2016: The first Presidential election where we have only one choice

Donald Trump keeps digging himself in a bigger and bigger hole.  The latest being his fight with the Khan family over the patriotism of Muslims.  Attacking a Gold Star mother: how low can you get?

He keeps changing his tune on this issue as he has so many times before.  Is a man who can get angry at a small slight a person whose finger we want on the nuclear button?

Hillary Clinton is not my favorite possible person for President, but she now stands as the only possible choice for President.  I don't like dynastic politics, but we have to consider all the government experience that she has had compared to that of Donald Trump.

Staying away is not an option.  If you stay away, you might give the election to Trump.  There are too many people that live in his fantasy world that will be voting.

In addition to voting for Clinton, you can hold her feet to the fire by reminding her of her vision with her 1969 Wellesley College commencement address.  See http://www.ttbook.org/book/hillarys-first-speech-historic-1969-audio-reveals-blueprint-her-life.  Warning, you'll have to listen to a lot of commentary before you get the speech in its entirety. 

Incomplete quoting to fit ideology

Many who want government to stay out of corporate affairs quote Milton Friedman with “The only purpose of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value.”

However, he actually had a more nuanced statement:

"There is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

See “The Benefits and Costs of Social Investing”, Alex Brian, Morningstar, 2015-01-07.

Too many forget everything after “so long as it stays within the rules of the game…”

Also, who should be the arbiter of “the game”?  The Chambers of Commerce?  But Chambers interests are those of its members.  Government?  Horrors!  Who else do we have that could be “impartial”?

Note my use of “could” rather than “can”.  Too many corporations work to get government to make decisions favorable to themselves without regard to the “General Welfare” stated in the U. S. Constitution.

What we have is that the “rules of the game” as manipulated by corporate interests often lead to lots of “deception or fraud”.

Hunters should oppose "shoot first" laws

Imagine you are hunting on Federal, state, or county land.  You think you know where the boundaries are, but without precise GPS knowledge, you can't be sure.  Suddenly, somebody challenges you claiming that you are trespassing.  You start to protest, but blam!  You're dead.

Your killer was right that you were trespassing, you were carrying a loaded gun, and so he claimed self-defense.

What if you're walking on the road and pass somebody's property.  For whatever reason the person shoots you.  Your killer claims self-defense.  You were carrying a gun and there are no witnesses.

These kinds of shootings have occurred.  There was a case in Wisconsin a few years ago where a group challenged a hunter because they believed he was trespassing.  He shot and killed at least five of them.  He did claim self-defense, but the survivors claimed otherwise.  I believe that hunter is in jail.

But if there are no witnesses and no survivors, who is going to prove that the shooting was not in self-defense?

The "shoot first" laws make it a bit unwise to enjoy the solitude of hunting alone.

Legislators must prove they have read the books

I have had on my to-do list for awhile to write a blog entry about a standardized test for legislators.  After all, if a standardized test is good enough to judge school children's abilities, a standardized test should be good enough to judge legislators' abilities.

I was prodded to act on this to-do item on seeing "Teachers must prove they can do the math", Rachel E. Stassen-Berger and Kim McGuire, Star Tribune, 2012-02-23.  Gov. Mark Dayton signed a law that "requires would-be teachers to pass a college-level basic skills test before they can lead a classroom."

So, again sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Shouldn't we have a requirement that legislators pass a political history test before they can serve in a legislature?

Here are a few questions:

What did Adam Smith state was the basis of a nation's economy?

Was Adam Smith concerned with special interests?

Was Adam Smith more sympathetic to workers or to employers?

Did Adam Smith think that banks should be regulated?

Were the writers of the Constitution concerned with the common good and virtue?  Please define these terms and give examples of their use in the Federalist Papers.

To what degree did the writers of the Constitution think that commerce should be regulated?

What was the intent of the writers of the Constitution when they used the words "people", "person", and "citizen".  Please define each term.

Did Thomas Jefferson think that "limited government" applied to financial institutions and other corporate interests?

Please feel free to send these questions to your legislatures at the state and federal level.

You can't argue with Tea Party supporters

Today's Duluth News Tribune had a rebuttal of my Tea Party Local View.  See "United States on a fast track to tyranny".  You can see it free for about seven days.

His first fixation is on taxes as being a sole driver of economic activity - "High taxes drive taxpayers out of high-tax states…"  True if you consider only people who measure only taxes as a cost.  These writers never consider that taxes buy us lots of things that drive economic activity.  He ignores that many companies move to where skilled labor is available and that it takes taxes to educate and train people.

That bastion of free enterprise, the Wall Street Journal, published an opinion earlier this week that a company moving to the South (low taxes and anti-union) may be getting lower quality: "Boeing's Threat to American Enterprise: When major firms move to the South, it's usually a harbinger of quality decline.  Why let that happen?", Thomas Geoghegan, Wall Street Journal, 2011-06-20.  Sorry, you'll have to subscribe to see the whole article.

He gets on the tax and spend mantra and that much is paid for by borrowing.  But why is the money borrowed?  For two wars?  For infra-structure investment?  To bail out large corporations?

He claims that the "intent of our country's founders is obvious from their writings…"  I guess he knows better than the Supreme Court, which over the decades has had difficulty discerning the intent.  He completely missed my comment that first a slave was property and not a person and then property (a corporation) was a person.  I didn't put in my article that these cases were Dred Scott and Citizens United.

He claims that we are on "the fast track to tyranny as we relinquish … our dollars and choices to government officials who supposedly know what is best for us."  He ignores that we are still a republic and can vote these people out.

He missed my point about free markets being many players with sufficient information.  He ignores that our free markets have devolved into a few players with the power to buy our government.  Now that is tyranny!!

Business-friendly policies? Friendly to which businesses?

One of the buzz words in politics is being business-friendly.  Makes me think the Constitution begins "We the Corporations of the United States…"

Businesses run the gamut from über-corporations like Wal-Mart and Apple to local businesses with a few dozen employees to single-person businesses.  One size of politics does not fit all.

One would think that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce represents all businesses, but according to Daniel Gross, "Does the Chamber of Commerce Know What's Best for Business?", Yahoo Finance Tech Ticker, it is "essentially a lobbying group for large businesses".  Well, not all businesses, Apple quit the Chamber in 2009 over climate change.  Pick your story with a search for "Apple Chamber of Commerce".

Gross points out that the Chamber angers "everyone from deficit hawks" to environmentalists.  He also points out that the Chamber got much of what it wanted but that didn't deliver the results the Chamber promised.

To think that the House of Representatives began its year with the reading of the Constitution and immediately forgot "We the People".

Second amendment rights, to what purpose?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Like so much in the U. S. Constitution, the second amendment is open to a variety of interpretations.  One that is used by many is that gun ownership is needed to protect oneself against the government.

Those who hold to this interpretation ignore Article I, Section 8, which includes the power of Congress "To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and Article III, Section 2, which includes "The President shall be Commander in Chief of … the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States".

This has happened at least twice.  George Washington, as Commander in-Chief, lead forces against the insurrection of the those tax-evading participants of the Whiskey Rebellion.  Old George knew what he was doing; he had been president of the Constitutional Convention.  Abe Lincoln was Commander in Chief of the various militia against the insurrection of the Southern States.

If you want to have a gun to protect yourself against the government, the government has the constitutional right to call out the militia to protect itself against you.

True patriots celebrate today more than any other day

Did you know today is Constitution Day? On this day 222 years ago, 12 state delegations approved the Constitution of the United States.

Unfortunately more people give respect to the flag than the Constitution. Presidents of both parties have given speeches justifying their usurpation of power against a backdrop of flags.

For one site respecting the Constitution, see http://www.constitutionday.cc/.
See also http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/funZone/files/Recent_Visitors.pdf for a list of countries from which people have visited this site.

If the Constitution doesn't mention health care...?

Denise Dennis wrote an interesting column about the disruption of a health care meeting moderated by Secy. Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter, "Right Wingers Wreak Havoc on Philadelphia Town Meeting".

A smaller group opposed to the health care bill kept shouting throughout the meeting interrupting others claiming their right to free speech. Dennis asked one if he wasn't taking the right of free speech from others.

The demonstrators waved copies of the Constitution and claimed health care wasn't mentioned. Let's see, mandatory birth and death certificates aren't mentioned in the Constitution either. Nor are stop lights, paved highways, railroads, airports, air traffic control, nuclear weapons, and waterboarding.

Gosh, I guess we haven't had a Constitutional government since the days of that fine Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.