ONLY PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, PLEASE

December 5th, 2016

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” -Article I, Section 6

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” -Article I, Section 9

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” -Article II, Section 1

emolument n.: the returns arising from office or employment usu. In the form of compensation or perquisites. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

The hereinabove represent those provisions in The Constitution of the United States of America related to benefits and gifts to public officials. In the late part of the 18th-century, the Framers need not have worried much about businessmen owning foreign commercial interests. Today, an increase in worry has become more reasonable and appropriate, in particular with reference to the worldwide foreign holdings and interests of President-Elect Trump.

The concern among the Framers was less that a Congressman or President might profit personally from emoluments bestowed by foreign governments and more that, by bestowing such emoluments, a foreign government might influence the American government. In contrast, the current concern seems more related to Mr. Trump’s profiting personally.

Many of the gang on The Left view “profit” as an obscenity. Accordingly, they demand that Mr. Trump divest himself not only of any command of his company but even of the company itself. Many of those making such demands are professional politicians to whom foreign holdings are as foreign as Uranus.

Should successful American businessmen such as Mr. Trump risk the fruits of their labors — labors often lifelong — in order to hold public office, even the presidency? Without Mr. Trump’s personal direction, for example, what will be the future course of that which he has built over the years? Who knows? Little wonder that so few of the best and the brightest seek public office, leaving the governing of the nation to too many foppish dolts.

Of note, the Emoluments Clause never has been litigated, so no opinions from the Court exist for guidance. That which does exist lies within the Clause itself; namely, the provision that Congress may grant its consent for a President Trump to conduct commercial dealings with foreign governments to the benefit of his company and himself as long as those benefits do not involve activities such as bribery that clearly constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

The alternative? That only those who have no commercial dealings foreign or domestic can hold high public office, let alone the presidency? Worse, that only professional politicians, preferably professional lawyer-politicians, best apply? Sadly, have not we as a nation already been approaching that state of affairs much to our detriment?

Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. Context and behavior ultimately determine the future course of behavior. Politics and governing are no exceptions.

If we, as a nation, trust Mr. Trump with the nuclear button, should we not trust him to conduct his commercial dealings honestly — dealings that fade into insignificance given the responsibilities of his office? If not, shall we not be consigning ourselves to a fatal combination of mediocrity and incompetence. These United States of America need more businessmen in government and fewer professional politicians, especially fewer lawyer-politicians. Only by establishing the proper context, can we attract the best and the brightest. Does not Mr. Trump now represent the test watched by those best and brightest?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PROMISES — EMPTY PROMISES 2?

November 28th, 2016

“All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” -Matthew 23:3

President-Elect Trump (aka/“The Donald”) promised much. To date, how closely do his deeds adhere to his words? To some, it appears that his rodomontade is devolving more than evolving. Consider the following examples:

As noted in the previous posting below, his appointments smack of a sprinkle of anti-Republican establishment here and a dash of pro-Republican establishment there.

If he has not reneged on his promise to pursue the investigation of Hillary with vigor, he has come close; characterizing her lying, philandering husband (who essentially sold military, technological secrets to the Chinese for a pittance) and “Crooked Hillary” herself as “good people” whom The Donald does not want to hurt.

Whereas he continues to claim that he will build the promised wall — maybe now partially fencing (Did the Great Wall of China contain fencing?) — he has retreated from his promise to deport all, not some but all, illegal aliens to deporting only those with histories of violent felonies.

Despite proclaiming his unwavering commitment to the sanctity of life of unborn children still in the womb, he has withdrawn any opposition to the sociologically-based, unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court to allow abortion essentially at any stage of gestation.

To the dismay of those who believe in the liturgy of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism and of anyone who views homosexuality as a threat to the familial foundation of almost all civilizations, he condoned the biologically nonsensical and sociologically-based, unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court to allow homosexuals to marry legally.

Meanwhile, a most important policy wanders in the wilderness; this is, delivery of medical care — otherwise known by the governmental euphemism intentionally demeaning to physicians as “healthcare”. Medicare alone is bankrupting the nation. Any society that places the welfare of its old higher than that of its young dooms itself to disaster. The Donald is dooming this nation to economic disaster. So-called Health Savings Accounts are not an answer; they represent country-club Republicanism at its worst. So-called Block-Grants to the States only will shift political control from politicians in the District of Corruption to politicians in State-capitals. An affordable, scientifically-based, scientifically-directed alternative offering universal care from a competitive private sector — an alternative acknowledged by the insurance industry with nominations for two, national awards — has existed for more than 20-years, apparently to continue to be ignored by The Donald, who reportedly refrains from reading books, and by his administration.

Excerpt from the Prologue of the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences
“America has achieved peace with security. Her currency has become sound and stable; her economy, prosperous and dynamic. The federal government operates lawfully in accordance with the United States Constitution and fiscally without debt. Within expected limits, Americans control their own destiny — political, economic, and social.

Politicians seeking federal office generally say what they mean and mean what they say. The presidential, congressional, and judicial smoke-and-mirrors of the past, designed to blind the electorate, have dissipated.”

Detractors have characterized The Donald as thin-skinned with a longing to be loved. Be that characterization valid, expect him to do that which provokes the least disapproval and earns the most approval. Perhaps, he will prove his detractors wrong. Then again . . . .

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast; Man never is, but always To be Blest.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PROMISES — EMPTY PROMISES?

November 14th, 2016

Note (21NOV2016): In keeping promises, President-Elect Trump considers himself a master of “the art of the deal”. To date, his appointments seem to reflect his image of himself. A little from here. A little from there. Conciliation all around, even to the point of settling lawsuits, of which he has had thousands. Sweetness and light, or so it might seem.

“All the proof of a pudding is in the eating.” -William Camden (1551-1623)

Time, however, will tell the real tale via behaviors and consequences not words. Making deals for the sake of publicity is one thing. Making progress for the Public Good of the nation is another.

Whatever he does, without basing his policies and programs upon Biobehavioral Science and the Scientific Method, Mr. Trump likely will fail as have all his recent predecessors. In financing higher education, for example, he could make a good start by following his words with actions — obligate colleges and universities that receive federal funds via loans to their students essentially to become co-signers on those loans. Consequence? Good-bye and good riddance to nonsensical degrees in ideologically fashionable “studies”.

So, we shall see. Question — if he fails, what?

“An error lurking in the roots of a system of thought does not become truth simply by being evolved.” -John Frederick Peifer

Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences One aspect of life, however, had been making Clifford Kent increasingly unhappy; governmental intervention into his life, the life of his family, and the lives of his friends and neighbors. As did his father, Cliff always had voted Republican. One election, he decided to stop voting.

“What’s the point?” he had asked Louise. “They’re all just the same. They promise one thing then do the opposite. The only real difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans are bigger hypocrites. What this country needs is what Barry Goldwater once said, ‘A choice not an echo.’ We need a meaningful third party, and I don’t mean the so-called Libertarians, who seem mainly confused and disorganized naysayers … if not anarchists … with a misleading name.”

Campaign
Candidate-Trump makes promises.

Election
Based upon his promises, Candidate Trump wins the presidency and sweeps with him into office a Republican majority in Congress.

Post-Election
Promises? Did Candidate Trump make promises?

Within days — nay, within hours — of claiming victory, President-Elect Trump began retreating from three, oft-repeated promises made by Candidate Trump. During those few hours, what had changed?

First promise? ObamaCare: Repeal and replace. Repeal means repeal not modify or evolve. Retaining coverage for preëxisting, medical conditions, for example, is a formula for financial disaster. It is tantamount to allowing an owner to purchase insurance for his home after it catches fire.

Second promise? Dodd-Frank: Repeal. Repeal means repeal not modify or evolve. Dodd-Frank’s legacy is a bowl of legal spaghetti that costs banks and their customers tens of billions of dollars in counter-productive expenses thrown at lawyers, accountants, “compliance-officers”, and governmental bureaucrats — money that, otherwise, could be put to productive use to benefit the nation.

Third promise? Mrs. Clinton: Investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute. Instead? President-Elect Trump’s flattering remarks about the Clintons and Obama. One might infer that they all suddenly became best of friends.

As Candidate Trump had been so eager to broadcast, the three of them are alleged criminals who violated laws and placed the security of this nation into real and serious jeopardy. Alright, it may be a wise tradition not to prosecute former Presidents but “Crooked Hillary” never was President and never will be. Now once elected, President-Elect Trump says that he does not want to “hurt” her. What say you, President-Elect Trump, about the harm “Crooked Hillary” did to this nation and the dead bodies that silently shout their testimonies to her actions?

A question arises about President-Elect Trump’s policy-related announcements. Why make any, at all? Obama still reigns in the Oval Office with his pen and his telephone, as he himself put it.

As for President-Elect Trump’s colleagues in the Congress, predictably obsequious, unctuous sycophants like Paul Ryan, Washingtonian establishment through and through, after vilifying Candidate Trump’s persona during the campaign now slither towards him, proclaiming previously unnoticed virtues. How victory changes context!

As for President-Elect Trump’s gratitude towards his supporters, during the campaign Sean Hannity of Fox News, perhaps the most vocal supporter of Candidate Trump in the mass-media during the campaign, had proclaimed after speaking via telephone three times the night of the election that President-Elect Trump would promote Paul Ryan’s demotion from Speaker of the House. Spoke too soon, Mr. Hannity?

Adding further insult, President-Elect Trump elected to give the prize of his first, “live”, televised interview to Leslie Stahl on CBS and billed by that network as such — a neo-liberally oriented network that vilified Candidate Trump throughout the campaign. Fox? Mr. Hannity? Later, maybe?

What say you now, Mr. Hannity? Are President-Elect Trump’s actions post-election his version of gratitude? To yourself, would you still characterize him as trustworthy?

[Note (15NOV2016): Last evening while justifiably castigating heavily biased Big Media of The Left, Mr. Hannity justifiably called upon President-Elect Trump to fulfill the promises of Candidate Trump in full. He warned that he will be monitoring President Trump’s actions and will hold President Trump to account publicly should the the latter pursue the well-worn path of empty, political promises unfulfilled.]

With regards to President-Elect Trump’s announcements of administrative appointments, he admitted on CBS to Miss Stahl that he intentionally is choosing Washingtonian “insiders” because they are the ones who know “the system”. This so-called system is that to which he referred as a “swamp”. Those he is appointing are creatures from the very swamp that he pledged to “drain”. In this entire nation of ours, are there no competent “outsiders” who really could and would drain the cesspool that comprises the District of Corruption?

So, what is the antecedent for President-Elect Trump’s apparent retreat? What is the antecedent for the so-called conciliatory behavior — such conciliation operationally meaning to turn his back on his supporters and renege on his promises to them in favor of seeking accommodation with their and his opponents and enemies; accommodation that they, being of The Left, never have given and never will give?

Oh yes, protesting in the streets by the usual puppets with the usual puppeteers like George Soros and his ilk pulling the strings. Recall the $33-million that Soros fronted to organize the riots in Ferguson, Missouri?

So, retreat in the name of “conciliation” and “unification” seems to be President-Elect Trump’s response after castigating the rioters then praising them. Expedient but not courageous.

President-Elect Trump claims that he wants to be President of all the people. Legally, he will be. Politically, he will not. Did Obama care about all the people in his rampage to destroy “White America” pursuant to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright’s, damning proclamations?

President-Elect Trump may fool himself about the election, but will he fool his supporters and opponents? The election was decided primarily along racial lines. The Euro-Caucasians voting for him likely represented the last gasp of an increasingly dispossessed and dwindling majority, a consequence of its prior, passive refusal to defend its own interests in terms of territory, resources, wealth, tradition, and biology.

For decades, its motto echoed the famous words of Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine — “What, me worry?”

Wait! Perhaps, we should not rush to judgement about President-Elect Trump. Perhaps, once in the Oval Office himself President Trump will remember Candidate Trump’s now-seemingly forgotten promises and remember those supporters who voted for him in response to his making those promises.

Then again, perhaps not. If not, John and Jane America, what to do?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

RES IPSA LOQUITOR

October 31st, 2016

Note (09NOV2016): It appears that many college-educated, female Euro-Caucasians realized that their disdain for Mr. Trump translated into their voting for Mrs. Clinton (Why does Big Media of The Left use the excoriated “Mrs.” not the favored “Ms.”?) would consign their children and their children’s children to a Hell that they would not unleash upon themselves; so, the vote for Mr. Trump. Addressing the question whether the consequences of men ratifying Amendment XIX in 1920 have been favorable or unfavorable, this change of heart would support ratification of the Amendment.

Note (07NOV2016): Tomorrow may herald the banging another nail into the coffin of that which had been these United States of America when the women of this nation now in decline — this nation now on fire — elect Hillary Clinton as the first, female President. After 12 years of mismanagement under Bush the First and Bush the Second (Think the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the so-called Patriot Act.), 8 years of mismanagement under “Slick Willie” Clinton (Think North Korea and China.), and 8 years of mismanagement under Barack Hussein Obama II (Think . . .  Think everything.), can this nation — can the world — survive intact the next 4 or 8 years under HRC? Such is the direct consequence of Amendment XIX. Yes, ladies, behavior does have its consequences, and voting is a behavior.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” -Amendment XIX (1920)

What further can we say? In Latin or English, the thing speaks for itself.

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s documented lying, cheating, swindling, obstructing justice, killing, and selling out her country for personal advantage, American women — considerably more than American men — remain Hell-bent on putting this infirm crone into the White House. Not only will she become the first female President of these United States of America, she will become the first President-elect under investigation for federal crimes, amazingly, when elected then possibly the first President under indictment for federal crimes, even more amazingly, when taking office.

All these events are the direct consequence of American men having ratified Amendment XIX. As Biobehavioral Science tells us, behavior has its consequences.

Excerpt #1/2 from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequence
“What about a newer issue … giving women the vote?” Would you end it?

“It is a thought. Women’s suffrage has been an interesting social experiment. I’ll remind you that until the twentieth century, unless monarchs, women had little say in governmental affairs. Even through the twentieth century, while Japan granted women the vote, it denied them the crown.”

“Well, excepting ceremonial duties, monarchies are a thing of the past. Is it a past in which you wish to reside?”

“Hardly … too few toilets! I’m simply pointing out that women having political power is a recent event by historical standards. In fact, no modern society ever has had a matriarchal form of government.”

“Yet!”

“Yes, yet. The tale has yet to be told, Cliff … in full.”

“So it would seem.”

“Women are different from men. The differences aren’t merely in gross anatomy. They’re in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, also. Can one truly believe that the elaboration of testosterone in the male foetus has no effect on its brain?”

“I’m not a physician, Uncle, but I’d guess that it does have an effect.”

“Of course, it does! Faced with threat, males tend toward fight or flight … females toward protection and socialization. Watch young children in a playground. When a quarrel occurs, little boys encourage fighting … little girls, reconciling. Little boys play with toy-weapons … little girls, with dolls.”

“Don’t you favor reconciling over fighting?”

“Sometimes, there may be no alternative to giving war a chance.”

Excerpt #2/2 from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequence —
“The issue of banking secrecy aside, would you yourself, Uncle, favor repealing women’s suffrage? Yes or no.”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“First of all, it’s established by law and tradition. Second of all, politically it would be virtually impossible to revoke. Third of all, the Earth needs fewer people not more. As demands upon women in the home have diminished and will continue to diminish, women will continue to enter the workforce. Accordingly, they have a legitimate claim to the vote in order to protect their own interests. Lastly, a maternal influence in male-dominated politics, if not radicalized, might ameliorate male aggressiveness, leading toward some sort of optimal balance. Who knows? There’s even a possibility that it might be a good thing.”

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.