President-Elect Trump

Congratulations to President-elect Donald J. Trump.  His is not just a personal victory; it’s a victory for conservatives who are tired of a socialist agenda, it’s a victory for middle USA voters, and it’s a victory for freedom.  Hillary would have continued President Obama’s assault on the Bill of Rights and Soros’ globalist agenda.  Now we will have a president who will stand up for our sovereignty and put our citizens first.  We will have a president who wants to strengthen our weakened military, modernize our aging infrastructure, revitalize industry, and restore global respect to our nation.

I’ll admit I was skeptical at times, particularly when his poll numbers were climbing and then he’d say something that would rally the liberal media against him, but in the end Hillary’s own dishonesty and corruption defeated her.  After eight years of a liberal politician in the White House it will be good to give a businessman a chance at running the country.

The Electoral College system worked as it should too, giving those middle USA voters a voice that’s long been suppressed by high-population left-wing states.  California “values” aren’t everyone’s values and shouldn’t be forced on everyone.  Anyone who wants to live in California, aka Mexifornia, is free to do so.  Personally I don’t think of Che Guevera or Chairman Mao as heroes nor do I consider the former Soviet Union to be the ideal model for a state.

Those who say that Trump threatens civil rights are ignoring the fact that we have civil rights laws that a president can’t override.  No president can direct that women be paid less than men or that Blacks must sit at the back of the bus.  What he can do is rescind previous executive orders that did override existing laws and tell agencies like Immigration to do their jobs.  He and his Supreme Court appointees can also uphold the Bill of Rights, something that liberals see as an obstacle to their socialist agenda.  Maybe he could even end the leftist indoctrination in public schools that has young children frightened and holding protest signs that they don’t even understand.  Should we be training the next generation to accept serfdom?

Liberalism is socialism and socialism is total control of people and their property.

Advertisements

Habitat III – The New Urban Agenda

This month (October 2016), the UN is holding the third of it’s global conferences on cities; previous ones were held in 1976 and 1996.  The objective is to bring together government officials, industry leaders, planners, and environmental experts to discuss the future of cities around the world.  The State Department is representing the US government.  Increasing populations will have a major effect on urban environments and demands for services during the 21st century.  I’m all for sharing ideas, identifying best practices, and making the world better; however since the UN has become the global advocate for socialism we conservatives have to look at it with a bit of skepticism.  If you haven’t read their draft document it’s available on the Habitat III website.

Like UN Agenda 21 the draft has some lofty goals.  They’d like cities to be clean, safe, sustainable, and provide opportunities for all (nothing wrong with that).  They’d like to eliminate poverty, hunger, violence, inequality, discrimination, environmental degradation, and a list of diseases.

Like UN Agenda 21 the draft has the usual list of hypocritical goals.  The UN wants equality and equal opportunity for girls and women, and an end to discrimination.  We’re trying in the West, but no Muslim country will ever grant equality to women, who are often treated as less than human.  Countries that stone rape victims for adultery and hang men for being gay don’t see equality as a virtue.  The UN wants justice.  Tell that to countries that still torture, flog, and mutilate criminals.  The UN wants participatory government.  Tell that to communist countries like China where speaking out might get you 12 years hard labor.  The authors of this document are fully aware of these harsh and unchanging realities in totalitarian and theocratic states.

Unlike UN Agenda 21 there’s no obvious explicit demand for billions of dollars to be redistributed from developed nations to the third world but it is implicit.  Countries that can’t even end their own internal conflicts aren’t going to generate the cash to build clean water systems, productive farms, modern infrastructure, and the host of services needed in a city.

Their draft items often begin with “We will …” so let’s use that to draw our “line in the sand”.

We will listen, share, and learn.  We can combine past experiences with new knowledge to build better cities in the future.

We will work with the teams to identify best practices as well as chronic problem areas.

We will use new developments and best practices for our cities that will work within our legal, financial, and cultural environment.

We will work to protect our environment within current practical technology and will continue research on new technologies.

We will help other nations reach their objectives within financial reason and as long as the safety of US aid workers can be assured.

We will NOT implement any objectives that would deprive US citizens of their constitutional rights within our borders.  For example, if their “eliminate all forms of violence” means gun confiscation, that’s unconstitutional here.  There’s a fundamental reality that there will always be bad people who want to hurt good people and that self-defense is a fundamental human right.

We will NOT allow foreign troops operating under the UN flag to conduct any operations against US citizens within our borders.  The UN is an organization, not a legitimate state, so It’s military powers are limited, or at least should be.

None of this advocates isolationism, aggression, or abandoning our allies; it’s simply sovereignty.  Borders matter, and yes, I want secure borders.  A nation without borders will either descend into chaos or tyranny.

 

The USA can work with the world without surrendering to it.

Tax And Destroy

Everyone has heard the famous quote “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” from Chief Justice John Marshall in an 1819 Supreme Court ruling that states could not tax the Federal government.  What about government use of taxation against the people it’s supposed to be working for?  What is that destroying?

For much of US history, taxes were collected to fund essential government services such as national defense, border security, law enforcement, public infrastructure, education, and resource conservation.  In fact Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said “taxes are what we pay for civilized society”.  Progressives have changed that through taxation for wealth redistribution and “social engineering”.  Social engineering typically involves the use of punitive taxes to discourage “wrong behavior” as defined by some omniscient Big Brother.  I’ll start with punitive taxation.

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is pouring millions of dollars into local efforts to impose a punitive tax on sugary sodas.  OK, they’re not particularly healthy, but where does that process end?  Under the influence of UN Agenda 21 Denmark is seriously considering a tax on meat.  Once the USDA includes sustainability in diet recommendations it won’t be long before progressives want taxes on meat, and eventually dairy products.  This is about controlling people, and more control equals less freedom.  Eventually the only choice progressives will allow is for an abortion.  Bloomberg also pours millions into local gun control efforts, some of which include punitive taxes on guns and ammunition.  No ammo tax will ever stop a street gang, psychopath, disgruntled worker, or jihadist from unleashing mayhem.  What it will do is hurt honest shooting sports participants, particularly those involved in competitive target shooting.  It takes thousands of hours and probably close to a million rounds to reach Olympic level competitor status.  It’s those honest achievers who will be hurt, not the criminal who loads a “Saturday night special” to rob a convenience store.

(Hey Mike, why don’t you ever ask for more taxes on billionaires?)

President Obama wants a ten dollar per barrel tax on oil, even though it would raise prices of gas and heating oil and could send the economy into recession.  This is a punitive tax to punish those who insist on using fossil fuels.  As I pointed out in “Alternative Energy: The Missing Link”, however, we don’t have the technology to convert to renewable fuels overnight.  How many cities are 100% powered by renewable energy 24/7?  The answer is none.  How many all-electric vehicles have a 500 mile cruising range, or even a 100 mile range that can recharge during a 5 minute rest stop?  Again the answer is none.  An all-electric vehicle is a great choice for commuting from the suburbs to the city but would you want to set out to “see the USA” in one?  Incidentally if that electric vehicle doesn’t recharge from a renewable source it isn’t fully “green”.  He claims that the tax revenue would be used for research, and while some might be, some of it might also be used for global wealth redistribution.

So, what about wealth redistribution?  Within the US wealth redistribution is accomplished through various welfare programs and a widely abused tax credit program called EITC.  If you read my proposal for the ISIC welfare reform program you’ll know that I’m not opposed to welfare as a hand up for the unfortunate or as assistance for those who are unable to fully support themselves due to disability.  When children are starving in spite of school meal programs, SNAP, and WIC, however, something in the system isn’t working.  When a person who is fully capable of working decides to live off the labor of others and then jokes about it on social media welfare fraud has gone too far and reform is past due.  That’s an insult to every working family that’s struggling to support itself.  I’m also opposed to allowing foreigners to enter the US and immediately land on extended welfare.  Traditionally our immigration policy only admitted honest healthy people who were capable of supporting themselves within a reasonable time frame.  See my “Immigration is a Privilege, not a Right” post for more.  Global wealth redistribution is a recent concept arising from UN Agenda 21.  Third world nations are demanding billions of dollars from developed nations to “go green” under Agenda 21 while having no intent to meet the human rights objectives specified in that agenda.  See my post “UN Agenda 21 vs the Wealthy Wimpy West” for more.  I believe that global wealth redistribution is unconstitutional.  Nothing in our Constitution allows the government to send our tax dollars overseas or be taxed by any foreign entity.

So, what are the socialist progressives destroying with social engineering and Marxist wealth redistribution?  Essentially everything that made the USA exceptional: freedom (choice, not control); individual responsibility (the flip side of the rights/responsibility coin); the value of the family, and national sovereignty.

As many have pointed out, the US will never be conquered from without, it will destroy itself from within..  Progressives/socialists are leading the charge.

2016 Update:  Not unexpected: the UN has advocated for all nations to tax sugary drinks like sodas.

Unexpected: the UN also wants taxes on 100% fruit juices.  Who wants their morning OJ taxed?  It’s past time to tell the UN that we’re a sovereign nation, and while we’ll work with them on international issues, we will not surrender our rights or our freedom to them.

Surrender Sovereignty?

Tell that to the families of troops who have died defending our sovereignty.  Tell that to the disabled veterans who suffered defending our sovereignty.  They’ll probably disagree. The new US  ambassador to the UN once wrote that “giving up a pinch of sovereignty” to an organization like the UN would be good for the USA.  No, it wouldn’t.  Does she think the UN should tax us to support a global redistribution of wealth?  Does she think the UN should have the power to suspend our Constitutional rights?  Does she want bands of  third world “peace keepers” riding around in armored vehicles?  Does she want brutal 7th century Sharia law?  What official of any other country has ever made such a statement, or would dare to do so?  When our country’s founders issued the Declaration of Independence it was a statement that “we are a sovereign nation”.  There are no reasons to surrender to the “one worlders” except sheer stupidity or hatred of our way of life.  As stated before, anyone who doesn’t like it here is free to leave, her included.

In some countries this statement alone would be considered an act of treason, but here in the USA we have freedom of speech.  That does not mean the ambassador has freedom of action.  If she takes any action to compromise our sovereignty she should be removed from her position immediately.  An ambassador to the UN, a somewhat dysfunctional organization at best, should represent our nation, not everyone else.  If you think other countries care about our best interests, guess what, they don’t, and neither does she.

Sovereignty is like pregnancy, you are or you aren’t.

The long term future of the USA depends on security.

There are three levels of security that determine the future of a nation, physical security, economic security, and emotional security.  Without physical security the others aren’t possible, so I’ll begin there.

Physical security starts with secure borders.  It’s easier to keep the bad guys out than to recover from the damage they can do.  Any immigration reform must include improved border security.

It includes a strong military so that any hostile actions can be overwhelmingly crushed.  It doesn’t mean using the military to be “world police” or to try to impose our political system on countries where it simply wouldn’t work.

It includes law enforcement at Federal, state, and local levels to fight crime and maintain order.  They must communicate with each other.  It doesn’t mean having a “secret police” that can be used to suppress honest citizens.

It includes emergency response agencies that can quickly deliver aid in the event of natural or man-made disasters.  Health responders must have a supply of drugs critical to epidemic control.

It requires a strong, modern, and secure infrastructure that supports reliable  communication and the movement of resources within the country.

It includes a strong manufacturing base and a strategic materials stockpile.  Any total loss of a capability, such as the recent closure of the last lead smelter by the EPA, could become a weakness during a global conflict.  Don’t count on other countries to look out for us.

It requires cities to be prepared for the types of problems they might experience in their area such as flooding along a river and to take actions to mitigate risk before a disaster occurs.

Even a prepared population contributes to physical security.  That doesn’t mean everyone should be a “prepper” but everyone should have the basic emergency preparations we hear about all the time as well as any specific to their region.

Give me three for sovereignty

The Senate shall ratify no treaty that taxes US citizens or infringes on their legal rights within the borders of the USA.

If you believe the leader of any other country has the right to dictate what we do in our homes or levy a tax on us you’re free to move to their country.  This is a rejection of the “one world” concept that is nothing but a socialist effort at control of people and global redistribution of wealth.  The world is too diverse to have “one world”, the best we can do is cooperate with one another while retaining our individuality.

There is no law in the US except US law.

This is a rejection of some peoples’ demands that the laws (or even customs) of other countries should apply here, even if they conflict with our laws.  Again, if you find our legal system offensive you’re free to leave.  A common example is Sharia Law, which some advocate for.  It’s incompatible with US law in many ways, and here’s one example: Sharia Law allows a man to beat his wife.  With states toughening laws on domestic violence how could the country legalize it for one group?

Our Constitutional rights don’t globe-hop with us.  If you’re charged with a crime in another country you’ll be tried under their laws, maybe more than once if they don’t have protection against double jeopardy.  Unless we have a reciprocity agreement with another nation their laws don’t apply here.  That doesn’t mean you can’t be extradited if you commit a crime overseas and return home.  If we have an extradition treaty with that country you can be returned to face trial.

The US shall manage it’s foreign debt so that no other nation acquires undue influence or power over us.

Debt empowers the debt holder.  A nation that holds a large amount of US debt gains undue influence in policy making.  If large enough that debt could even be used as an economic weapon during a crisis.  The government must act first in the interest of it’s own people, not the will of debt holders.