is protecting South Korea. And what do we get from South Korea for it? They sell us products — at a nice profit. They compete with us.
What Trump is suggesting is that if we are going to be the world’s policeman, the world ought to pay us. That’s a very bad idea. Do we really want our soldiers to be mercenaries?
Because they are just human beings like us, our allies will never be perfect. Therefore, when we station troops in another country or come to the defense of another nation, we must set aside our prejudices. We must objectively consider what is in our own nation’s best interests. Did Donald Trump? No.
An Aside On Immigration Policy
What is it that blinds Trump? Is he blind? I don’t know. I just see a pattern developing, and it is about silly things. Before we continue, let’s briefly consider another example, from Chapter 3, “Immigration: Good Walls Make Good Neighbors.” Trump wants Mexico to pay for the wall. Why would we want Mexicans to pay for the wall? To screw them? Because their leaders have encouraged their poor and their troublemakers to go north? That’s laughable!
Our problem is that our politicians won’t enforce our immigration laws. That is our fault, not Mexico’s, but Trump does not want to pay the bill. He refuses to admit we are at fault. So in addition to passing the bill for the wall to Mexico, he wants to pass the blame. Yet it is our own corrupt politicians — American politicians — who control who crosses into the United States and who stays here, not corrupt Mexican politicians.
Working With Our Allies
Trump did not even bother to consider the contributions our allies already make. He just looked at the bill and suggested someone else ought to pay.
As far as I can tell, Ted Cruz has not proposed a scheme to get other nations to help pay for our military forces (see American Resolve: Rebuilding America’s Military). Why not? I can only guess, but consider what would happen if other nations actually were to give us money for the use of our soldiers, regular payments for services rendered. Consider how too many of our politicians look upon money. Are they not always ravenous for more to spend?
Currently, Congress looks upon military spending as a grim necessity. From the
perspective of corrupt politicians, military spending doesn’t have much bang for the buck. That is, there are much more efficient ways to buy votes However, if other nations suddenly realize they can pay for the use of the world’s finest…..
When so many of our leaders already believe they exist just to spend other people’s money and as much money as they can spend, do we really want to let them use our nation’s armed forces as an excuse to solicit funds from other nations?
The Grim Necessity Of War
The United States Armed Forces exist to protect the vital interests of the United States. That is, military service is supposed to be about duty, honor, and country. Hence when we station our military forces in another nation, we should be doing so only for these three reasons:
Duty. We have may a valid commitment. We have a moral or legal obligation that requires our forces to be in that nation.
Honor. In addition to treaty obligations, there are crimes and atrocities we cannot honorably ignore. When we have the capacity to stop a mass murder, we should seriously consider doing so.
Country. Few Americans long to be stationed for years, especially to fight, in faraway lands. Yet our soldiers volunteer to do so. They know it is far better to fight in a faraway land than it is to watch their own people suffer in their own country.
So what is the true cost of our armed forces? Is it money? No. We must always keep at the forefront of our minds what our nation’s soldiers have signed up to do, risk life and limb for us. Therefore, when we deploy our armed forces, we should always remember it is not about money. It is about duty. It is about honor. It is about country. It is about our friends and neighbors going into harm’s way for our sakes.