Democrats Archives - Rediscovering Liberty

Trump and the “Slow-Moving Coup”

The same media that created Trump is now aghast he has supporters. What did they expect when they gave Trump hours of free airtime every night back in 2016? The media ignored fifteen other Republican candidates in order to gain ratings by airing whichever rants Trump chose to utter that day.

Even now, the media are giving Trump far more airtime, and in spite of themselves, more credibility by being utterly consumed by everything he does. Now they are concerned about a “slow-moving coup?”

This will be the narrative of the next few months, and will, once again, give Trump the airtime and attention he craves. Mainstream media has no credibility among many Trump supporters. But, as one of the cardinal rules of politics attests, any coverage, even negative, is preferable to no coverage.

Trump lost the 2020 election, plain and simple. I know there are far too many who believe he actually won, and the election was somehow stolen from him. Indeed, this is the portrayal Eric Trump is trying to advance in order to keep his father relevant and in the news. But the truth is that Trump, in his arrogance and hubris, ran an awful campaign.

Because he didn’t get the kind of unlimited and uncritical airtime he enjoyed in 2016, he had to actually run a campaign in 2020. He failed to do that, and he lost.

Even those believing some sort of conspiracy “stole” the election from Trump have failed to read the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, clearly states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Note that the Constitution does not require a popular election for president. If it so desires, any of the states could just appoint electors of their choosing (and that was the original intent of this passage of the Constitution). Once the states approved their presidential electors, they completed their obligations according to the Constitution. Even if Trump actually did win the states his supporters claim were “stolen,” it doesn’t matter according to the Constitution. All the states had to do was appoint electors. Constitutionally, it doesn’t matter if the electors reflected the votes each presidential candidate received.

Personally, I always thought Trump was an idiot who ran a populist campaign designed to appeal to the grievances of many middle-class Americans (indeed, he stole his techniques from the tactics used by the left for decades). He has virtually no knowledge of government, and even less of the Constitution (of course, that critique can be applied to far too many members of Congress, as well).

I won’t deny the nation was better off with Trump as president than it is under Biden, but that’s a very low bar to clear. Biden has given the Bernie Sanders’ “progressive” wing of the Democratic party far too much power, and, in fact, many Democrats are attempting to govern to the left of Sanders. Considering the current state of the Democrats, anyone that even sounds remotely reasonable would be a better choice. Even confirmed liberals, like Senators Joe Manchin, (West Virginia), and Kyrsten Sinema, (Arizona), seem moderate by comparison.

Both major political parties are a mess. If the Democrats continue on their unitary national government, socialist path, there won’t be a need for a “slow-moving” coup. There will be a need for a full-scale revolution to reinstate federal government according to the principles of the Constitution. This revolution won’t be led by Trump. Instead, it would be conducted by those who actually read, understand, and revere the Constitution. That doesn’t describe Trump.

There will always be those who are attracted to charismatic populists, and who believe they see their own images in populist candidates. However, populists rarely make good representatives and leaders because of the narrow and shallow focus of their beliefs and their inherent narcissism. Instead of holding any recognizable political philosophy, populists rely solely upon their own charisma. Although Trump is a charismatic individual to many, and even though he has the ability to make people think he cares about them, Trump was less than a success as president. Even though some of his instincts were correct, he lacked the power and ability to create long-standing change. Indeed, his actions actually further emboldened the socialistic left.

If the country is to move to the correct course, it needs a president who understands their job is to execute the laws passed by Congress, not one who unilaterally attempts to create law anytime he thinks Congress has failed.

We need a Congress whose members actually understand federalism, and who recognize the states, not the federal government, are invested with the majority of sovereignty by the Constitution. Members of Congress must recognize the powers of the federal government are limited by design, and this design is appropriate. They must also recognize they shouldn’t have the power to spend other people’s money anytime they have a constituency with a grievance or an opportunity presents itself to buy votes with government spending. Representatives should use the upmost discretion every time they seek to spend a dollar, and they must use fiscal sense so as not to extort too much money from wage earners or saddle future generations with massive debt.

Trump is not the answer, and the election was not stolen from him. The Democrats, as they are now constituted, are not the answer either.

Both parties must carefully assess their beliefs and goals, and develop appealing candidates consistent with those beliefs and goals. If they continue to fail to do so, another party may rise up to supplant one or both of the current major parties. And if the situation appears too extreme, we might actually see the genesis of a new political revolution, and not merely a “slow-moving coup.”

What does the Biden Administration and the Venezuelan Dictatorship Have in Common?

What does Venezuela’s desire to adopt a totally cashless society and the Biden administration’s plan to require banks to report all transactions over $600 to the IRS have in common? They are both about establishing government control over our finances and diminishing personal privacy.

The Biden administration believes that requiring banks to report all transactions over $600 to the government would reduce income tax evasion. However, the IRS can already gather all the financial information it may need for an audit without adding this cumbersome requirement. If instituted, the compliance costs to report all transactions over $600 will be enormous and the reporting process will be a bureaucratic nightmare.

In addition to the compliance costs, which would drive up the fees charged by banking institutions, the privacy implications are alarming. The IRS would have access to information about any banking transaction exceeding $600. If you’re withdrawing a few thousand dollars to purchase a used car, the government will know about it. If you received a thousand dollars in wedding gifts, the government will know about it (and try to tax it). If you spend $600 to attend a protest event, the government will know about it. Even if you move money from one account to another, not only will the government know about it, it would also likely trigger an IRS audit. There is no telling what the government will ultimately do with the information they collect about individual spending, saving, and earning habits.

It is all but certain the reporting of transactions over $600 will be reported electronically. Not only will the government have unconstrained access to most people’s financial activities, but so will hackers and other nefarious actors. Considering the increasing number of data breeches against supposedly secure credit card transaction and personal information, it is inevitable that individual financial data will be leaked. This data provides a treasure trove of information that may be used by criminals. Under this proposal, not only will bureaucrats in Washington have access to your private information, but so will criminals in China, Russia, and the rest of Eastern Europe.

This idea seems to always turn up like a bad penny anytime Democrats engage in a federal spending binge. In 2010, as part of the so-called Affordable Care Act, Democrats wanted small business owners to submit a 1099 form to any vendor with whom they spent $600 or more in a calendar year. This would have meant, for example, that a company which ordered a few cases of printer paper and pencils from Staples would have to send them a 1099 form at the end of the year. Companies whose employees stayed at a Sheraton Hotel on a business trip would have had to send Sheraton a 1099 form (for each separate location). The list goes on and on.

Had a few sane legislators not noticed this insertion into a massive spending bill, and had not small business owners lobbied against this, every small business owner would have been saddled with huge paperwork requirements and thousands of dollars in additional accounting costs. The costs to comply with the proposed dictates would have dwarfed the small amount of additional taxes collected by the IRS as a result of these requirements.

Democrats seem to have a fixation with the $600 number. That was their preference in 2010, and it has appeared again this year. They believe that infringing upon the financial privacy of Americans is a small price to pay in order to fund their vote-buying programs. They also totally ignore the costs of maintaining compliance, and the fact that such costs will be passed down to all users of banking services. If inflation wasn’t already bad enough with gasoline prices more than a dollar per gallon expensive than it was a year ago, this bill will surely send inflation spiraling out of control.

What does this have to do with Venezuela? Ever since the Venezuelans elected a socialist government, which shortly became a dictatorship, inflation has skyrocketed. Even their currency could not keep up with the rate of inflation. Before Hugo Chávez became president, the Venezuelan bolivar typically traded at 3 to 4 bolivars to one United States dollar. Even after several currency reevaluations, it now takes 4,146,022 bolivars to purchase a single U.S. dollar.

Venezuela can not print currency fast enough to keep up with their rate of inflation. Their largest denomination bank note, 50,000 bolivars, is now only worth a couple of cents in United States currency. Bank notes are often obsolete even before they enter circulation. Because of the huge inflation rate, bank notes are rarely used in commerce, and coins have completely disappeared from circulation.

In light of this, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro has announced plans to abolish physical cash and go to an entirely cashless society. In a cashless society, all transactions are electronically recorded and available to the government upon request. This allows the government to track the finances and transactions of specific individuals and to limit the places in which money may be spent. If, for example, an opposition party is attempting to raise funds to challenge the incumbent government, the dictatorship could prevent any funds from being used for this purpose. It will be impossible to purchase books, artwork, newspapers, or anything else not approved by the government. Electronic records of all financial transactions is the secret police force’s best friend.

Will the proposed reporting requirements in the United States be as intrusive as those used by Venezuela? Not immediately. However, we must remember the Patriot Act was ostensibly created to thwart international terrorists. Yet, its use of secret warrants and indictments has been employed more often to prosecute crimes within the United States, rather than foreign terrorists. The Internal Revenue Service has been used, not only to collect taxes, but to target political organizations opposing the incumbent administration. And while the FBI has not yet become as much of a political secret police force as Venezuela’s Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional, it has many times exceeded its authority to achieve political aims. Granting the government another excuse to spy upon its citizens’ economic transactions does not bode well for the future of liberty.

Will those determined to evade United States taxation be thwarted by the bank reporting requirements? For the most part, no. Those with large resources will begin conducting transactions using unregulated cyber currencies, tangible metals (silver and gold), and sophisticated barter systems. They will remove themselves from the United States fiat currency system. In fact, the bank reporting requirements may result in a reduction to tax collection by driving many economic transactions underground.

The real victims of the proposed reporting requirements will likely be middle-class wage earners and small-business owners. The government will use the data collected to harass (often innocent) citizens through intrusive audits and civil forfeiture provisions. Even citizens who innocently moved money from one account to another may find themselves bullied by zealous IRS agents or local police forces hungry for the proceeds of civil forfeiture.

And all this damage is being done so the Democratic administration can attempt to buy votes by dramatically expanding social and spending programs. It’s hardly a good bargain.

Was Julian Castro correct that We Should be “Pissed?”

During the June 27, 2019 Democratic presidential debate, candidate Julian Castro stated, “We saw that image today that broke our hearts,” referring to photos of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter drowned after crossing the Rio Grande River to illegally enter the United States.

Both Castro and the debate moderator, José Diaz-Balart, stated that Martinez Ramirez and his family were seeking asylum in the United States because of the economic hardships the endured in El Salvador. Expanding on his reaction to the drowning, Castro stated, “It should also piss us all off.”

Castro was right, it should piss us off! But not for the reason he alleges. In fact, Castro, Diaz-Balart and their ideological allies have propagated this myth that anyone wanting to enter the United States is eligible for asylum. This myth has provided false hope to many individuals seeking to bypass the legal immigration process. They have been led to believe that asylum is possible if they are economically destitute in their home countries, or if they live in dangerous areas.

In fact, none of this is true.

Asylum is not offered by the United States for people suffering economic deprivation, nor is it available for people who reside in violent or dangerous places. Asylum is only legally available to people “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

If a person is unable to prove that he or she is actively being persecuted by a governmental or de-facto governmental policy directed specifically at specific races, religions, nationalities, social groups, or political opinions, that person is not eligible for asylum in the United States. Even if a person is a victim of persecution due to their membership in the listed groups, people are not eligible for United States asylum if there are areas in their own nations where that persecution does not exist or if they pass through another country in which that persecution does not occur. In fact, if a person makes a frivolous claim for asylum, that person may be permanently prohibited from any kind of immigration to the United States in the future.

It is true that the “catch and release” policy of asylum seekers used under previous presidential administrations facilitated illegal immigration. Those seeking to bypass United States immigration law knew that the asylum claims system was overwhelmed. If people claimed asylum after arriving on United States soil, they were usually given a future court date and were permitted to remain in the United States. It is no surprise that an overwhelming majority of those who claimed asylum never appeared for their court dates. Instead, they remained in the United States as illegal immigrants.

Recognizing that well over 90% of requests for asylum are denied by our courts and that the vast majority of those claiming asylum never returned for their court dates, the Trump administration ended the “catch and release” policy. Instead, applicants for asylum were either incarcerated while waiting for their court dates or were refused entry until the courts would be able to hear their cases. Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez chose not to wait in accordance with United States policy, and instead took the dangerous path of fording the Rio Grande River with his family to enter the United States illegally. From all appearances, Martinez Ramirez was not legally eligible for asylum anyway. He was attempting to enter the United States solely for economic reasons.

It is obvious that there are many politicians, particularly in the Democratic party, who are encouraging people to immigrate illegally and to improperly claim asylum. Julian Castro and José Diaz-Balart exemplified this during the June 27, 2019 debate. This tactic undermines United States immigration law, overwhelms our immigration enforcement resources, and puts potential immigrants at risk. One can not know if these politicians are signaling false hopes for asylum in order to pander to certain electoral constituencies, intentionally undermine immigration law, or out of sheer ignorance. But their actions in holding out false hope puts more potential immigrants at risk than any of Trump’s policies.

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates served in Congress. They know (or should know) that President Trump did not create immigration law. Immigration law emanated from Congress – the president just enforces the laws passed by Congress. Each of these candidates had the opportunity to propose new immigration laws. None of them did. Instead, they advertise false hope to potential immigrants in order to sabotage Trump’s presidency. This is an abdication of their own responsibilities and a reckless policy that puts lives at risk. I fear the Democrats don’t recognize the consequences of their actions and are only concerned with the political advantages they may provide.

Should we have completely open borders? Some make strong cases that we should. But the United States (or any other nation) can’t have unconstrained immigration and generous and universal social welfare programs. If we wish to retain the current level of welfare programs, we must carefully vet potential immigrants to ensure they won’t become burdens on the public welfare system. If we instead decide to open our borders completely, we must recognize that our current social welfare programs will be quickly overwhelmed by freeloading immigrants who will put significant pressure on the public treasury.

Regardless of the type of immigration laws we desire, it is not within the authority of the president to create such laws. Immigration laws may only be created and passed by Congress. If any presidential candidates who once served in Congress claim they will change immigration law as president, they are lying! They had their opportunity to do so while in Congress. If they failed to reform immigration law when serving in the body responsible for creating such laws, what makes one think they will successfully change the law while serving in a position that does not have the authority to create laws?

Julian Castro is right when he says we should be pissed about immigrants dying as they try to reach our shores. We should be pissed that there are pandering politicians who make people believe they can receive asylum even though they are not legally eligible to do so. We should be pissed at politicians who seek to undermine the laws they are responsible for creating just because they with to pander to certain groups in order to secure a political advantage. We should be pissed at politicians who use desperate and uninformed people as pawns in their attempts to secure political points. Yes, Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez was ultimately responsible for the poor decision that cost him and his daughter their lives. But they were encouraged to make that decision by politicians who falsely and cynically held out hope for asylum to Martinez Ramirez.

It is those politicians who should be targets of our ire!

The Tantrum of the Snowflakes

It had to come to this.

Members of the “everybody gets a trophy” generation have taken to the streets to “protest” the election results, and in some cases, to riot. It’s a shame that no one ever taught them that taking meaningless action to express dissatisfaction with a free election is not protest, it’s a temper tantrum. If these people are really dissatisfied with the direction they feel the government is moving, they should craft a compelling argument for their positions. Glorified loitering and inconveniencing others is hardly a compelling “statement.”

But, before they attempt to craft an opposing argument, they should put some of their wounded feelings aside and try to employ reason. The left has been spoiled for generations. When the Democrats controlled government, they had the ability to use the coercive power of government to pander to any of their perceived needs. It didn’t matter what those needs were, whether the programs to address those needs were effective or right, or even whether the consequences of the government programs they desired were counterproductive. It just mattered that government did something, and that someone else paid for it or bore the consequences.

Typically, when Republicans took control of the apparatus of government, they employed restraint. Traditional Republicans usually believed in limited governmental power and in allowing each person to exercise their own individual liberty. In a worst case scenario for today’s fragile, precious snowflakes, the Republicans merely rolled back some of the more egregious abuses of governmental power and temporarily reduced the programs of the social-engineering elite.

Now, the left is confronted, for the first time in over a century, with a Republican president who supports a very activist, involved government, and not a limited government. And this phenomenon was created and supported by the left, as they incrementally expanded the powers of the centralized federal government and decreased the power of the states and the liberty of individuals. Finally, they are confronted with the prospect of seeing an intrusive, all-powerful government conceivably being used by the opposition to impose a different set of coercive policies on the population. Forgive me if I have little sympathy for those who are comfortable allowing the government to impose its will on the population when one group is in power, but uncomfortable with having a different group impose its will when it secures power. Did the left really think that governmental tyranny would only exist while they held the reigns of power?

These “protestors” come from a generation with a limited, insulated worldview. They were raised by “helicopter parents” who shielded them from any personal responsibility and protected them from any of life’s unpleasantness. For many, this is the first time they didn’t get what they thought they wanted; the first time somebody actually said, “NO!” to them. Their sense of moral superiority has been honed to the point that they can’t even conceive of any different viewpoints, and the only way to handle opposition is to demonize and try to dehumanize those with contrary opinions. When they seek out others, they surround themselves with like-minded sycophants and only follow media that reaffirms their previously held views. Individual liberty is an afterthought, if it is considered at all. Many of the young seek out the homogeny of self-affirmation, rather than the challenge of considering, and responding to, different life experiences and viewpoints. They herald diversity as an ideal, but fail to actually practice it.

It never occurred to these precious snowflakes that a large, intrusive central government might actually be used against them and advance an agenda contrary to their preferences. Their sense of moral infallibility blinds them from realizing that there is an inherent contradiction in supporting an all-encompassing, intrusive government in some areas, while opposing it in others. They don’t recognize that restoring a small, constrained government is preferable to a large, dictatorial, activist government, because their moral worldview can’t process the fact that some people want to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and bear their own consequences free of the whims of elites. They have failed to realize that when a person or entity is granted unlimited powers, they won’t hesitate to use those powers in any way they see fit.

Donald Trump may very well be a bad president. Contrary to a century of Republican practice, he has advocated for a very proactive government. If he follows through on his promises, he won’t wield power much differently than previous Democratic administrations. The policies may differ a bit, but the methodology he proposes comes straight out of the “progressive” playbook. Those who protest against the election of Trump, because they fear he might actually implement certain policies, must recognize that the entire system of government must change. A large, monolithic government that micromanages people’s lives and property must give way to the government our Founders conceived – small, responsive, and dedicated to preserving, and not infringing upon, personal and economic choice and liberty.

Just replacing one dictator with another won’t do. There will always come a time when a dictator will do something that certain people won’t like. Right now, the young protesters are experiencing this reality. If they want to be effective in changing things, the young protesters must look beyond their narrow worldview and address a structure that allows potential despots of any persuasion to wield power.

Or, we can just give them all trophies so they go back home.