Trump Qualification Concerns

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, aside from all the fake news about the nature of Russian hacking, it seems to me the central concern from the left is that Trump is unqualified to be president and lacks presidential demeanor.  Your thoughts?

IM:  Let’s address the unqualified allegation first.  The only Constitutional qualifications for president are stated in Article II, Section 1:

  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

AM:  Trump meets all of these criteria.  But, remember:  there was some question as to whether his predecessor met the “natural born” criterion.  Those who were or are skeptical about the natural born status—except, that is, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff that introduced this as a possible issue during the 2008 presidential campaign—are derided as “birthers” . . . conspiracy theorists, even though some would argue that there is some evidence to support the theory.  For instance, Obama has gone to great lengths to seal certain records (e.g., administrative records at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard) that could assuage these concerns, if he were natural born.  Further, as proof of birth, the Obama campaign circulated a certificate of live birth that is normally issued for those individuals born to US citizens outside of the State of Hawaii.  Then, after pressure from Trump, Obama finally released a so-called long form birth certificate.  Yet, forensic investigations (see also here) into this form revealed serious issues—that is, a forged certificate.

Old Gadfly:  Assuming the “natural born” criterion is not an issue for either Obama or Trump, what do you think the left means when they say Trump is not qualified?

AM:  Before we dig into an answer to your question, I want to point out that one of the Texan delegates to the Electoral College has publicly declared he will become one of the few “faithless electors” in our nation’s history because he believes Trump is not qualified.

IM:  I recall that the announcement by this faithless elector, Christopher Suprun, was through the New York Times.  This was part of the swarming activity by Hollywood dupes and media mimickers related to convincing at least 37 electors not to vote for Trump.  Unfortunately, as we wade through all the “fake news,” generated by the left, there is little fanfare that Suprun has been completely discredited by, among other things, stolen valor (see here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let’s get back to the qualification question.

AM:  I have heard and read that Trump lacks policy experience.

IM:  I agree.  The claim is that since Trump has never served in a government capacity, he has no expertise on policy matters, whether domestic or foreign.

Old Gadfly:  What is policy?  People throw that term around all the time without defining it.

IM:  A dictionary definition states that policy is:  “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.”  So, here we are talking about government policy.

Old Gadfly:  Good.  Now, from what is a course or principle of action derived?

AM:  Good question.  The context is political, in that we chose a Party candidate over another based upon their platforms.

Old Gadfly:  OK . . . continue.

AM:  The platforms represent values.  For instance, the progressive Democrat believes in freedom, opportunity, responsibility, and cooperation.  Progressives believe these values can only be enhanced by a large, central government and its central planners (congruent with socialism).  For a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of these values from a progressive perspective, see here.  On the other hand, the conservative Republican believes in respect for human life, individual liberty, limited government, a strong defense, and free enterprise.  For a more detailed explanation, see here.  Here is another source that explains how progressive and conservative values shape policy (here is another good source). Finally, here is an article that explains why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals (and progressives).

IM:  Speaking of political perspectives and happiness, I recently read an interesting article by a university professor.  Here is a quote from her article:

I have long appreciated the optimism about human progress that is a key ideal of liberalism (think of the term “progressive”). While I still embrace this view, I wonder if conservative ideals are more natural ideals. That is, does human nature, as it emerged under the pressures of natural selection of our small-group-living ancestors, include the urge to curtail individual expression, enforce authority, and hoard resources for the in-group? Compared to liberals, social conservatives may well be living lives that are more similar to what humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. And if so, is their more natural mind-set the reason that conservatives are, at least according to surveys, often happier than liberals?

Old Gadfly:  Good points.  So, when we hear the left accusing Trump of not being qualified, what we’re being told is that anticipated policy stemming from a Trump administration will reflect values that are contrary to the left’s.  Do you agree?

IM:  Absolutely.  For starters, here are examples of what the left is angry about:

·         Repealing Obamacare and reducing taxes is a rejection of the Marxist values called redistribution of wealth and fear from want.  

·         Reducing the size of government in terms of federal regulations by an unelected bureaucracy is a rejection of the value of a large, centralized government. 

·         Installing retired general officers as Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security promotes a Constitutional government that is strong on defense and the safety of America and assumes a larger leadership role in the international system, contrary to the feckless “lead from behind” posture over the past eight years.

·         Installing business men and women in various positions such as Secretary of State and Commerce recognizes the role healthy free enterprise-oriented economies play in the globalized international economy.  This is contrary to the notion that government experts know better than the players actually involved in voluntary free exchange of value and Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order and prosperity.  After all, Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated and look at how the stock market responded.

·         Building a wall and enforcing immigration laws enfranchises the individual liberty of those citizens who exercise responsibility through the rule of law.  This negates the exploitation opportunities the left has enjoyed through identity politics and political correctness.

AM:  Given all the excuses that Hillary and her campaign surrogates are giving for her loss, there is no doubt that they lack the capacity to reflect on the difference in political values in light of what the American idea is all about, how it led to the greatest prosperity in the history of humankind, and why so many want to migrate (legally and illegally) to America.  More sadly, progressives must lie and deceive in order to dupe those who choose to follow.  Among the many lies told by Obama at his last press conference, the one that many saw through—justifying their vote for Trump—was about all the jobs created.  The most important indicator of job growth is the labor participation rate; and it is the lowest since the 1970s.

IM:  Speaking of dupes, here is what Hoover said in his 1958 book, Masters of Deceit:

What lesson can we as a society learn from the Party’s methods of recruitment?  Most important, I think, is to realize the Communist Party is attempting to exploit the rise of materialism, irreligion, and lack of faith in our society.  In an era when moral standards have been lowered, when family life has been disrupted, when crime and juvenile delinquency rates are high, communists have tried to set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women.  They have, in truth, tried to “steal” the nobility, the fervor, the enthusiasm of a free government under God (pp. 107-108).

Old Gadfly:  Thus, concerns about policy are more about the difference in political values.  Certainly Obama’s experience as a community organizer, one-term state senator, a nearly two-year US Senator provided no experience for the type of policy expected at the national level.   Yet, to this day, he enjoys high popularity ratings, despite a mess he leaves behind.  Perhaps Obama’s greatest achievement is the perception of presidential demeanor.  I suspect many on the left see this as an important qualification.  Is demeanor a qualification?

IM:  Comments made on the Access Hollywood bus rankled a lot of folks as conduct unbecoming an American president.

Old Gadfly:  Well?  Are they wrong?

AM:  Trump did not deny the comments, and he apologized for them.  Trump may come across as crass to those on the left, but he comes across as a hero for those who are sick and tired of political correctness.  He comes across as authentic and sincere.

Old Gadfly:  Do you believe Trump followers prefer the naked truth as opposed to a facade?

IM:  I believe good old American patriots who feel good about America and what it stands for represent manly men and womanly women:  those who have avoided or escaped conditioning by the progressive, secular humanist conditioners.

AM:  Those on the left either favored an open socialist, who (in the words of Hoover) “set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women”; or another socialist in progressive clothing who presented an image of presidential demeanor with actual policy experience.  Those so duped on the left had no interest in the failed policies (Middle East, Libya, Russia, etc.) or corruption associated with illegal email servers and the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.

AM:  There is no facade with Trump.  What you see is what you get—like most ordinary Americans who believe that all men and women are equal; and who should not be ashamed that they happen to be white or male, a police officer, or a Christian baker that believes in traditional marriage.

IM:  Meanwhile, Hillary and her surrogates will continue to seek ways to make Trump’s presidency illegitimate and to demean, with great contempt, those who share Trump’s values.

Old Gadfly:  With a left-leaning press, many can understand why Trump resorts to his Twitter account.  This is about the only way he can control his own narrative to counter the distorted caricature being painted by his political opponents.  Time will tell whether enough Americans want to preserve our Constitutional Republic, overcome the insidious forces of socialism, and make America great again.

Masters of Deceit

            IM:  Gentlemen, I am reading J. Edgar Hoover’s 1958 book, Masters of Deceit.

Old Gadfly:  I have read it.  What impresses you about it?

   

IM:  It was published nearly 60 years ago by a man who ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 48 years.  Despite attempts to discredit him, he had the most access to criminal and subversive activities going on in America than any other American.  And, while he had tremendous “dirt” on many Americans, sometimes used for political reasons, the book he wrote was not an attempt to assassinate political opponents.  The book presented a case to expose the comprehensive and insidious threat of socialism (and the Communist Party) in America.

 

AM:  During our time of service in the military, Gadfly and I were mostly focused on the external Communist Party threat, mostly from the Soviet Union and China.

Old Gadfly:  I think I know where you are taking us.

IM:  We are witnessing the masters of deceit in full bloom.

AM:  The left is seething at the realization that the working class voted for a capitalist.

IM:  Yes, the left had two candidates, both socialist in their orientation.  Bernie represented the more benevolent Trotskyite version.  Many of Bernie’s followers voted for Trump because he was a non-establishment choice (similar to the anti-czar sentiment of the Bolsheviks).

AM:  It would be difficult to associate Hillary with Stalin.

Old Gadfly:  Think again.  The once upon a time credible bellwether news source, the New York Times, is behaving like Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper.  According to Hoover, “Pravda, the Party newspaper urged drastic measures” (p. 30).  Look at how the New York Times is leading the charge to challenge the Trump election.  Despite the actual damaging content of Wikileaks, allegations are being made that Russia tampered with the elections.  The New York Times leads this charge with the other mainstream media networks following suit.  There is no interest in the veracity and significant implications of the Wikileaks content.  Thus, the “masters of deception” are shifting the focus to “fake news.”

IM:  To demonstrate the brutality of these masters of deception, a close friend of mine did a little research.  Here is what he found.  On July 11, 2016, Seth Conrad Rich, a young Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, who worked as a voter expansion data director, was found dead with two bullets to the back of the head.  A report of this event was made by a local news network, but was suppressed by other news networks.  The first release from WikiLeaks was July 26, 2016.  At the time WikiLeaks’ owner, Julian Assange, “told NBC News on Monday that ‘there is no proof whatsoever’ that his organization got almost 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails from Russian intelligence —adding it's what's in the emails that's important, not who hacked them.”  But, we are being deluged by the mainstream media that Russia tampered with the election.  If the Director of National Intelligence Clapper supports this narrative without conclusive evidence, then he is demonstrating how easy it is to politicize intelligence.  It is quite disturbing to learn:  “Devin Nunes on Wednesday blasted as ‘unacceptable’ the refusal of the FBI, CIA and National Intelligence directors to brief his panel on the Russian cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign.”  If there is evidence (as opposed to mere allegations) of a Russian attack, then share it with the Congressional oversight committee.  But then again, that might prematurely halt the frenzied news cycle.  It needs to stay at the forefront of narratives until December 18, when Electoral College delegates officially cast their votes.

AM:  Incidentally, recall that at a Congressional hearing, Director Clapper was asked, “Does the National Security Agency spy on Americans?”  He responded, “Not wittingly.”  More important, here is an exclusive report, published yesterday on December 14, 2016, of an individual directly involved with the handoff of DNC emails for Wikileaks publication.  What is not included in the report is the identification of the DNC whistleblower involved—was it Seth Conrad Rich?  This report was from a British publication.  Where is the American interest?

IM:   Let’s summarize.  We have actual evidence of Democrat wrong doing (deception, collusion, and so forth) via Wikileaks.  Assange claims the data came from sources other than Russia.  Then, we have the left, with its minions of politicians, Hollywood dupes, and media mimickers alleging Russia tampered with an election that turned out differently from what they wanted engaged in wolf pack behavior to undermine the Trump election.  Isn’t it a pathetic act of desperation to assault our Electoral College delegates with pleas not to vote for Trump?

Old Gadfly:  Your observations make sense.  But, the even more sinister dynamic is that the left is demonstrating how prescient (and we discussed this in our Why the Protests discussion) Khrushchev was when he prophesied in 1957 (the year before Hoover published Masters of Deceit):

“. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society.”

The socialistic left, disguised in progressive clothing, is far from moderating its ideology following this election.  How dare the working class vote for a capitalist—didn’t they get the memo—workers unite?  So, the tactics will continue, and the fight for the American idea (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) must continue as well.