15% corruption in govt giveaways and how to fix some of it

 

COVID19 spawned govt payments; Corruption stole much of it. People got scared with Covid19 and shut down all manner of things, then to compensate USA spent $2T to help people in addition to the money they already hand out.  When that much money is thrown out to the public, there is bound to be fraud.  Now we find out that SNAP (Food stamps) programs doubled (now at 15% of the spending) the fraudulent claims, TANF(welfare) did the same. Then came the COVID payments and we still don’t know how much went outside the country.  Federal govt estimates $281B was lost by the Feds in 2021 just due to overpayment of legitimate recipients.  How much went to the Prince in Nigeria? Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, which oversaw the outflow, says, “Typically Government doesn’t have much of an incentive to prevent fraud.” No kidding, Sherlock!  Add to this the constant 13% fraud in Medicaid and other procurements, and the time is ripe for a new administration to start tackling waste.  Here’s some solutions: Equip those EBT cards they use for SNAP for user security like banks with debit cards. No more “apply by internet”; must be in person or by authorized representative. Make contract vendors have insurance bonding for reimbursing recipients when their identity is stolen. If some outfit wants reimbursed for 1000 wheelchairs they claim they sold to Medicaid people, make they prove their identity, show expenses, and provide a list of recipients. If a bureaucrat authorizes a system that hands out over 5% of the money to fraudsters, give him a pink slip. I guess I’m a taxpayer and am ticked over being fleeced.

Don't get me started about the $6T that Biden spent mainly on green stuff.

Elections in December?

 

We should move election day to the first Tuesday in December. Then it would remind many that while your politician may be born in Scranton and rise to be President, we have a King who was born manure-floored sheep stye and placed in a manger.  Who then rose from the dead to rule over all the physical universe. Top that, if you dare.

            And it was this singular man and His life that caused Jefferson, with at least 3 dozen men looking over his shoulder to pen the Declaration of Independence.  That famous line about all men being created equal was lifted almost verbatim from John Locke, the Father of Modern Psychology who considered what kind of government men would truly love and prosper under in his Two Treatises on Government. A Christian author, Locke resonated with the Americans who had just undergone an enormous religious revival, the Great Awakening.  We were born of Judeo-Christian ethic that also accepts the non-believer to “live life as you want to live it,” within the bounds of our social contract, with self-evident rights.

            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This rules out a theocracy of priests, nor divine right of Kings or a a power-elite who refuse to be questioned.  Instead it is a system where the people governed grant power to their government.  We the People give consent.  It is not God over Government over People, but God over People over Government. How does this square with the Almighty?  Well, if God gives some person a mission in life, who can abort such a mission without ultimate judgment from God?  And none of us knows the heart of another, where the mission lies. Voting in December would remind us of something. The guy born in the manger, the One who said, ”Fear not for I have redeemed you; I have called  you by name, you are Mine.” gave us the love to extend those rights to all who live in our country. Some thought to refuse those inalienable rights to slaves, some thought Native Americans were savages and should be excluded as well.  Republicans fought them both times.  Republicans fight again to preserve religious liberty, free uncensored speech without woke demands, right to bear arms, property stewardship with limits on government unreasonable surveillance and seizure, due process of law, rights reserved to the states and the people, a limited government, free enterprise and a free people.

            Whether a December voting date would remind us of these core principles is open for debate.  Certainly if our schools taught them, it would make some sense.  Like Dorothy in Wizard of Oz, some of us wonder if some of the rest of America lives in a crazy dream world such that even a 12 year old girl can figure out won't work.

Woke theory and Classical Liberalism

THE ECONOMIST, A BRIT PUBLICATION WITH AN INTERNATIONAL STAFF HAS TURNED IT’S BACK ON THE DEMOCRAT LEFT. Wokeism is a threat and violates the principles of classical liberalism, they say. Amazing—a publication that has always seemingly to been run by lib Democrats is now turning against them! But they explain their split. Classical liberalism (in which they pride themselves) believes that human progress is found in debate and reform, individual dignity, open markets, limited government, and separation of powers.  To an American, this sounds a lot like Conservatism.  How indeed did anyone who believes such things ever start sounding like the LDP of Canada or hate Trump like a lib Dem? And from that perspective are now appalled by the Left?

            The answer to this puzzle is that America and Europe have fought different battles.  Europe began with the confessional state and forced belief.  Spain and Italy had the Inquisition, Calvin’s Switzerland had death for dissenters, and everybody had pogroms for the Jews.  Free-thinking intellectuals were at war with the confessional state throughout the Enlightenment and Romantic eras. Why did the churches behave so autocratically, especially during the Middle Ages?  Well, they learned it from the barbarians who came in the 4^th to 10^th century. Historian Will Durant relates stories of how, even after a surge of barbarians, the Roman citizens still had skills, but the barbarians rejected good physicians preferring magic, rejected good Roman Law in favor of trial by ordeal.  But most tellingly, could not be converted to better practices. They became nominally Christian, practically pagan.  The fire of Christian faith in Augustine, Patrick, Ambrose, and Jerome grew into a sort of dim, illiterate magic even though Europe became Christian.  When one possesses a strong God, dissent is not threatening. Jesus just let disbelievers walk away.  When one believes in a weak God, one must squelch debate and crush dissent.  It carried over. In modern Europe, polls have shown that more people believe in trolls, spells and fairies than the Christian faith.  Hence the French Revolution wanted “brotherhood” while the American Revolution wanted Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When the consensus of brotherhood (the population or ruling elite) chooses rights they ascribe government as the author.  When they think morality, they think of something fuzzy, personal and hard to define.  A European thinks they are free because the government gives them the right to wear a tee shirt with an obscene hand gesture. An American thinks of freedom as freedom of opportunity, endowed by the Creator which cannot be taken away.

            The 13 colonies,were every bit as much confessional states as the British back home, and equally divided.  But the Great Awakening, a Christian Revival, swept the colonies in the 1740s and everything changed.  It became apparent to most people that finding peace with God was imperative in the harsh wilderness.  And that there were many versions of Christian belief (and others) but each person must work it out to come to grips with not just their faith but with their mission in life. British historian Paul Johnson says that America solved the dilemma of unity vs. tolerance by insisting on a common ethic of public behavior but allowing freedom of religion and free speech, Liberty, for the individual. Johnson, a Catholic, says this has changed American Catholics into a people who concern more with personal belief than Papal dispensations. Thus free speech was not a goal or ideal but a right secured by the Divine.  So while Europeans were happy that Jefferson wrote, “the loathsome combination of church and state” as a root cause of evils, they were tepid over complete religious and speech tolerance.  The upshot of the Bill of Rights was to permanently establish certain rights as bedrock to the American way. Hence others—atheists or Buddhists--could subscribe to America and be in unity with a melting pot nation. Nowhere is this more apparent than the enormous migration of Jews to USA.  Other countries might claim they were welcoming, but in America you get Rights!

            Comes now the woke-o locos.  They arose from an academic society that came up with a vague, malleable theory of racism associated with society’s structure and it has leftist, socialistic goals. Contradictions, for example: if the socialist goal is a universal public education/indoctrination, isn’t the insistence that Afro-Americans attend failing inner city schools a racism structure? Wokeism appeals to the usual alienation of youth and is encouraged by administrations of colleges. (Leftist university administrators outnumber moderates and conservatives 13 to 1)  None of these have to answer for what they create. Since those youth have now arrived as workers and leaders, they demand woke speech, woke business, and strident journalism, Democrat Party rule, and corporations.  Long term, this won’t survive.  No other system of business beats capitalism, but the woke-inistas won’t allow capitalism.  Math classes now have to talk to students about gender choice. Loss of freedom of thought will bring innovation and science to a halt. Weaponizing social media will only drive the opposition forces underground to foment civil war against this new status quo.

            Classical Liberals of Europe see all the evils of the confessional state in the woke movement—imposed orthodoxy, expulsion of heretics, book burning and creeds.  Actually, that’s rather amusing beecause both groups start with a godless premise. 

Oct 1 1949

 

Oct. 1, 1949 was one of the most monumental days in history but nobody notices. Just one week before, President Truman announced “We have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the USSR.”So how did they get the secrets of atomic bomb?  Ask the Rosenburgs. Or maybe ask the 1527 communists who had infiltrated the federal government.  Our cryptologist women of the Venona Project would later discover 406 of them as Soviet operatives.  (McCarthy’s estimate of 51 was far too low.)  The opening of the Soviet Union’s KGB files provided the rest of the names.  On Oct. 14, 11 communist leaders were found by federal court to have conspired to overthrow of USA. Lesson: This is what happens when you aren’t guarded about communist and fascist fanatics.  Nations such as China can destroy us. So can clever  socialist rioters in cahoots with sympathetic government officials.

Oct. 1 began a nation-wide steel strike that didn’t end until Nov. 11.  No wages agreed to but the union managed to get a massive increase in pensions, thus setting the stage for future contract agreements by unions.  Hence, part of the financial disasters in many manufacturers we have seen recently played out. They were due to the fact that current management kicked the can down the road, letting their company become pension providers in such extremum that they could no longer remain solvent in some future date.  Lesson: the same can be true of a country which promises more than it can deliver. On Oct. 26, 1949, the Minimum Wage Act was voted into perpetual continuance raising from 40 cents per hour to 75.

Sept. 7- Oct. 1 most of the Pacific Islands were transferred from military control to the US Interior Dept. as Territories. The month before Congress passed a program to encourage Alaska development and future statehood. USA was never colonial-minded and already plans were being made for these tiny populations to choose whether to remain territories or commonwealths or some other arrangement. Lesson: a wise move. By January we would be involved in arguments about protection of Taiwan-Formosa. Truman didn’t want it; R’s did. A colleague who was born there and immigrated declared that the R’s made a helluva wise move.

Finally, a couple days later, Congress appropriated funds for reforestation and revegetation of national forests and range lands—some argue, the first true environmental legislation.

Ike's legacy

                                                History is His Story

How did “In God We Trust” end up on all our currency?  “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? To understand the story you have to understand where Eisenhower got his faith.  His parents were Pennsylvania Dutch Lutherans.  David and Ida moved to Hope, Kansas in the 1880s.  They had both gone to college in LeCompton.  After a brief job in Denison, TX, David Eisenhower moved to Abilene, KS, in 1892, about 150 miles north of Ponca City and 40 miles from my old KS homestead (Hope is just 20 miles away!). The family would be classified as deeply religious, attending first a Mennonite church and then joining the Jehovah Witnesses, mainly at the instigation of Ida. Dwight never joined, however, remaining more mainstream in his faith. The family held twice daily devotions. She had 7 boys, and Dwight was the 3^rd.  All were nicknamed “Ike”. Dwight (Little Ike) and his older brother Edgar (Big Ike) made a pact that they would alternate years at college, the other working to pay tuition. But Edgar wanted a second year of college right away so Dwight agreed to work another year at the creamery.  A friend had successfully applied to the Naval Academy and encouraged Little Ike to do the same. He was accepted at West Point. 

            Soon he fell very much in love with Mamie Doud and they married in 1916, soon after he graduated. Every year or so he was assigned to a different base so they never joined a church but attended the Protestant base services.  During WW I, Captain Eisenhower trained tank operators and soon joined Colonel George Patton in Texas who espoused aggressive “tank warfare”, not just using the tanks as an infantry backup. Ike got assigned to the War College and it became apparent that he was a genius for battle plans with a comprehensive brain for lining up resources and working with differing personalities. Yet he remained a major for 16 long years.  In 1941, he was promoted to Brigadier General.  He and Patton went to N. Africa and the result was a stellar campaign through Tunisia, Sicily and southern Italy until Ike was chosen to handle all the egotistical and prickly generals of the Allied Command for Operation Overlord, D-Day. He achieved this by keeping close personal control over the entire operation and letting them claim the glory of victories.  The pictures of Ike’s heartfelt conversations with troops ready to land in Normandy, knowing that half would sustain casualties, are quite real.  He was humbled by their devotion, even by those far beneath him in rank. And he often shared scripture. 

            After the war, he served as military governor of US sector of occupied Germany, General of the Army, and then in 1948 became President of Columbia University, NY. Truman suggested he run for President as his Democrat successor.  But the little secret was that though Ike could work with anybody, he disliked Columbia’s atheistic professors and the welfare state.  He chose to run as a Republican, was secretly conservative, but was also an advocate of NATO, opposed by the Republican right wing isolationists. Most of us remember President Eisenhower as a “bipartisan and relaxed”, but historians who have studied his papers say, no, he was secretly, intensely involved in every decision, a deviousness he learned from being in military command, desiring unpredictabilitiy. In 1952 Ike joined the Presbyterians and was baptized.

            But something was eating at Ike. From 1948 to 1955 television viewing went from 172,000 families to 32 million.  As the habit spread, those who ran the networks began to flex cultural muscles and openly contemplated a society in which all standards of behavior would be up for redefinition in moral relativism governed by only ratings. Ike quietly listened and decided that the character education of American youth should not follow this.  He suggested “under God” (from Lincoln’s Inaugural) be inserted into the pledge to some congressmen, and in 1954 they passed it. He is famously quoted, “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith—and I don’t care what it is.” Typical Ike Talk, Mamie explained. This didn’t mean he was indifferent to the articles of faith, but sincere faith should be an important component of all Americans. Then some suggested “In God We Trust” (4^th verse of national anthem) become a national motto and be on all coins.  The media dubbed this as “Piety on the Potomac”.  Indeed it was subtle.  Mamie later said that Ike thought this was one of the more important things he had achieved.  From a guy who had defeated Hitler, blocked communist expansion, rebuilt Europe, built the Interstate Highways, NASA, and other things, this is a quite an assessment!

About Gerrymandering

 

The mathematician in me chuckles every time they bring up gerrymandering.  Everybody thinks they know how to spot gerrymandering but they are usually mistaken. They see a district that has a contorted boundary and say, Aha! Gerrymandering!   However, the definition of fair district representation is one that reflects the demography and voter registration of a state as a whole.  Districts must be weighted with voters and demographics.  It’s not just spatial topography.  Consider Illinois, an easy example which has one large metro. The state is 56% Democrat in registration.  How would you construct a perfectly gerrymander-free state map?  Northeast is Chicago where most Dems and blacks reside.  The rest of the state is R and suburban or rural.  If you were to construct entirely rectangular districts with a high density of small rectangular districts in Chicago, you’d still be quite gerrymandered.  There is hardly any black representation in the larger part of the state. (well, okay, East St. Louis but that's just 55,000 people nowadays) Chicago is heavily Democratic. Hence the Chicago districts would vote D but the thin D-population in the other districts would probably make them become R districts. And that results in majority R representation for the state.  You’ve done the thing that gerrymandering has always achieved for the party in power. The opponents are forced into “ghettos” that vote highly their way.  The rest of the districts then distribute the remaining opposition voters into defeatable portions.  So if Illinois is 56% D and has 15 districts but the 6 districts of Chicago contain 75% Ds, the other 9 districts would be 55-45% R’s, and the state delegation would be, counterintuitively, 9 R’s and 6 D’s. 

            The “Fair” thing would be to have districts whose boundaries are like rays that begin in Chicago and extend across the entire state.  Thus an equal proportion of blacks would live in all districts as well as 56% Ds vs. 44% Rs.  But here lies the irony.  Nobody wants this. If blacks have less than 20% representation in all districts, they would find elections difficult and there would likely be very few black representatives—unless like Mia Love of Utah, you are a conservative that gets white votes moreso than even blacks.  That is, there would be no black “safe” districts. Secondly, politicians would hate campaigning simultaneously in Chicago and Cairo. Perfect demographics (that you can solve with a computer) makes for hard politics and pricey advertizing.

            Because D’s tend to gather in small areas of large metros, and engage in identity politics, they will be forever tormented by gerrymandering. But in fact this may have been what the Founders envisioned when their constitution installed the Electoral College and the Senate that would not allow, as Madison called it, “one corner of the country to rule us all”.   

Electoral College

They used to teach this in school but evidently don’t anymore because so many think we’d be better with Popular Vote determining Presidential winners.  The Founders had to have all the states behind their effort to write a constitution.  You can’t very well form a country out of 7 of the 13 colonies.  In this urgency they wrote a constitution that both recognizes popular vote for Representatives and state vote for Senators.  And they decided against popular vote for Presidents.  Instead they constructed an Electoral College as a special convention numbering as the sum of Reps and Senators from each state.  State popular vote gets the electors.  Why this method?

Simple.  They didn’t want the country ruled from one corner or one area of large population.  The President has to be President of all the people.  We can’t have a situation where the guy elected decides the people in the rest of the nation are nobodies, just flyover country—you guys in Dakota can vote if you wish but your vote doesn’t much count.  If USA were a popular vote Presidency, there is no reason to campaign in Utah or Kentucky.  Instead, all campaigns would be for the 15 large metro areas that professional sports calls “Large Markets”.  Win a big majority in those and you win it all.  If there were two candidates with close popular vote, like Trump and Clinton, they wanted the person whose colors covered the map most.  Take a look at this last election.  Though Hillary may have won the popular vote by 2,000,000, she has no states between the coasts except for NM, CO, MN, and IL.  Such a regional President would lack the ability to unite the country, the Founders reasoned. You have to win a majority of the Electoral College votes.

That majority of the College also means the political parties must be widely appealing.  In Europe they have parties of strict doctrine—socialists, communists, greens, farmers, labor—and nobody wins more than 27% of the vote among 8 parties running. But in USA, in order to rule, you must have a party that appeals broadly to many people from wide areas of the country.  That causes constant turmoil in our parties with conservatives or moderates or progressives vying for accendancy, but  we work it out.  In the rest of the world, parties are strict in belief and don’t try many new ideas. Parties are like tribes of fierce loyalty.  No independent voters, like in USA.

The Electors are not dullards. They are real people.  In case the President-Elect dies or turns into something really evil, they are free to vote their conscience. There has to be a transition time between the Presidencies if the new guy is to get organized.  If not, then we have to have a Parliamentary system like United Kingdom of Great Britain with cabinets and programs already in place. That sudden change has not made for peaceful transitions in many European countries.  Americans like to think of ourselves as one people, not warring factions vying to get the upper hand.

European democracies have also taught another lesson on why we are wise to have Electors.  If popular vote rules and nobody gets a majority—such as this last election, what do you do?  Do you allow the 35% guy to take office?  The other 65% will have no respect and the nation will effectively be leaderless like Poland in the face of Nazis attack.  Or do you make the further demand that any government formed must have the majority of votes?  In that case Trump or Hillary would be in negotiations to get Gary Johnson to form a coalition government—thus push vote total over 50%.  Coalition governments have a history of mundane gridlock to disastrous in Europe.  When Hindenburg needed a partner in 1933 he chose Hitler who had 14% of the vote.  Hindenburg died, Hitler diabolically burned down the Reichstag (legislature building) with all the opposition party members in attendance, decried the tragedy but emplaced his Nazis in power and declared martial law.  Coalition governments are how you get a 14% guy in power by trick or brute force.  

So add it up.  Presidents with wide appeal, big-tent parties, campaigns spread out over the land, transition time to govern, national unity and strong leaders/no coalition governments. This is why America is exceptional—an exception to the rule in governments—and darn well worth it.

Trump's onto something

From time to time, the field of economics is filled with arguments without definite conclusion.  No one seems to explain the current malaise.  Now is one of those eras with low interest, pitiful growth and low productivity gains. What gives?

            Clinton economist, Larry Summers, postulates that there is no international demand for borrowing.  Our new digital technologies aren’t supporting productivity gains like the old discoveries did—cars, steam, electricity, jet planes, computers.  Therefore we must stimulate, stimulate, stimulate!  Dems love this oldie melody. They groove when Janet Yellin sings and interest goes lower and Businesses (Wall Street) enjoys low rates. Big government spending! Fed stimulus by lowering interest rates and buying back bonds (QE’s)!  Alas, all the palliative stimuli have led us to this almost non-existent interest rate and still no growth.  Zero interest (Or even negative interest) destroys the economy.  Seniors with savings have no earnings. When citizens with savings see no return on their money, they stop depositing and put it in their safe—or gold.  Then banks who turn savings into loans have no money to lend to businesses. 

            And the Summer’s “secular stagnation” explanation now takes another arrow.  A study of all cycles since the 1930s by San Diego UCal, James Hamilton, et. al.shows that lowered short term rates (that is what the Fed does when it stimulates) hardly helps.  Back in 1936 when John Maynard Keynes came up with his notion that people were too saving and thus the Fed should stimulate, it was all the politicians of the time wanted to hear.  Today, we realize that choking tariffs and wasteful government spending actually prolonged the Depression.  But the pols sold us the snakeoil, nonetheless. 

            So what gives?  Here’s a rundown on causes for low interest rates. 1.  Demographics—much of the rich world is getting older.  But the average working lifetime doesn’t change much. Social Security is insolvent. So people have to save like crazy to have enough.  This gives an overabundance of savings chasing too little gain.  2. China.  China and the eastern tigers have no social security.  When Chinese get old the big extended family is supposed to take care.  But now with one-child policy, that’s a faint insurance.  So people save 40% of income—so much it is splashing over onto our shores.  3. Income inequality results from things like QE which benefit the rich, hence creating a glut of savings at the upper end. 4. Fear.  People saw what happened to the housing boom and the crash of 2007-2008.  So they pile up savings for a rainy day. 

            Democrats/progressives/fascists are stumped because they only accept big government interference.  Establishment R’s think that the high tech world creates jobs for thinkers while lower level jobs are going away.  But this is not what’s happening.  The thinking jobs are expanding at the upper end but so are servant jobs for housekeepers and landscapers for the rich.  The middle is losing.  And since R’s appeal to the middle, the Trump line is growing with the middle’s anger.  Trump proposes we fix immigration, education, and kill harmful regulations.  He wants lower taxes and rule of law.  (Imprimus, Sept. 2016, Frank Buckley) Given that public schools produce students in the lower half of OECD countries, few trust governments any more, immigrants are uneducated and do little to help our economy in the aggregate, his prescriptions seem to fit the malaise. 

            But will he be able to close the sale? We’ll know more on Nov. 9. It takes someone who can persuade.   I recall a certain candidate with dubious background in Hollywood who came on the scene in the 70’s.  What no one seemed to notice was that he had a college degree in economics from a small unimportant school in Illinois.  But Reagan noticed the  landmark research of Arthur Laffer, who pointed out that when Scandinavian countries taxed at a lower rate, they actually collected more revenue. Government was taxing so heavily that people were hiding income. “Get the government off the people’s backs” was Reagan’s cure.  And so Ronald “Ray gun”, the Cowboy, the Bedtime for Bonzo guy stunned the world by rescuing a country with 1.5% growth and making it grow at 4.5% for a decade.

People are not stupid.  They sense problems and even when powerless to change a situation, can recognize a solution readily.  With 73% of Americans thinking we are on the wrong track today, whoever comes forward with such a resonating solution will surely bring a lot of change.

So you want to zap China and Mexico?

            I want to ask Trump, “If you graduated from Wharton, didn’t you read the monetarist economists who proved that in the 30’s we had a normal recession that became the Great Depression primarily because of the Hawley-Smoot tariff?”  It killed international trade--just 8% of the US economy in the 30’s but that was enough to devastate the US economy as it tried to recover.  Other countries rebounded handsomely while we languished for a dozen years.

            Do you still want a trade war with China and Mexico? The trouble with anti-dumping and protectionism is that they don’t change the world prices or bring back factories.  You just shoot yourself in the foot.  For example, Chinese companies are flooding us with cheap steel.  We install anti-dumping trade barriers and holler about fairness.  “Our factories have moved overseas!” USA imports about 3% of Chinese steel.  But the Chinese still have cheap steel for sale and the world price stays as low as ever.  That doesn’t help a US steel maker at all.  Nor would any company with overseas operations want to build a new plant in America.

            Now suppose there is a Canadian steel maker who can avoid our trade war with China.  They export cheap steel at the world price and some comes down to the states. But big global companies have lawyers who know how to game the system. A US rival would file an anti-dumping petition on that Canadian company.  The result is that the foreign companies defensively keep their US price higher and pad the profits.  In effect this becomes an unspoken cartel.  Consequently, USA pays a premium and gets no jobs in return. This is a good way to make yourself poor-- America in the 30’s.

            Here’s even worse news.  Cheap exports from China are a result of overcapacity from their slowing economy.  Their weakness, reflected by cheap prices, is spreading worldwide.  Here, we have no inflation and too-cheap interest rates for the Fed to fight another downturn and record debt.  We are vulnerable to recession.  Meanwhile if we impose a trade war on another country, they often retaliate, setting off a chain reaction.  That’s what happened in the 30’s only Europe soon woke up to their idiocy. America’s Republicans became isolationists and Dems gleefully lambasted them for Hoovervilles.  It took a war to fix it.

            Long before I was in politics, I was a businessman who had to be quick and nimble to survive.  You learn to think about this stuff even if you never got a fancy degree from Wharton.  Trump is in business.  Is he stupid or is he just gaming a bunch of low-information voters with populism?  And don’t put faith in Hillary or Bernie who are both against NAFTA and TPP, who count unions as their dearest base.

Notes on Locke, pt. II

I thought it would be fun to look at the scriptures Luther and Locke focused on.  How do the principles of America come out of God’s word?  Oh, by the way, when Locke came up with these principles there was nothing in daily life either in England or elsewhere that would confirm them.  Historians are stunned at how a guy studying the human thought process and scripture could have arrived at these profound ideas.

            LibertyTake a look at Romans 9:1. I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit

Heb.9:9,14 According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper…

What is the function of conscience concerning the Holy Spirit? 

I Tim. 3:9 They must hold the mystery of faith with a clear conscience

What is the function of conscience in faith?

Romans 13:1-7 however, says we are to be subject to the governing authorities.  What function is conscience in being subject?  Are there any limits to what Government can ask one to do? ( “We ought to obey God rather than man”Acts 5:29) 

Lk. 20:25  Finally, Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God, that which is God’s.” So does Caesar own everything? Why or why not? (We belong to Two Kingdoms—spiritual and temporal) Luther concludes that conscience is one voice the Holy Spirit uses and thus an individual’s conscience of faith trumps government.  Locke concluded this to be our most important  freedom. 

American colonists had more thoughts? America was the place you came to get free land and practice your faith as you saw fit.  If you deny people freedom of their conscience or freedom of their faith, that is, you deny them the ability to be the kind of person they aspire to be in relation to God, that not only quenches the Holy Spirit, it denies something called the American Dream—ability to be the person they want to be.  Hence the 1^st Amendment’s “free exercise clause” is vital to the entire social contract.  See also Gal. 5:1.  For freedom, Christ has set us free.  Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Slavery to sin, of course, is what Paul is writing here.  But if God gives you a job to do, does this passage have a subsequent meaning? Please note the American Dream is much larger than getting rich or an easy life. Rom. 14:17 “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy.”

Rights Property protection is fundamental. God, in a relationship with Himself, puts us in charge of certain resources (Parable of talents, etc. shows God expects us to ‘profit’ and advance his cause.) The resources i.e., property must be held inviolate.

Jeremiah 17:5-8.Thus says the Lord, cursed is the man who trusts in man…Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.  He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green and is not anxious in the year of drought for it does not cease to bear fruit. Hence, the spiritual man is fearless with God at his side and this works best when government protects each person’s mission and resources

 Augsburg Confession, Luther:”All government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of good order…and this temporal power is not in place to protect the soul, but with the sword and physical penalties it protects body and property from the power of others.”  Locke concluded that one of the vital purposes of Government was to protect property, which God gives us to fulfill His mission.  In Declaration, Jefferson supposedly changed Locke’s “Life, Liberty and Property” to “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” because some founders didn’t want to protect slavery.  Slavery was scheduled for limits and repeal according to the Constitution later written.  (Then repeal was ignored when cotton became king with the cotton gin.)

.  Free speech? See Romans 10:9. Because if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Faith talk isn’t optional.  Silence is unloving when God commands us to speak. “We cannot help but speak of the things we have seen and heard.” Acts4:7

Separation of Powers Is 33:22  For the Lord is our judge: the Lord is our Lawgiver; the Lord is our King.  He will save us. Thus, three branches or functions.  But only God can fulfill all three.  The rest of us are flawed men and it is best that we have checks and balances on each other, that is how a social contract or common morality works.

Tolerance Now the founders all were kids in 1740-42 when the Great Awakening took place, a religious revival that stunned the colonies because so many people found faith and renewed faith.  They were also surprised that neighboring colonies with a different state religious denomination reacted the same way they had.  Conclusion: We are all one country!

But does everyone have the same walk? Of course not!  See Rom 14:13, Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Luther said this means we would be wise to tolerate our brother and not interfere with his walk with God.  Also Rom 15:5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another in accord with Christ Jesus, that together with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  This is Locke’s theme of tolerance  We must repent and acknowledge our own sin too. Jesus tolerated.  As son of God he could have called down lightning on those who disagreed with him.  Instead he just let them walk away.

EqualityAre all men equal? Rom. 3:10-12. None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God All have turned aside, together they have become worthless;no one does good, not even one. They sure are in sinfulness!  How about in faith?  John 3: 16 for God so loved the world that whosoever… Let me see a show of hands. How many of you are a ‘whosoever’?  And see Gal. 3:27-28. For as many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. The Old Testament also has passages that God favors no person, but each man must pay for his own sins.

Nature and Nature’s God originates the idea of Government among men—left this out in the interests of time.  Self-evident truth, Jefferson said.

So if someone asks who gave us July 4, say it was many people but it started with God inspiring Paul writing to legal-minded Romans, then Luther, 500 years ago today and Locke and finally our founders.

One more thing. Anybody been to Independence Hall in Philadelphia? Is it big and impressive? Everyone says how small it is and the furniture is so plain.  These were such ordinary men.  Yet they staked “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” on simple government that, with the faith of the citizens, followed God. Now you are an ordinary person, right? Given what they started, how in faith they gave birth to a country unlike anything else in the world, is there any reason you would not join their effort to continue it?  Is there any good reason you would fail to vote?  I mean, even if you don’t like politics or the politicians, wouldn’t you vote your principles of faith in faithful government.  Think what the future world would say about our country if we fell under tyranny just because we didn’t take the opportunity to think about our vote and do it.  So I want to encourage everyone to register, to get involved, to vote.

Riding around on the Pope's encyclical

  I finally got my hands on an abridged version of Laudato Si, the Popes encyclical on climate change.  Now I know why I’m what they call a Renegade Catholic, or Lutheran for short.  But Laudato Si makes for some interesting reading nonetheless.  First, I should point out that I learned that an encyclical is just an advisory letter to the church.  The Pope doesn’t try to say he speaks inerrantly. 

            It’s pretty conventional wisdom.  You have to Sacrifice Big in order to avoid global warming, like ride a bicycle, throw your used beer cans in another hopper, and stop eating big greasy cheeseburgers and farting.  (Just kidding about the last one!)  But, he points out, “A very solid consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming…” So there we have it, a scientific consensus, just as we’ve had scientific consensi before—bleeding patients gets rid of bad blood (1700’s), the earth is flat  and covered by a large dome with little holes seen as stars at night but that is where the rain leaks through (ancient HebrewsH), and mountains are caused by swelling sections of the earth’s crust (pre-1968).  And it is getting warmer which is all our fault.  This is surprisingly arrogantly humanistic considering that up until now, we can’t change tomorrow’s forecast let alone climate for the ages.

            Who then is responsible?  Surely, I think, it is not the world’s rich who often give their old furniture to Salvation Army for recycling.  Instead it would revolve around the poor who rent from me and often, upon transfer, leave several truckloads of detritus that they are too lazy to wash or pick up. Our Personal Best Record was a woman who left 55 large trash barrels of dirty clothes.  Rather than do laundry, she just bought more at garage sales.  But no, the Pope says I err.  The poor are not responsible.  The evil rich are. They possess the automobile which emits CO2 and unburned hydrocarbons.  Do I need to take this guy on a tour and show him my renters with cars that belch black smoke thick enough to choke a goat?  Do I need to show him the piles of discarded old tires?

            And then there is water.  By wasting water, the rich of the world “deny the poorest of the poor, a right to life and inalienable dignity”.  Access to clean water is “a basic and universal human right, since it is essential to human survival and as such, is a condition for the exercise of other such rights.”  Oh yeah? So if CO2 exhaled is also necessary for survival, do we have a right to CO2?  What I notice in this writing is the confusion of “rights” with “stuff”.  And it seems the rest of us are held liable when someone goes without water.  Worse, those of us from South Louisiana must conserve, lest the guy in the Sahara gets thirsty.

            Holding an innocent party guilty for results they cannot change is what fascists do.  Where does this happen, Argentina?  The Pope goes on to accuse the rich of unjustly depriving the poor of a right to life.  Isn’t that normally called murder.  Murder, I guess, by using an old toilet which uses 3 gallons of water.

            The Protestant in me wants to ask, “where do you find that in scripture?” Here’s what I am reading.  Romans 9:1 and Hebrews 9:9,14 imply that the Holy Spirit uses our conscience to direct our lives. God puts a relationship inside us when we have faith. That relationship is not manmade and is sustained by God. Men must have the inherent and inalienable right to follow wherever that inner voice leads.  This is termed “Liberty”. Hence we conclude that any governing authority that seeks to obstruct this inner voice or prohibit “the free exercise thereof” of Liberty sets itself up against—not us fumbling men—but God.  Moreover, Jesus’ parable of the Talents (and many more of his stories about money) illustrates that The Almighty put certain resources in our hands to fulfill a personal mission He sets us upon. Woe to any godless government that deprives people of their property.  Separation of powers is spoken to as a principle in Is. 33:22.  The equality of all is ringingly proclaimed in Gal. 3:27-28.  Tolerance?  Jesus was truly God’s Son, yet when people disagreed with Him, He just let them walk away.  Romans 14:3, and 15:5 prescribe this principle.  Above it all, God who watches every little sparrow also watches every lousy little king.  These are the principles of our Declaration of Independence.

            You think I need to write the Pope an encyclical?

A Really Big Issue

There are sure a lot of newsy things this week. Donald Trumpet announcing, Cardinals investigated for hacking (should have never hired that darn Chinese contractor!), and Charleston’s tragedy (Did someone not pay the professional rioters?).  Treasury Sec. Jack Loo is trying to boot Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill in favor of some prominent woman.  I have a suggestion.  Just rename Hamilton “Caitlyn” and call it a done deal.  What do you bet they won’t put Carry Nation or Dolly Madison or Susan Anthony or Aimee Semple McPherson or any other strong Christian woman on the bill.  It will probably be Margaret Sanger who wanted abortion.  Nor would they consider replacing Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrats.  Jackson, of course, was the Prez who force marched all the Southeastern Indians to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears and related tragedies.  I have a Cherokee friend who always tries to exchange his twenties for tens because he hates Jackson.  Say, if you take down the Confederate flags because someone is offended, why wouldn’t you take Jackson off the currency?

            There was also the news of Obamacare’s big triumph.  Big yawn--simply upheld the present arrangement so nothing changes. The Democrats continue to bear the credit/blame entirely for Obamacare and should something go wrong, have no way to change it without any majority in Congress.  Politically, the Dems are snookered.  The next shoe to drop will be the employer mandates which the CBO estimates will cost 60-90 million employed people their health care.  Since Obamacare costs an employer, at minimum, the $2000 per person penalty, this will become a huge drag on getting the employment picture to improve.  Hillary, first author of national healthcare, has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do on the campaign trail.  Were it not for Obamacare, the R’s wouldn’t be where they are today, owning Congress and most state majorities.  Meanwhile, think of this.  By Obama’s own brag, ACA subsidizes only 8.7 million people out of our population of 322 million.  And a whole lot of other people have seen their premiums rise, an average of $2100 annually. 

            But the truly big issue that will negatively impact America is the one coming on gay marriage.  A pro gay marriage ruling is all but certain.   Forever, marriage was a religious issue performed in religious settings and sanctuaries and honored by people of faith all over the planet.  Now suddenly the federal government gets to say how it wants the institution of Holy Matrimony.  Non-religious folks got married too, but that is, by law, a social contract with no claim on religious faith. But, you say, the first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Guess again with this ruling.  Government may thereupon dictate who churches shall marry and what rules apply.   So when Leviticus 18 warns against practicing gay behavior and ends by, “(for all these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); lest the land vomit you out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you,” well then the feds instruct all followers of Judeo-Chistian values to ignore God’s voice. Or when Jesus, exasperated with disbelief, says in Matthew 19:5, “Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female?…What therefore, God has joined together, let not man put asunder,”  the government now sits in judgment over.  [This passage is quoted at most Christian weddings.] 

            This really is a Big Deal, despite the fact that many folks don’t know what the Dickens they believe and aw heck, let’s not be accused of bigotry. For if the government can tell you how to practice your faith, then there is no Liberty—that freedom of conscience to follow whatever mission or diety you hold in your life.  Without Liberty (freedom of conscience) John Locke concluded, there are no other freedoms.  I put it in more practical terms.  Without the ability to follow an inner voice and pursue your unique mission in life, there is no American Dream.  For that Dream is defined by being able to aspire to be the person you want to be.

            So, should the court demand churches affirm gay marriage, it will either start a Revolution or it will mark the day the American Dream died.  We still have to play our hand.   

How states can block illegals trying to vote

Federal Law, as I understand, says that a voter registration must be provided to anyone with either a valid SS# or driver’s license who signs a statement that they are a valid US citizen. Here is a couple ideas about flagging non-citizens trying to do voter registrations.

Method 1.  Just add 3 simple questions to the registration form.  (First, the state could assume all current voters in their voter database are citizens. Only new registrations are in question.)

            In addition to asking the last 4 digits of a social security number, it could be asked, “When issued?” with two check boxes, “Before 2014” and “2014 through present”. Those who answer before would not necessarily be screened since they predate Obama’s executive order.  These would identify and eliminate 99% of voter registration apps for the normal reasons (relocation, first voter citizens, etc.).  So if 50,000 new registrations are to be processed, perhaps 500 would remain for more scrutiny.

Next ask “date of birth” and “place of birth”. For example: the applicant says January 1,1931, Montpelier, VT.  The election board simply calls Vermont and asks if a birth certificate for this person exists.  If the applicant says, 1952, Matamoros, Mexico, then the election board asks for naturalization papers or ID.  If the person replies that they were born of US citizens living abroad, then have them come to election board office and provide a statement of parents names and circumstances of birth.

            Now this presupposes that we can legally add 3 questions on the registration form--even if we don’t technically require answers.  Just don’t tell the applicant.  See if they volunteer the information.

            Method 2. If that’s not allowed legally, I have another plan that might catch most of the illegals who try to vote.  The state controls driving and licensing, yah?  So when an illegal comes to get a driver’s license, have them provide information concerning their citizenship status any number of ways.  The above questions, passport, citizenship papers, birth certificates, all manner of stuff could be required.  This needn’t deprive them of a valid license.  Give ‘em one.  But on any illegal’s license it should be noted what their citizenship status is, either by code number or even a heading like, “Undocumented Arrival”.  Then when voter registration forms come to the election board, provide a cross-check of full names and addresses with Driver’s license information.  Anyone found to be a non-citizen on a DL who is trying to vote should be dealt with accordingly.  

            Sorry.  I was a small businessman who hired a lot of min wage workers. Some stole from our company and took advantage of us.  But I was extremely fearful of wrongfully firing people, so I specialized in designing cunning traps that absolutely proved their guilt before we let them go.

NO the judges

You hear people constantly lauding the notion of term limits.  At the same time they often don’t like lib judges and their decisions.  But come election time, there are a dozen judges on the ballot and voters just mindlessly vote to retain them all.  Well, they often whine, they don’t know who these people are.  I have a suggestion.  If you don’t know any judges, vote to dismiss them all.  Then the current governor, who you do know and you did elect has power to appoint. 

Now if you know a judge’s record and you agree with his/her decisions, that’s a good reason to retain.

NO on all judges you don’t know should be a default of any thinking voter. And it should be a Republican political movement in OK.  Then we wouldn’t have dinosaurs in high places telling us we need to accept sharia law—like the decision that nullified a state question which passed by 81% two years ago.  Moreover,  we could have Governor Fallin replenish the courts.  Right now, we have holdover appointments from years of Dems.  These judges are often intent on ruining the current Republican revolution.  But even beyond the partisanship, you should vote to term limit a judge whom you know nothing about.  Automatically voting to re-elect is like a Stalin election. If you get a new job in the private sector, is your tenure guaranteed forever?  So why do people auto-vote to retain? 

              I should get some yard signs made.  “NO the judges except…” I figure we could  plant about 100,000 of these around the state and let people make hand signs next to this that list judges they think need retaining.