HERE IS WHAT TO EXPECT

Hillary Clinton announces her VP pick (from here)
Hillary Clinton announces her VP pick (from here)

By now I expect everyone who wants to know knows who Hillary Clinton picked to be her running mate. Nevertheless, I doubt most watched their speeches. If you are serious about politics, then you have to know the opposition.

My previous post (here) was about Socialism. The Democratic Party, the party of Thomas Jefferson, now advocates Socialism. What does that mean in practice? Democrats get elected by pitting us against each other.

Who is Tim Kaine? He is a glib, grinning hatemonger. He expertly demonizes his opposition. He pits those he thinks he can persuade to vote for him against those he knows will not.

What qualifications do Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine have to run anything? They don’t, but if they get elected they will give America a pay raise. With whose money? They will tax “the rich”, of course. Under the reign of Barack Obama, have you noticed how much poorer the rich are getting and how much richer the poor are getting?

In his “acceptance” speech yesterday, Kaine even had the nerve to throw in these lines.

FOR ME, THIS DRIVES HOME THE STAKES IN THE SELECTION . NEARLY 2 MILLION MEN AND WOMEN PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE FOR THIS COUNTRY AS ACTIVE DUTY, AS RESERVISTS — THEY DESERVE A COMMANDER IN CHIEF WITH THE EXPERIENCE AND THE TEMPERAMENT TO LEAD. [APPLAUSE]WHAT DOES DONALD TRUMP SAY ABOUT THESE AMERICANS, THE 2 MILLIONS? HE CALLS THEM A DISASTER, AND JUST THIS WEEK, DONALD TRUMP SAID AS PRESIDENT, HE WOULD CONSIDER TURNING AMERICA’S BACK ON OUR DECADE-OLD COMMITMENT TO OUR ALLIES. AND ALL OF YOU REMEMBER MONTHS AGO WHEN HE SAID ABOUT US AND IT CALL THE, JOHN MCCAIN, THAT HE WAS NOT A HERO BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CAPTURED AND WAS A PRISONER OF WAR, AND HE WANTS TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF? WAS SERVICE MEMBERS ARE OUT THERE ON THE FRONT LINES, — WITH SERVICE MEMBERS OUT THERE ON THE FRONTLINES, THIS IS AN OPEN INVITATION FOR VLADIMIR PUTIN TO JUST ROLL ON IN. EVEN A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAY THAT IS TERRIBLE DANGEROUS. (from here)

Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine just want to turn our military forces into yet another dependent constituency. If we are depending on Clinton to be our commander-in chief, God help us.

John McCain is not a war hero because he was captured. Being captured does not make war heroes. So why is McCain a war hero? What Trump apparently forgot is that even after being tortured McCain refused early release (from here). Nevertheless, McCain’s been playing this card for over 40 years, and Kaine’s just picking up the card hoping he can use Trump’s offhand remark to turn veterans against Trump. Kaine’s interest is identity politics, not actual issues. He almost certainly does not give a damn about the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces. And yes, I know he has a son. So why is Kaine rooting for Hillary Clinton, someone who puts Top Secret information on her own private email server? We spend ten’s of billions trying to protect our secrets, trying to keep our military and intelligence operations secret, and she just sticks stuff out there?

Does Donald Trump think our military forces are a disaster? Would he leave our allies in the lurch? No and no.

  • Kaine did not say why or when Trump called our military forces a disaster, but eight years under the command of Barack Obama have not been good for our military. That has been a disaster.
  • Trump’s idea of insisting our allies either pay us or pay for their own troops is hardly equivalent to leaving our allies in the lurch. In fact, coming from the VP pick of Hillary Clinton such an inference is hypocritical.

Before he makes his speech, watch Tim Kaine sitting behind Hillary as she introduces him. You will see a man who is ecstatic. Why? Why did Hillary pick Kaine? She needs a good attack dog. Kaine fits the bill, and he knows it.

FROM THE GULLIBLE CITIZEN TOM TO THE GULLIBLE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.
Here is an example of what people once thought of when they spoke of fellow travelers. Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.

Recently, I got this comment from a fellow who calls himself “The Night Wind.”

The Night Wind

That’s just the tip of the iceberg:

http://sputniknews.com/world/20160607/1040919175/assange-russia-media-conference.html

Sputnik? Aside from the fact the news content was atrociously anti-American, I was suspicious of the name. What does sputnik mean?

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
“artificial satellite,” extended from the name of the one launched by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik “satellite,” literally “traveling companion” (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi, “traveling companion of the Earth”) from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku, from Russian so-, s- “with, together” + put’ “path, way,” from Old Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- “to tread, go” (see find (v.)) + agent suffix -nik. (continued here)

As this article indicates, Russia launches ‘Sputnik’ media offensive to counter US propaganda, sputniknews.com exists to promote Russian propaganda. It is similar in nature to rt.com.

The name “sputnik news” is ironic. The word “sputnik” first gained familiarity in the West when the USSR launched a series of satellites named Sputnik. Since  artificial satellites generally orbit the earth, most satellites are in fact a “traveling companion of the Earth”.  oxforddictionaries.com, however, describes a slightly different origin for term “sputnik” which adds a bit of perspective.

Russian, literally ‘fellow-traveler’. (from here)

What is “fellow-traveler”?

fellow traveler noun
1. a person who supports or sympathizes with a political party, especially the Communist Party, but is not an enrolled member.
2. anyone who, although not a member, supports or sympathizes with some organization, movement, or the like.

Read The Night Wind’s comments defending (here and here) sputniknews.com. The Night Wind is something of a fan of Vladimir Putin. Thus, the Night Wind’s comments suggest that that old KGB agent’s propaganda is having some success.

Are The Night Wind’s complaints about the Western news media legitimate? Sadly, the answer is yes, but reading Russian propaganda hardly constitutes a solution.

What makes us so vulnerable to such propaganda in this country? We need to think about that, and we need to formulate a solution. So let’s consider the nature of the problem.  What factors make it more difficult than it once was to discern the truth in the news?

  • The mechanics of our government have changed drastically. When it originated, the Federal Government had little power. Except for a few items, those actually enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, most government operations — what little there were — in the United States were state and local. Then we could see for ourselves what was going on and speak to our leaders face-to-face. Yet the Federal Government now spends nearly twice what our state and local governments spend.
  • Why has local government diminished? To make local government work, we must be engaged in our local communities, but power-grabbing politicians have nearly torn our local communities apart. Unlike previous generations of Americans, we are not skilled in the art of community organizing. We would not even use such a phrase the same way. Our forbears would have thought of organizing to perform a charitable work. We think of community organizing getting the government to spend other people’s money.

Our forebears spent most of their day engaged within their local communities. They worked, educated their children, went to church, and played (even the adults) with their immediate neighbors.  Today not many of us do that. We spend our days tens of miles from home at our jobs, and we waste hours traveling on government-run roads that don’t work. Then we compound the damage. We educate our children in poorly managed government-run schools that discourage parental involvement. We may not go to church, and most of us spend hours a day escaping our “problems”. We “play” on a TV or Internet, or we just commiserate with each other by boozing it up with friends.

What do I think we should do? Well, turning sputniknews.com or rt.com for information is not going to help us. We know these people are trying to deceive us. Instead, we need to decrease the power and importance of government. We need to diminish the vast wealth our government controls. We need to make lying to us less attractive and less profitable; we need to bring government closer to home where we can keep an eye on it.

  • We need to stop giving politicians OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to pay for public infrastructure. The worst kind of politicians sell access to OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. When we pay for our roads, for example, with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, in return for campaign donations and various “favors”, politicians put the roads where developers want them. Then, in return for more for campaign donations and “favors”, politicians strangle what they had the gall to call a parkway with stoplights.  If we want decent transportation system, then we have to pay with our own money. We have to pay tolls. Then, developers will have to pay for their own roads.
  • We need to stop giving politicians power to redistribute the wealth.  Politicians use the power redistribute the wealth to buy our votes.  That has nothing to do with true charity; such charity is just stealing. Yet we have based our education system, our retirement systems, and our health care system upon such notions of charity. Because true charity is based upon love, government cannot effectively provide charity. Whenever government tries to provide charity, larceny will result. Human nature is such that any government system that spends OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE must become corrupt, too costly, and eventually useless.
  • We need to put the kibosh on the identity politics. What just happened in Florida illustrates the gravity of the problem. Because of the fact they tend to vote Democrat, some of our glorious leaders want to import all the poor, dark skin people they can into this country. That includes Muslims. Yet as events keep demonstrating, our leaders have no way whatsoever of screening out Islamic terrorists from a peaceful Muslims. So why then is the LBGTQ crowd voting for Democrats? Consider their choice, our choice. Is it more important to force our views on others or to be left in peace to pursue our own definition of happiness?

Why do we have to drive so far and spend so much time traveling to work? Everybody wants to live in the country in a big house with a big yard.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (so-called parkways), and they have protected big yards with zoning laws.

Why do we have expensive schools that don’t work? Everybody wants a fabulous education for their children. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They have built costly schools and staffed those schools with expensive teachers and administrators, members of public employee’s unions who kindly contributed to and worked for their reelection. Therefore, since those schools must be run by the government and secularized, we have created socialist institutions promoting the glories of Big Government.

Why don’t local communities provide charity, and why is our country going broke? Everybody wants a fail-safe financial safety net.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Thus, we have food stamps, Social Security, Obamacare, and dozens of other programs that cost too much.

Why do politicians keep insisting that it is a small world and diversity means everyone must be politically correct? Everybody wants the assurance that everyone else likes them just as they are. We want everyone to think like us, and we don’t want anyone better or worse off than we are. That is, because every little community would be different, we cannot get by with local government. Otherwise, we actually would have diversity. So we have to nationalize every problem and make everyone think about everything and do everything the same way.

Therefore, as the result of too much government, we don’t have time to spend in our local neighborhoods, we don’t have much reason to talk to our neighbors, and we have trouble believing anything the news media wants to tell us.

You don’t believe me? Then please explain why we have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for president.

 

“LA RAZA” MEANS “THE RACE”

I found the video above on Trump against… anyone by KIA. Most of ‘s commentary related to the video is in the commentary. This is typical, I fear.

‘s point is simple enough.

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified. (continued here at dailycaller.com)

Now that Donald Trump is the presumed nominee, much of the mainstream media is now coming out with their knives, hoping to help  H. Clinton can take him down. Hence they are hoping they can use the Trump University lawsuits to their advantage.

Perhaps we need to use our imaginations in self-defense.

Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity. (from here at breitbart.com)

Trump University has not been open since 2010 (from here). So why the lawsuits have yet to be settled is a puzzle. Nevertheless, press coverage of the story back in 2011 suggests Trump’s presidential aspirations were anticipated.

Was Trump University legitimate? I don’t know.  I don’t trust the press coverage, and I don’t see much reason to trust that judge.

When it comes to the subject of race and sex in this country, we have grown more irrational, not less. Consider today’s historic event surrounding H. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It’s worth stopping and reflecting on this point: Faced with a man who changes his policies on a dime, who has dispensed with any normal semblance of a campaign, it is the woman — the first woman, possibly —who will be positioned as the reliable one.

This is not subtext. It’s in the text of the speech Clinton gave last week directly taking on Trump’s foreign policy, such as it is. “We cannot let him roll the dice with America,” Clinton said. She added, “Do we want him making those calls – someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?” She presented herself as the battle-tested candidate, the deliberative one: “Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft.” So much for the danger of letting a lady have the nuclear codes. Clinton might as well have accused him of going through male menopause. (from here at msnbc.com)

The fact H. Clinton is under a FBI criminal investigation is not a big deal to the news media. The fact she is notoriously incompetent doesn’t seem to matter. Even the fact she only has the delegates she needs to sew up the nomination because of super-delegates does not rob H. Clinton of her historic moment. What matters is that she is a woman. What matters is that the Democrat news media wants H. Clinton, and they don’t want Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. So they cannot be trusted to report the news without bias.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (from here)

Don’t we wish we were in that nation?

Framing — reblogged from DeHavelle.com

branches of government Keith DeHavelle authors one of my favorite blogs, DeHavelle.comFraming discusses the role Aristotle’s book, Politics, played in the formulation of our Constitution.

Framing

From a discussion on Citizen Tom’s blog on the forms of government, I wrote a bit on of how the US Constitution was inspired and framed:

There are conceptual hints in Scripture and remarks by Jesus on what forms of government are disfavored, but the Framers took inspiration from Aristotle. Many Enlightenment thinkers tended to downplay Aristotle, though the re-discovery of his works is one of the factors leading to the Enlightenment. But many of the Framers read Aristotle directly as well as earlier writers he inspired including Locke and de Montesquieu.

Aristotle spends the first several chapters of Book 4 of Politics cataloging systems of government in a way reminiscent of Linnaeus taking apart the structure of species of flowers. Aristotle gets something of a bad rap here, in which he is frequently said to “favor rule by a strong and virtuous leader.” This misunderstands him, as that is not his most favored arrangement. Here he describes a government divided into three branches:

Having thus gained an appropriate basis of discussion, we will proceed to speak of the points which follow next in order. We will consider the subject not only in general but with reference to particular constitutions. All constitutions have three elements, concerning which the good lawgiver has to regard what is expedient for each constitution. When they are well-ordered, the constitution is well-ordered, and as they differ from one another, constitutions differ. There is (1) one element which deliberates about public affairs; secondly (2) that concerned with the magistrates- the question being, what they should be, over what they should exercise authority, and what should be the mode of electing to them; and thirdly (3) that which has judicial power.

(continued here)

Why is ‘s post worth checking out? Aristotle’s book is ancient. When we read it and consider what it says, we can begin to grasp how our forebears struggled for the right to be free. The notion of a constitutional republic did not just pop into the heads of the men who wrote the Constitution. In a process that took thousands of years, people — many people — slowly and painfully developed the ideas that went into our Constitution. Aristotle was one of the first theorists.

Throughout human history, slavery has been the norm, and that did not change after Aristotle wrote his book. For thousands of years scholars studied Aristotle, but few others. What changed? Why did a group of men meet in Philadelphia and write a Constitution? What motivated them?

Consider. Our success in making our constitutional republic work requires a substantial amount personal integrity and hard work from each citizen. Where people don’t care enough to protect the rights of their family, friends, and neighbors, those people have no rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So that raises this question. How did the American people acquire such a concern for their neighbors, even people they had never personally met? How did the people who founded of this country do that, and how do we maintain such integrity? Why should we even want to do so?

Are we willing to protect the integrity our Constitution for the sake of our children. Will we work to add what improvements we can?

If you and I just don’t care, that is a bad sign for the next generation and those that follow.