Trump, COVID-19 and Politics

Blaming Trump for the resurgance or the spread of COVID-19 is a FRAUD 

Socialism and Democracy by Woodrow Wilson

Progressivism was a movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Whatever its different iterations, progressivism was rooted in the belief that the natural rights principles of the American founding were fine for an earlier age but no longer relevant in a mass, industrial society.  The modern age, as the Progressives saw it, was characterized by great inequality and concentrations of wealth.  The “interests” controlled the masses for their own self-interest rather than the public good.

In order to remedy social inequality and combat the interests, Progressives envisioned a stronger federal state that would regulate the use of property and wealth in the public interest rather than narrow individual self-interest.  They implemented a series of reforms that created executive agencies that would fundamentally alter the relationship of the government to the people.  These agencies would be part of a greatly expanded bureaucracy that would be administered by scientific experts guided by the ideals of efficiency and order.  The Progressives rejected popular, consensual government of and by the people.

As the Hillsdale College Constitution Reader makes plain, the ideology of progressivism persisted throughout the twentieth century, but it reached its first high tide during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.  The hallmarks of the progressive Wilson administration were the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Sixteenth Amendment that allowed a federal income tax (contrary to the Founders and the express prohibition in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution), among other reforms.  Wilson also persuaded Congress to wage an idealistic, progressive war to “make the world safe for democracy.”  The ideas for these reforms were laid down clearly in Wilson’s writings decades before when he was a graduate student and young professor in search of a permanent position.

In the 1880s, Woodrow Wilson was pursuing a quintessentially Progressive educational path.  Attending graduate school based upon the German model, Wilson earned a Ph.D. in political science and history at Johns Hopkins University in 1886.  Until he found a home at Princeton in 1890, he was a professor at Cornell, Bryn Mawr, and Wesleyan.  Like any aspiring professor, he produced a number of publications.  They unapologetically revealed his embrace of progressivism and a large administrative state.

Written in 1887, few of Wilson’s writings more blatantly spell out his praise of a state with virtually unlimited authority than “Socialism and Democracy.”  As he states, the new question that Progressives were asking was “not whether the community has power to act as it may please in these matters, but how it can act with practical advantage — a question of policy.”  The philosophical argument of limited constitutional government is swept aside by a triumphal progressivism that announces the victory of the federal state and simply decides the best reforms to pursue.

Wilson states that although some thinkers have attempted to turn the public mind against socialism, he is trying to render it not only intelligible but attractive and valid.  He proudly supports the idea of unlimited government and public control.   “It proposes,” Wilson argues, “that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests.”  Could any statement more clearly illustrate how far the Progressives had come from American founding principles?

If anyone thought that Wilson was merely theoretically praising socialism, he then shockingly equated socialism with democracy on the grounds that both agree that there are no limits on government power.  “It is very clear,” he writes, “that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same.  They both rest upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members.  Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.  Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”  As he states only a bit farther down in the essay: “The germinal conceptions of democracy are as free from all thought of a limitation of the public authority as are the corresponding conceptions of socialism.”

In the founding conception of American constitutional government in the Declaration of Independence, a limited government was created for the express purpose of protecting God-given rights of individuals.  The great fear of the Founders was that the government would violate those rights and become tyrannical.  The sovereign people then had the right of rebellion when the government broke the terms of the social compact.  But, according to Wilson, “The contest is no longer between government and individuals; it is now between government and dangerous combinations.”  In light of the circumstances of the modern industrial age, the government must “lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control.”

If the history of American government in the twentieth century shows anything, it reveals the startling success of Wilson’s progressive view of the federal state.  Only some of the proofs that the Wilsonian vision has became a reality in this century are a massive administrative state free of popular control and yet are ironically controlled by the very interests the Progressives originally sought to control, massive government taxation and spending (and debt), a government that reaches into nearly every aspect of American life, and politicians who routinely consider themselves above the law.

Read Woodrow Wilson’s “Socialism and Democracy” here

The Socialist State Today In America 

This lecture is given by a renowned scholar that teaches the Constitution. Please set aside the time. I promise you will not regret it!

“The modern administrative state transformed American republic into an oligarchy. Today, an elite and insular administrative class rules without the consent of American citizens. Moreover, administrative rule is both anti-constitutional and pre-constitutional, because it replaces the rule of law with unaccountable regulatory agencies.”

Biden Opposes Oil & Gas and More!

Socialist Democrats Are Willing to Destroy Our Economy Over Misguided Science! 

It’s official: Joe Biden wants to end production of American oil — and likely natural gas, too. He said as much during last week’s debate, even though it would undermine our national security and cause untold harm to American families.  Biden’s comments are just his latest flip-flop on energy. During the primaries, he said he’d ban fracking. Then he did an about-face this summer. Now he’s saying he would “transition” America away from oil — which can’t be done without the fracking ban he claims to oppose.  Keep in mind: the oil and gas industry is essential to the American economy. In Texas alone, it provides more than 400,000 direct jobs and more than a million indirect jobs, while funding education and preventing the need for an income tax. Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia — every state benefits substantially from oil and gas, in one way or another. The Biden campaign is now saying their boss didn’t really mean it. But we know that does not matter, because The Cabal that will really be running the country WILL ban oil and gas. It is a basic demand of the liberal left. Joe Biden has shown basically no willingness to buck the Socialist-wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how many millions of Americans it hurts. This is not the most egregious plan by the left, but it will come fast and be devastating!

Beware of The Biden Economy

 

What would be the cost of Joe Biden’s economic agenda? The answer is in: Fewer jobs, lower incomes, a weaker economy, and a dimmer future for millions of American families. Those are the findings of a new study from the well-respected Hoover Institution. A team of economic experts looked at Biden’s plans on taxes, regulation, energy, and health care. As they show, Biden’s plan would give more power to the federal government in every area, leaving less opportunity for the American people. Check it out: - Jobs. Biden’s plan would eliminate about five million jobs over the next decade. Simple logic explains why: By raising taxes and regulatory burdens on job creators, companies of all sizes will find it harder to expand or stay in business.  - Wages. Biden’s tax-and-spend plan would take $6,500 off the median household income within the next 10 years. Once again, the cause is clear: When the government takes more of people’s money, families have less to spend and save.  - Growth. Biden would repeat the mistakes of the Obama years, leading to a painfully slow economic recovery. By 2030, the economy would be nearly 10% smaller than expected. That’s $2.6 trillion in lost innovation and lost progress for everyone. - Family Budgets. Biden’s regulation-heavy approach would push Americans to buy far more expensive products, from pricey health insurance to electric cars. The result would be more money for liberal special interests and less money for families. - Corporate Welfare. Biden’s plan for energy and health care would require massive government subsidies for politically favored companies. The government would double down on picking winners and losers, which would make the economy less fair and free. The list goes on. Other new studies have found that Biden’s tax plans would lead to a combined state and federal tax rate of 60% or higher in New York, California, and New Jersey. In other states, taxes would skyrocket as the government took a bigger chunk of people’s paychecks. Biden’s economic plan is a bad idea in normal times. It’s especially dangerous as America tries to reverse the damage done by the coronavirus. At a time when millions are struggling, why on earth would we make it harder for the American people to thrive again?

Coronavirus is growing exponentially – here is what that really means

 

Coronavirus is growing exponentially – here is what that really means

Excerpt from Christian Yates, Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, University of Bath

 

This is an optimistic graphic. Even so, if we choose the 50% (middle) exposure rate. It is still eye popping!

For everyone person infected, 4 others will become infected. This is the nature of Pandemics. But what, precisely, is exponential growth? The mathematical definition says that a quantity that increases with a rate proportional to its current size will grow exponentially. This means that as the quantity increases so does that rate at which it grows. The more infected people we have of a disease outbreak, the more people they will infect and the more the cases will rise. As of October 19, we have 8.26M cases. That would tell us the exponential spread would result in over 33M cases in the future.

Recent media reports incorrectly report the increase in COVID-19 with alarm. This, when science predicts the results. The early panic may have caused a slowing (75%+ staying home) while we may have now fallen back to only a 50% reduction.

The point is, that people living in fear because of a seemingly unknown reason for the uptick in cases is simply wrong. People are living with great stress. They need to understand their environment. The purpose of this article.

This pandemic is doing what pandemics do. Following the protocols is the best individuals can do. The scientific community will come up with new antivirals and eventually a vaccine. Until then, we should all remain calm (relatively) while we live through this Global Pandemic.

 Liberals, Socialist and Conservatives

I cannot ignore the left’s behavior of late. I will bring one issue forward for your consideration that is at once instructive, but at the same time confounding.

As much as it has become politically popular for the left to resurrect the South with regards to Slavery and the Civil War that followed the behavior and thinking of these very people is much like the South regarding slavery.

The overarching similarity is that if the Constitution and the Republican form of government is agreeable to them, they accept it as the sovereign document and national form of governance. However, if they disagree, then they are inclined to want to destroy the today's Government. That is to destroy the Government to enable them to construe and enforce the Constitution as they see fit on all points. This is exactly what the Southern/slave sates did leading up to the Civil War.

The resemblance is remarkable and unseen by many. As Lincoln asked, what will it take to satisfy the progressives of the left. His answer then was brilliant and stands today. Stop telling them that Socialism is wrong! Then, join them in calling Socialism right!

The founders deeply reviewed history, cultures and societal failures. They studied, democracies, Oligarchy’s and despotism including socialism. They rejected all with much passion that can should be read in the Federalist Papers.

One  must only examine the “natural rights” that are the foundation of our Declaration of Independence that gave birth to the Constitution, to find the answer. After a great discourse from Lincoln and the founders the answer was conclusive. Man’s natural rights come from God. Period.

When examining the course of action by the Democrats of the left, we can see a clear pathway to drive God’s word from the public discourse and now overtly attempting to trample free speech and other liberty’s guaranteed by the “Natural Rights” that are NOT given by man nor can be taken away by man. They simply “are”.

There is not doubt the success of the Southern Succession would have become the end to a great Nation. Why? The liberty and freedoms given to citizens would have to be removed as the context of slavery begin to overtake our nation. It would have been the ruin of all. All men would be subject to the control of other men/people without any redress. It would become the natural right of the Oligarchy that had the power and means to subvert others. So it is with the current progressive/liberal movement. Once man has lost his "Natural Rights" he is doomed to misery and ruin!

Big Tech Censorship Is Real and Dangerous

 

Twitter and Facebook just censored a news story by one of America’s largest papers. After the New York Post published an investigation of corruption allegations, the tech giants suppressed the story, and Twitter blocked its users from sharing the link. Twitter even locked the New York Post’s account, as well as the accounts of many prominent conservatives and the White House press secretary. This incident is tech censorship, plain and simple. A reputable outlet published a story that is in the public interest, only to be banned from spreading the word. Keep in mind: These are the same social media platforms that Russia, China, and Iran use to spread propaganda and disinformation. But instead of tackling that problem, Twitter and Facebook went after a mainstream American media outlet that’s been around since 1801. Twitter has apologized for how it handled the situation, and yesterday said that it had changed its policies. Reminder: tech companies have special protections under the law and the ability to block content as long as they apply rules evenly. It's clear that's not the case — which is why the Senate is right to investigate this fiasco.

The UN Human Rights Council just voted to let even more human rights abusers join its ranks.

 

Hypocrisy alert: The UN Human Rights Council just voted to let even more human rights abusers join its ranks. On Tuesday, the council voted to give seats to Communist China, Communist Cuba, and Russia, joining other oppressive nations like Venezuela, Sudan, and Libya. The council’s latest move further validates the United States’ decision to leave the Human Rights Council, which Amb. Haley announced in 2018. The council gives credibility to some of the world’s worst regimes — see China’s oppression of the Muslim Uighurs, Christian worshippers, and the entire city of Hong Kong. And instead of promoting human rights, the council spends significant time attacking Israel and the United States. No wonder China and Russia want to get in on the game. It gets worse. While the Human Rights Council is undermining its own mission, American liberals want to ask the Council to intervene in U.S. elections. That’s right: They want to give an anti-American international organization power over America. What could possibly go wrong?

 

What has changed such that Joe Biden is leading in all the polls?

What do you think has happened that has caused people to think differently and choose Joe Biden over Donald Trump? No one is asking this question!

One could point to COVID-19. Blaming Donald Trump is a far cry from proving the claim. COVID is a pandemic and it is behaving as a Pandemic! Even the WHO is stumped! History tells us that until a vaccine is developed and 85% + of the population receives it, the ravages of the disease will continue.

The collapse of the economy? The President did not close the economy, governors and mayors made those decisions. Rightly or wrongly these decisions crashed the economy. Not the President. Even not, the WHO is calling out that “Shutdowns” do more harm than the disease over time.

Another other point is the riots. We have witnessed billions of dollars of damage by rioters with stated goals of tearing down the U.S. institutions. Most of the riots were not confronted while the president did not overstep his authority while admonishing the states to “take control” of their states and cities.

Finally, there is Joe Biden the candidate. Biden was clearly not the Democrat choice during the primaries. If there was a leader it was Bernie Sanders. However, there was no clear, strong leader coming out of the Democrat Primaries. Also, another consideration was that Kamala Harris performed so poorly she had to drop out very early.

So, in your mind, what changed the views of the voting public? There is reason to believe that nothing has changed. The polls and predictions are exactly like 2016 at the same time. The headlines on October 18, 2016 was that Hillary Clinton had a 91% probability of winning the election. Think about it!

The Preservation of Government and It's Permanence - George Washing circa 1796

 

An excerpt from George Washington's Farewell Speech. As we can learn from reading the entire speech, Washington fully embraced how fragile the miracle of our formation and the constitution are. There are many admonishments of where and how what we created through great sacrifice can and will be lost. What follows is a stark warning about what I see occuring in our Nation today. Please read this, re-read and take very seriously. This what we face and we must a patriots of this great nation stand up to!

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion, and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the Laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. This leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. - George Washington, 1796

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

 

Federalist 9 Excerpt

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

For the Independent Journal.

A. HAMILTON

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily, for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.

 

Federalist 55 Excerpt

A. Hamilton

Last page

Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

PUBLIUS.

The State Shutdown Racket!

 

The State Shutdown Racket

 

Judges are standing up to governors who have overstepped their authority during the pandemic. Over the weekend, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously struck down Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s sweeping restrictions. Last month, a federal judge did the same thing to Democratic Governor Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania. These rulings make a point that many politicians have forgotten: Government power is limited, even during a pandemic. While elected officials are right to take swift action to keep citizens safe, they are wrong to think they can do whatever they please. In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer unilaterally banned paint sales at large stores, motor boating, landscaping, and golf, among many other things. When the legislature refused to extend her restrictions, as required by law, she extended them anyway. Whatever you call that, it isn’t democracy. As the Michigan Supreme Court said about Gov. Whitmer, “no individual in the history of this state has ever been vested with as much concentrated and standardless power to regulate the lives of our people.” Here’s hoping more states get the message and move to protect their citizens in ways that are safe, smart, and constitutional.

What does Natural Rights in the United States mean?

 

State Constitutions, Selections on Equality and Natural Rights

In the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of its several states clearly state pople have natural unalienable rights to life and liberty. Read on.....

Virginia Constitution, 1776

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Massachusetts Constitution, 1780

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

New Hampshire Constitution, 1784

All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

 All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are—the enjoying and defending life and liberty—acquiring, possessing, and protecting property—and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.

Pennsylvania Constitution, 1790

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, we declare—  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Ohio Constitution, 1802

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized, and forever unalterably established, we declare— That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety;

Natural unalienable rights do not come from government; people are born with them. These words present that fact it is part of being human. Governments are charged with protecting our natural rights from others and from any government.