We should honor all Americans who took up arms for their state and country

This of course includes Confederate soldiers. And their flags should continue to fly. Are these outrageous statements? Didn’t the Confederate States of America, as symbolized by its various flags, represent hatred of Negroes and defense of slavery, which it wished to expand westward to the new states? How is it possible to honor men who fought for such a dishonorable cause?

Before we invite the reader to a thought experiment, let us try to clear some of the deck, so to speak, and set out a few thoughts to gain some perspective. Let’s try a Q and A format.

Isn’t human slavery an evil Godless institution? Yes, of course, this goes without saying. Considering that some people can be considered property violates the essential dignity of every child of God.

Did Confederates hate slaves? Of course not. Slaves were very important to their owners. Hatred of them was not one of the slaveholders’ sins.

Weren’t the Confederates inveterate racists, prejudiced against Negroes? Just about everyone at that time was a racist. Lincoln thought the slaves inferior and did not advocate equal rights in today’s sense. In fact he was in favor of sending them off to Liberia .But thankfully he did believe they were not chattel and had a God-given right to the fruits of their labor.

Wasn’t the Civil War just about slavery? Slavery was an important issue, and may have been the flash point, but there was no single issue determining war. Others were unfair taxation, mercantilism, balance of power between the states and the national government, and particularly defense of the idea that one’s state has the legal and moral right to determine its own future. In 1861 slavery was constitutional. In his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln reiterated he was not an abolitionist: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” Most Southerners did not own slaves.  Continue reading

Donald Trump: blowhard vulgarian

In no way should Donald Trump, recently characterized as a “ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula,” be considered even a marginal candidate for President of the United States. The man’s business experience – his only selling point – cannot be much of a recommendation, since it started with inheriting thousands of New York City properties from his father and went on to include four bankruptcies. His industry, casinos, one of the most highly regulated – and corrupt – is a poster child for influence peddling with big government. A crony capitalist confusing net worth and virtue, he possesses little understanding of free markets (see our earlier post here.) Even a failed Presidential run would enhance his celebrity and thus his wealth, to our detriment.

We like straight talk, but not diluted with gaffes, foolishness, and braggadocio. For straight talk we much prefer Carly Fiorina, who has real business experience in a number of areas and understands the free market. She recently said: “We’d better have a nominee not afraid to throw punches all night long.”

Trump brings out two of the Right’s worst tendencies: the inability to distinguish between entertainers and political leaders, and the habit of treating politics as an exercise in emotional vindication. (See source here.)

Take a look at some of what is known about this pretender:

  • A registered Democrat from 2001-2009.
  • Most of his political contributions have gone to Democrats, including Chuck Schumer & Hillary
  • Stated several times his preferred running mate would be Oprah Winfrey: “I think we’d win easily, actually.”
  • Supports Canadian-style universal health care run by the Federal government
  • Wants a one-time (!) Federal wealth tax of 14.25%
  • Advocates a 20% tariff on imported goods
  • Supports abuse of eminent domain, as in the Kelo decision

He reminds us of nothing more than the vulgar caricature of the self-satisfied country-club Republican, whose mind is crippled by selfish interests and mouth wide open to emotional release without forethought. Heaven help us if the Democrats manage to persuade many that this Democrat-in-Republican-disguise is actually the very image of the distasteful Republican.    Troglo

Troglo

Political Quickie: Donald Trump just called his hotel guests stupid!

Did he say that?  Well, not exactly – but he did say, in his presidential announcement speech, “Free trade is terrible.  Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have people that are stupid.”

In the same speech he declared the need for a “talented and smart” leader (President) to conduct trade negotiations and abandon the free-trade model. One must question whether “The Donald” understands the concept of “Free Trade”.

Is it possible that he was only talking about trade between countries and not trade between individuals, like his resort guests?  Think about it, how could he have implied that?  There is no trade been countries (except for the goods consumed by the governments themselves;) there is only trade between individuals or their contracted representatives.

And all such trade, to be truly free, must be negotiated only between such individuals or their representatives, without the intervention of governments and their leaders.  Trade negotiations conducted between government leaders is not “free trade;” it is “managed trade”, usually managed via quotas, tariffs or other restrictions.

I think it’s fair to assume that when Trump refers to trade that he is talking about only international trade, which would include the trade that he conducts with his international resort guests. Let’s further assume, for this illustration, that the trades conducted at resorts owned by Trump follow his advice that only the “talented and smart” should negotiate for hotel rooms.

So are Trump’s guests smart or are they stupid?  If they are stupid, do they have talented government agents negotiating for them?  If not, should they?  Trump has resorts in the U.S. and at least five other countries.  Should the leaders of these countries negotiate the rates for Trump’s stupid guests or set quotas or protective tariffs to benefit the competing hotels owned by local citizens?  That’s exactly the way Donald Trump wants to negotiate for the products we (as individuals) buy from China.

He has previously called for a 25% tariff on all Chinese products.  That is effectively negotiating a 25% price increase for us.  How stupid does Trump think we are?

While I may come to trust Trump to negotiate government purchases, I do not trust him to make my purchase decisions or even to negotiate on my behalf.

To show him how smart we are, let’s extend Trump’s call for tariffs to his resort business and advocate for a 25% tariff on all resort revenue, as well as call for the imposition of maximum occupancy quotas for each of his international hotels.

Do you think that then he would come to understand the concept of “Free Trade”?   Bruce-thumbnail

Bruce Hillis

Notes: To learn what free trade really is, read Senator DeMInt here. For currency manipulation see this. Also regarding currency manipulation, look up the Nazi collaborating George Schwarz, now known as Soros, the black knight of progressive extremism who made fortunes harming governments worldwide.

Marriage equality and Rachel Dolezal: a riff on the liberal mentality

Consider the “marriage equality” slogan of left-wing advocates of marriage between homosexuals. To us it has always been weak and off-point. All marriages are of course equally marriages, including common-law ones. Same-sex unions or domestic partnerships are not marriages. So in what sense can marriages and non-marriages be equal?

The outing of Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, as white by her parents sheds light into this dark corner of the liberal mind. Although her parents showed photos of their blonde, blue-eyed girl, according to an AP AP story, she dodged the question of her actual race by stating that “We’re all from the African continent” and “There’s a lot of complexities …and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.” It appears to us that the “complexities” lie exclusively in Miss Dolezal’s mind. Just as Bill Clinton was acclaimed by some as the first black President, for some racial identity need not be factual or biological. If you identify with a group, and “disguise” yourself as Rachel’s mother said about her, your subjective belief becomes reality.

It is a common criticism of liberals that their policy positions reveal more about their subjective states than about reality. Just so with marriage between or among homosexuals. If, as some believe, couples marry themselves, for liberals their couplings become real marriages, which it is incumbent on the non-discriminatory state and Federal governments to recognize. Only in this sense could the slogan of “marriage equality” make sense.

Continue reading