My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 11, Social Policies, Concluding Remarks

I saved social policies for last in this endorsement mostly because social policies, in my view, are best handled at the state and local level. However, with the Joe Biden camp and the Democratic Party, there is increasing concern that the federalist division of our government could greatly be erased leading to a mass centralized democratic form of totalitarianism. Democrats have vowed to pack the courts, appeal to judicial activism to wipe out state and local laws, erase the electoral college, and repeal the Hyde Amendment which permits states to withhold funding from abortion.

Republicans have certainly had a history of smiting conservatives when it comes to social policies. It was under the Reagan administration that no-fault divorce was introduced. In truth, I think had a Democrat like Tulsi Gabbard won the nomination, there wouldn't be any need for concern at all. Tulsi Gabbard is for ending the endless wars. She would be fighting against the deep state just as much as Trump. Certainly, she is a social liberal, but she is also a federalist. Here is where it is important to emphasize the primary significance of federalism in our country. Federation is the only check on centralized democracy. F.A. Hayek noted that in his work, The Road to Serfdom.

The judicial activism we have seen over the years has revealed a trend to clamping down on federalism. Texas should not be expected to permit abortion when the constituents of Texas oppose abortion. Alabama should not be expected to accept gay marriage when its constituents oppose gay marriage. What we've ended up with is a country where a few powerful elites get to determine the religious and social values of the entire country. Today's Democratic Party has determined that not only must we accept the socially "progressive" policies of the left, we must also pay for them. Joe Biden promises to repeal the Hyde amendment, pack the courts, and erase the electoral college.

If Joe Biden is elected, the state could potentially be even more centralized than it is right now. That's not a good situation. What I feel is most important in the current political climate is the allowance of the diversity of opinions. When we are hotly divided over our stances on political dogmas, the best path toward unity is federalism. Federalism allows smaller units to be united amidst each other which may have differing or stricter policies on a vast variety of issues. It would be nice if we could all be united under one head, but that is only possible in a state that is united by religion. That was possible in England when the Edict of Toleration was passed. That was possible in the Holy Roman Empire. It's not possible in our country because we aren't guided by a religious direction. Instead, we are guided by the elevation of secular political policies that have been given a metaphysical value.

Trump has proven a consistent defender of federalism to say the least. A Biden administration would lead us toward centralized government and mass democracy. That would erase any chance to be politically diverse.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final words: "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!"

Well if the Left didn't try to immortalize every one enough, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made one final statement as she went out into the proverbial night. Though it is difficult to know exactly what her last words were, we can assume based on how the advocates of judicial activism responded to her death, that it was very likely "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!" And unlike Vespasian who stated this as a way to mock the Imperial cult in his dying breath, she meant it. Donald Trump once famously said, "We worship God, not the state." To which the Democrats booed him and refused to stand up. People thought they were godless but we know better. The Democrats have a god. That god is the state. So last night, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced in her dying breaths that was being assumed into the cult of democracy to be venerated by the worshipers of the democratic religion for ages to come. She said, "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god." And the Left had made her one ages ago.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 10, The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is a critical issue though it should not be. There have been severe problems with the Supreme Court from its development and Thomas Jefferson warned of the judicial overreach of the Supreme Court.

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

Jefferson's criticisms and the attacks on the judiciary branch go on. But the warning is quite clear. An independent judiciary puts us in a situation not just where we turn toward oligarchy but a situation where democracy rapidly takes a turn toward the worse in collectivism.

Regardless of where your stance on DACA is, when Justice Roberts became the tie-breaking judge to maintain the legality of Obama's executive order, he actually effectively transitioned our government into a form of dictatorship by executive order. The executive order has now become cemented in law. Now, any President in the future will be able to issue any executive order on impact. The courts should have never been allowed to become so powerful as to need to trust the appointees of elected officials. In essence, we're already on the verge of becoming a judicial oligarchy.

Judges freely issue unconstitutional gag orders which prohibit freedom of speech, judges decide how laws are to be interpreted effectively deciding what the laws of the country are, etc. This was already bad in the 1800s. Many people assume that the Constitution guaranteed the legality of slavery. It did not. States, after the period of time issued by the Constitution, had the freedom to determine their own laws concerning slavery. But Dred vs. Scott effectively over-ruled the states' rights to determine this on their own. Roe vs. Wade effectively made abortion legal. Obergefell vs. Hodges over-ruled the states' rights on the subject of gay marriage.

How else will federalism be over-ruled by the Supreme Court. Federalism is the only check on mass democracy in this country. Federalism is the only thing that has prevented our mass democracy from turning into a collectivist society. But as we see again and again, states' rights are trampled on and turned to dust. What we need are court justices who will defend states' rights on the courts. Judges who will not be of their own mind on how to interpret the laws but will interpret the laws in accordance with the legislature. The Supreme Court should have been the weakest of the three branches of government. Instead, it is currently the most powerful.

Joe Biden and the Democrats have planned to stack the courts with judges who will interpret the laws the way the Democratic Party sees fit. With the judiciary that powerful and fully under control by the Democratic Party, we'll become a uni-party system more like China.

The Truly Venerable Thomas à Kempis

Crazy Church Lady is crazy for a myriad of reasons. Not for her intelligence. She knows what she is talking about all of the time...now just most of the time, actually. She and I can have misunderstandings on occasion though this most recent one was really just more a lack of awareness that certain things can be a greater trigger for me than other people. So it is when it comes to a lot of church affairs these days. They can have that edge and wear. It's a constant battle of the will of the fallen flesh and the will of the Spirit in the Christian life.

For me, that trigger was from a humorous discussion we were having regarding how if she pushed her two youngest too high on the swing, they might fall off. "Remember your brother Steve?" and that sort of thing. I made a comment about how "their sister Margaret" once was pushed too high, fell off, went into a coma, then was buried alive by mistake. To which I mentioned how there used to be bells by the grave-sites in case people were buried alive by mistake. Thence came the trigger..."That's why Thomas à Kempis will never be canonized. He was buried alive and they found scratch marks on the coffin lid when they dug it up," she said.

That threw me into a state of shock. I had heard mention that Thomas à Kempis will never be canonized before. Similar story. Relating to the odd nature of his burial as well. I had forgotten it. Rightly so. You don't really give much thought to it. But having actually experienced God and the Church, this not only triggered me but gravely (no pun intended) disturbed me. How is it that God's grace would deem such an unfortunate situation for an otherwise holy man to prevent not only his canonization but also his veneration? If a gut feeling tells you something isn't true, it likely isn't true. Sure, some might state that they had no reason to deny the claim that it prevented his canonization because they might feel questioning such a claim would deny authority or they've reconciled it with their own view of the Church, but I could not reconcile the claim with either God's grace and abundant mercy and the way I have come to view ecclesiology.

I went into a state of near and total despair. Clearly, the Crazy Church Lady knows her stuff. But still, why does my gut keep saying that the man attributed as the author of The Imitation of Christ, which has not only led so many souls to Heaven but also has been recommended and reflected upon by several of the Church Triumphant, could not possibly be canonized. This literally was eating away at me for an entire day. I needed to talk to someone sober-minded, genuine in character, and who would openly listen. But I also kept obsessing over this seemingly suspicious revelation. I ended up talking about it with the deacon the next night. Well, here's the thing, I haven't been able to find a single source to verify Crazy Church Lady's claim, number one, and the deacon, though he be a Melkite and hadn't actually even heard of Thomas à Kempis before, mentioned that he had never heard such a claim in the Latin Church that evidence of a premature burial is grounds for the denial of canonization. To which I perked a bit. I looked further into this. Indeed, there is no canonical grounds for a dismissal if evidence of a premature burial is found! The only thing I can think of is that it would be related to the issue of mortal sin and whether or not the holy person was in a state of mortal sin at death. Such would be grounds. But given the nature that one would have to be in a coma in order for such a mistake to happen, it is preposterous to contend that mortal sin would occur since for a mortal sin to be committed, one must have made the voluntary consent to sin.

John Duns Scotus

In reading more on this issue, I came across one such translation of The Imitation of Christ by Paraclete Press, which mentions in a footnote the following:

The most bizarre (but extremely consistent) legend had it that when Thomas's remains were discovered in 1672, it was found that the inside of the coffin lid was covered with scratches and there were splinters of wood under the fingernails of the corpse thereby preventing canonization since there was no way to know his true state of mind at the time of his actual death. It might be of interest to know that the Franciscan theologian John Duns Scotus died in Köln in 1308, and when the burial vault was opened, he was found lying outside the coffin. (p. 439)

This story was first stated by the philosopher Francis Bacon in his work Historia vitae et mortis. John Duns Scotus was beatified in 1993. It is possible that it was his philosophical and anti-Scottish opponents that came up with this story and that it is a myth. But it clearly did not stop his beatification regardless.

The Attacks From the Neo-Catholics!

One article that reads quite sickeningly on the subject of Thomas à Kempis has the following to say:

Even 15th-century famous spiritual writer German Thomas à Kempis didn’t make it through the process. His body was exhumed and examined during his case for sainthood. There are stories that there were scratch marks on the inside of his coffin and splinters of wood under his fingernails. These discoveries suggested an escape attempt after being buried alive. The issue would have been that Thomas à Kempis did not peacefully accept death as a saint should.

What? This is on the lines of either a) we have a very cynical Church when it comes to cases where holy men are accidentally buried alive or b) a holy man must have proper compunction if he is mistakenly buried alive. If this sounds sickening to you, then it's possible that either a) the story is not true or b) there may have been a much different reason for why the man has not been canonized that extends beyond the circumstances of his death. To state that we must resist euthanasia on one hand and yet refuse to give in to death on the other hand is both contradictory and absurd. If God's will is for us not to die or be called home, then we have every right to attempt an escape from a coffin we were prematurely buried in. There is nothing in the Latin canonization process that mentions this!

This next attack is even more bizarre.

Thomas died in 1471, but when his remains were exhumed they found splinters under his finger nails and the coffin scratched up. In other-words, Thomas was most likely buried alive. The church seeing this as a situation where Thomas may have despaired decided to not proceed with his canonization cause citing this incident twice when the cause is again and again brought up.

Okay, so if you're buried alive and try to escape, you're damned because you refused to give in to death before your time. If you're buried alive and make scratch marks you're damned because you despaired. Make sense?

The forum comments!

Oh, it's indeed true if they say it in forums over and over again! You know random people on the internet are always the most reliable sources of information!

My understanding is that there’s substantial doubt as to whether he ever existed. He might have been a fictitious, composite character created by a small group of anonymous religious writers. (PauloFreire2, Catholic Forums - points for creativity, I laughed)

On[e] of our pastors in South Dakota who is now deceased, a very credible and holy priest, Fr. Leonard D. Fox (1st cousin to Fr. Robert Fox who founded the Fatima Family Apostolate and was on EWTN for the few years of his life) told us that when Thomas’s grave was opened up he was facing downward and that’s why the canonization process was stopped. It was a sign of despair. (Bsokolow - Catholic Forums - well the Crazy Church Lady is a very credible and holy woman, does that mean she's always right? I see her go to confession!)

It is true that he has not been canonized. I read somewhere that his cause was opened, but when he was exhumed, they discovered scratches all over the roof of the coffin and clumps of his hair in his hands. I guess he had been buried alive accidentally, and the powers that be assumed that he despaired, something saints aren't supposed to do. (Iubeltri, Orthodox Christian forums)

Etc. Notice how the story changes. He's facing downward, he's scratching on the coffin lid, he's got clumps of hair in his hands. I've read one commenter saying that he had "a look of despair in his face". It's gone from ambiguity to total confidence - definitely in despair!

But again, if it cannot be argued that he had full mental faculties, then he cannot actually be guilty of mortal sin. Even if awoken alive to find himself in a coffin, the absence of full control over mental faculties from the lack of oxygen to the fact you've just woken from a coma, indicates that mortal sin is impossible to commit in such a state. Mortal sin requires voluntary consent. And there's no rule that indicates that signs of being buried alive by mistake nullifies the canonization process. Anneliese Michel was a demoniac who died from malnourishment in a botched exorcism. People make pilgrimages to her grave-site on a yearly basis. Lack of full mental faculties means one cannot possibly be held accountable for whatever they end up committing.

Okay now, the real story

Yes, there's the real story of the exhumation of Thomas à Kempis. There aren't too many biographies on him but in wrestling with this issue over the last couple days, I searched and sought and finally found one. It is by Francis R. Cruise. A British medical scientist, he actually spent much time dedicated to literary study with a focus in particular on Thomas à Kempis. This is what he writes on the exhumation:

[O]n the 13th of August the coffin was opened, and the bones of the holy man exposed to view. The remains were in wonderful preservation, and the bones were attached in situ. The head was nearly perfect and rested on a mass of peat. The teeth were white, those in the upper maxilla being present, but on being touched they fell from the sockets. The lower jaw retained only a few of the teeth. The right side of the skeleton lay somewhat lower than the left, and had mouldered considerably. The hands were crossed, the right lying on the left. The bones of the fingers and toes were in tact, but the ribs and shoulder-blades had crumbled to dust. The stole, made of white satin and embroidered with flowers, lay around his neck, the lower part being quite consumed. The portion which had escaped destruction was taken by the Elector as a relic. From the inner aspect of the left ankle an abundance of beautiful coloured flowers were found growing--doubtless a variety of lichen. Many circumstances combine to identify these remains, and lead to the conviction that they were undoubtedly those of Thomas à Kempis. (Thomas à Kempis, 322-323)

Well that sounds quite the opposite of all that has been posted about him in forums. Almost as if someone should take up his cause for canonization. Why wasn't he canonized? 

Two centuries after the Reformation, during which the priory was destroyed, the holy remains were transferred to Zwolle and enclosed in a handsome reliquary by Maximilian Hendrik, Prince-Bishop of Cologne. At present they are enshrined in St. Michael's Church, Zwolle, in a magnificent monument erected in 1897 by subscriptions from all over the world and inscribed: "Honori, non memoriae Thomae Kempensis, cujus nomen perennius quam monumentum" (To the honour not to the memory of Thomas à Kempis, whose name is more enduring than any monument). It is interesting to recall that the same Maximilian Hendrik, who showed such zeal in preserving and honouring the relics of à Kempis, was also eager to see the cause of his beatification introduced and began to collect the necessary documents; but little more than a beginning was made when he died (1688) and since that date no further steps have been taken. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)

Oh. Well that makes sense now and seems far less conspiratorial, self-contradictory, or even worrisome of the Church's cynical attitude toward those mistakenly buried alive. It is interesting to note that Wikipedia's articles on premature burial and Thomas à Kempis make no mention of this idea that Thomas à Kempis was buried alive. There are no credible references that back it. Why mention it? The story is contradicted flatly by perhaps the most reliable biographer of Thomas à Kempis we may ever have. The Crazy Church Lady...has a pulse!

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 9, Natural Rights are Under Attack

The Lincoln Project ad attacking the McCloskeys and Kyle Rittenhous as "white nationalists" can be viewed here. When I saw this ad, I was horrified. John Locke, one of the most prominent classical liberals and attributed thinkers to the founding of American ideas that are imbued into the Declaration of Independence cites the rights of life, liberty, and property as the three basic natural rights that man has. These also have been classically defended as inherent to man's natural rights by the Church as well. This is not some sort of secularist philosophy as asserted by the neo-Evangelicals and neo-Catholics of today's world who do the bidding of a socialist state. The ad also convinced me that this election might be more one of an assessment of ideas as to who we are as Americans. Do we value the natural rights of man or do we value chaos being let loose upon our fellow humans?

The McCloskeys were a couple that have absolutely nothing to do with white nationalists. They are painted this way by the rotten and degenerate ilk who run The Lincoln Project because such degenerate people assume private property is a sign that people are evil. It is not. I remember one homily I heard as a High Anglican in which the deacon proclaimed that money is not evil nor does Scripture state that money is evil. Rather the love of money is evil. That deacon was fairly soft-spoken in person. But on the pulpit he was a roaring lion. I do not know how he did it. The defense of property is not a matter of one's white supremacy. If it was, the degenerate morons who run The Lincoln Project should fork over their assets not to getting Biden elected but rather to helping hungry people be fed.

But the ad is more sinister given the nature that it spreads lies and falsities about both Kyle Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys. For starters, the "peaceful protesters" that came up to the McCloskeys actually barged onto the McCloskeys' lawn, broke down the iron gate that blocked the entrance, and shouted threats of terror to the life of the McCloskeys. The fact that the McCloskeys threatened the barbarians back with guns of their own is irrelevant to the assessment of the moral character of the McCloskeys. One always has the right to defend their personal God-given possessions seeing as God gave those to the McCloskeys, not to the hoard of barbarians. The life of the McCloskeys was reasonably in danger so the McCloskeys had ample recourse to the defense of their life. It is sickening that it is labeled "white supremacy" to defend one's own personal property and life.

Equally sinister is the continued slander of Kyle Rittenhouse. Reliable witness testimony and video footage evidence shows Rittenhouse's life was reasonably in danger. Rittenhouse remarkably only fired at the people who threatened him. He was fired upon first, turned his weapon, shot the man in the head. He was even involved in trying to provide medical aid to that man. It is a killing but not a murder. Murder must be deliberate. Rittenhouse fired back in self-defense. When one fires in self-defense, that regardless of the result of the weapon discharge, it is not murder. It is a self-defensive act. The Lincoln Project made a crucial mistake in their ad in showing Rittenhouse knocked to the ground. That led to the second set of shootings. Again, self-defense. One man even attempted to pry Rittenhouse's weapon away from him.

If we have come to the point in this country where it is a matter of racism or anti-racism when it comes to the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property, then the matter of Trump vs. Biden has become a bigger issue. It is a matter of natural rights or the freedom to be slaughtered by a hoard of barbarians that trounces on every single thing you have. Your freedom, your property, and your life. When it comes to the fundamental values of Americans, we face a decision to uphold to the classical liberal values of life, liberty, and property, or to condemn the defense of those things as a matter of white supremacy. No one explains how it is a matter of white supremacy.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 8, Trump is "Bad" for Democracy But That's a Good Thing!

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating over what to have for lunch." -source unknown but oft attributed to Benjamnin Franklin

One political dogma I have often criticized is democracy. Exactly, what is democracy? I do not even think the proponents of democracy know quite well what democracy is. In one breath, they'll say "majoritarian rule" but in the next, they will say the will of the majority to impose its views on the minority. Well the second part is a good thing. Democracy is the will of the majority to impose its views and policies on the minority. Simply put, you cannot consistently claim that democracy is about majoritarian rule while claiming that the majority is prohibited from imposing its views and will on the majority. This is why Murray N. Rothbard rightly critiqued democracy as "a system replete with inner contradictions" (Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, 1279).

"Does the system of democracy permit itself to be voted democratically out of existence? Whichever way the democrat answers, he is caught in an inescapable contradiction." (12879) If the majority can vote to end democracy, then it is a self-terminating system of government. If the majority cannot achieve this, then democracy cannot purport to effectively establishing a government but is merely symbolic. "So if the majority wishes to end the voting process, democracy cannot be preserved regardless of which horn of the dilemma is chosen." (1280 If democracy is about "change" then it must let itself be voted out of existence. If democracy is about majority rule, then it must allow the majority to either elect a dictator or undemocratic policies. If democracy is merely a matter of cooperation, on the other hand, then it must permit the minority to have as much equal ruling power as the majority. The internal contradictions are only extrapolated in democracy.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the Presidency with 46.1% of the nationwide vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 48.2% of the nationwide vote. While this is inherently an undemocratic, non-majoritarian victory, it is impossible to tell who would have come out and voted differently and where and in what states had the election rules been based on a strict majority. Of course, this isn't even in a direct democracy. A direct democracy involves the people voting on policy changes but an indirect democracy involves people voting for others to vote for the policies they want. American politics does not have and never will have a direct democracy because the elected politicians love power too much. That may seem cynical but it is fact. If majoritarian rule ever did enter into this country, you would see a lot of policies changed that the politicians of both parties have stated they want. Voting for a person to carry out policies requires more complicated studies than merely voting in regards to policies. The real culprit against democracy in this country is the personality tests we've turned local, state-wide, and federal elections into. Democracy in America is a mess.

This is why democracy is something worthwhile to consider being nuked. Without democracy, people aren't worried about who is leading them nor voting them out. This is so abundantly and overwhelmingly obvious. Democracy is a system set up for failures. There is a point in which democracy even becomes nothing more than a fragile religion. If Trump is "bad for democracy" or an "assault on American democracy" then that is actually a good thing. The democratic system is filled with contradictions and fallacies. The least concern is an assault on democracy or voting rights. Rather, the strongest concern is the fight for individual liberties. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom to associate and peaceably assemble, freedom of the press. It is when these things are taken away that we transpose into collectivism and totalitarianism. If democracy becomes a threat to those freedoms, then democracy must step aside.

Orwell spoke this warning in his novel 1984 in the torture scene. The character Winston is being forced into the collective brain of society. The collective brain of The Party. It is democracy and majoritarian rule when unleashed to fulfill their concepts that can quickly become a threat. Orwell probably never meant that interpretation but as Rothbard has pointed out, the democratic system is rife with contradictions. Democracy is literally a modern day god that is worshiped by the adherents of its religion who cannot see where it will inevitably lead.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 7, Lockdowns...Joe Biden Can't Handle the Coming Mental Health Crisis!

"In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide." (Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, 280)

The rebuke to Trump's response overall to the COVID-19 scamdemic has been caked in contradictions upon contradictions. First, they said he should listen to the experts. But the experts told him not to worry so he told us not to worry and that it was nothing. Then they told him masks weren't necessary. They called him "racist" for proposing travel restrictions. Eventually, they realized it was expedient to their cause to flop around all of a sudden. What further evidence do we need that the Democratic Party's own response to COVID-19 isn't about the health of society, it's about power! Revolver actually did a study in late August which proved that the COVID-19 lockdowns have been deadlier than the virus itself.

There is a necessary balance between livelihood and health that must be taken into consideration. There is also an inherent risk factor in every day living. Because this life is not permanent, livelihood must always serve first precedence. Trump's response to the virus was in line with what his experts were saying. What the WHO was saying and what the CDC were saying. This is simply the history of the early moments of this scamdemic that we've been forced to embrace totalitarianism for. It's sick, really. Further, his critics contend that Trump is killing people on one hand by not shutting everything down, and on the other end is tanking the economy by shutting down. Either he is immoral for shutting everything down or he is immoral for refusing to do so. The DNC cannot have it both ways. People are starting to see this narrative of the DNC's is BS.

But even more deep perhaps is Trump's response to the lockdowns. One could state his opposition is only rooted in the thesis that he only cares about economic numbers, but the reality is that his opposition to them is deeply seated in a genuine care for others that the Democrats and Joe Biden lack. Trump is the only politician to mention how enforced isolation will intensify depression. How enforced isolation will lead to suicide. How the limitations of freedom will ultimately lead to suicide. Or as Mises put it, "In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left...is the freedom to commit suicide." That is not an endorsement of suicide from the economic philosopher. That is a statement of the shocking reality of what totalitarianism leads to. Because totalitarianism feasts upon the individual, the individual is left with only the will of the collective brain of society. The individual has no thoughts on his own. Catholic social doctrine is not only cemented on solidarity but also on subsidarianism. The rooting out of an individual will kills the soul which leads to the only freedom being that in the freedom to self-annihilate to free oneself from the tyrannical oppression of the collective brain.

This is exactly the state we are in with these lockdowns. People have no will of their own. Their only option is to stay inside all day, occasionally go out and purchase necessary goods, and maybe work if they're an "essential worker". Barbarians get to pillage, loot, and rape, if they're doing it on behalf of the DNC. But everyone else, stay inside. There must be a balance between health and livelihood. There must be a return to the daily activities of human life that involve ongoing risks that ultimately benefit the needs of man. The cut-off of the individual is both harmful and morally impermissible.

To state this is not an approval of the numbers that have died from COVID-19. To state this is to acknowledge the reality that life is mortal. It is not ours to decide when we die. The virus is body-killing but the ongoing isolation is soul-killing. People need the necessary freedoms that are guaranteed in a legitimately free society. People need the human interaction. Joe Biden will continue these ongoing lockdowns and he will do them with a total disregard and disdain for the anthropological ethics of the Church and the anthropological ethics of the humanists. He will do them with no compassion for the mental health and well-being of the nation. He will do it acting upon the narrative that COVID-19 is the "only cause of death" when it obviously is not. People have missed vital medical appointments because of the lockdowns. People's mental health is deteriorating. Biden needs to listen to the medical health experts, not just the infectious disease experts. Joe Biden can't handle the coming mental health crisis of the re-emergence of more lockdown policies!

1. https://www.revolver.news/2020/08/study-covid-19-lockdowns-deadlier-than-pandemic-itself/

2. https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/blogs/emerging-evidence-on-covid-19s-impact-on-mental-health-and-health

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 6, Critical Race Theory

It is asserted that an instinct teaches man to distinguish congeners from strangers and to detest the latter. Scions of noble races abominate any contact with members of lower races. To refute this statement one need only mention the fact of racial mixture. As there are in present-day Europe no pure stocks, we must conclude that between members of the various stocks which once settled in that continent there was sexual attraction and not repulsion. Millions of mulattoes and other half-breeds are living counterevidence to the assertion that there exists a natural repulsion between the various races. ... racial hatred is not a natural phenomenon in man. It is the product of ideologies. (Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, 167-168)

We've come along way since the 1960's in this country. That cannot be disputed. Yet there is a malicious ideology that is brewing throughout our academia and seeping into our society that cannot be ignored. That is the critical race theory nonsense. The premises it is based on are that white people, as a result of years and years of racism, have developed a natural hatred for other people. Of course the theory in and of itself is racist. Growing up, I was taught, as a dogma, that it is racist to make generalizations about specific groups of people based on their ethnicity or their skin color. I was not informed that it was okay to make such judgments based on white people. Critical race theory is a fundamentally flawed in a variety of ways.

Critical race theory first bases itself on the premise that man inherently holds to certain racial biases and racial hatred toward other men. That premise is false and factually countered by simply pointing out mixed marriages. That doesn't matter to the advocates of critical race theory. If you refute one point of their white privilege nonsense, they'll pull out another point to keep the argument going.

The next point critical race theory makes is that certain groups of people have been historically oppressed. This is the only true thing that critical race theory bases its claims on. Certain groups of people have been oppressed throughout history by a variety of groups. But critical race theory awards "victim points" to "more oppressed" peoples. It won't award points though to the Irish who have been oppressed and face genocide from the British. Christians get no points despite undergoing constant persecution from Islamists in the Middle East. Catholics certainly get no points despite undergoing it from the Klan, from Islam, from the Orthodox, etc. The Orthodox get no points despite facing a recent diaspora from their homeland of Russia after being brutally persecuted by atheists. But atheists will get points despite doing much oppression of historic proportions in the last century. And so will Muslims despite being oppressors ever since their parody religion activated! There are two groups of people who have never undergone oppression--atheists and Muslims. But yet atheists and Muslims get awarded points under critical race theory, Christians, Irish, Zoroastrians, Armenians? Nada...none.

Critical race theory will then fall back on the idea that it is specific institutions that are inherently racist. They will point out a history of grievances as they existed in America but then won't be able to point out any current existing racist institutions in today's world. Why is that? There are at least two racist institutions in today's world but critical race theory won't mention them. Critical race theory isn't about equal race opportunity. Planned Parenthood locations are strategically located in minority communities to provide opportunities for genocide against those communities. Margaret Sanger wasn't hiding her overt racism. Affirmative Action programs are designed to favor people of certain racial characteristics over others. Abolish these two and all racist institutions are abolished. But critical race theorists never mention those. Because the objective goal is about the numbers. "If there aren't a certain number of black people hired for this, it doesn't matter how more qualified the white folks are!" they scream. And they're in favor of abortion so why would they mention Planned Parenthood's racist origins and agenda?

They then fall back on the conspiracy that enforcing reasonable laws is "racist". So Kamala Harris will praise Jacob Blake despite the fact he was a racist. Rayshard Brooks is a martyr despite the fact that he grabbed a tazer from a police officer while intoxicated, fired it at the officer, and ran off with it while continuing to fire it. George Floyd was murdered despite the fact that what was being suffered before the police officer placed his knee on his neck was the result of a fentanyl overdose. Rand Paul though is a racist despite authoring the Breonna Taylor bill which would eliminate no-knock search warrants (maybe he should have only eliminated them for blacks and changed parties?).

Let's be blunt, there are people screaming that Trump hasn't been shot by police despite being an accused rapist. Guess what? Neither has Joe Biden! I don't know if either men are guilty. The allegations are at least 20 years old for both men, even more actually. They are unable to be corroborated. Due process in this country must presume both men's innocence until guilt is proven and guilt can't really be proven in either case. However, Harvey Weinstein had a growing and substantial list of claims made against him. He was placed under arrest and not shot. Why? It wasn't because he was white. It's because he didn't resist arrest, he didn't charge at the officers with a knife, he didn't run into his car to grab something or even drive off and maybe plow some people over in the process (yes, a police chase is classified as deadly force!). Jacob Blake did that. If you do the things Blake did, you get shot at. The media chooses to amplify things without any regard to the full events of what led up to these shootings because they want to stoke a race war.

In Joe Biden's America, you will be forced to undergo severe "racial bias training" in all areas of life starting with government. We see it in the education system already. Trump has ordered critical race theory training to be put to an end. The malicious lie that is critical race theory is already being severely halted by the Trump Administration. And that's a good thing. More work is needed to be done. Affirmative Action needs to end and Planned Parenthoods need to be removed from minority communities, but ending critical race theory training is a start.

1. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/05/910053496/trump-tells-agencies-to-end-trainings-on-white-privilege-and-critical-race-theor

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 5, LAW AND ORDER

We have had chaos since Memorial Day. People are getting sick and tired of these riots. The media has made up a series of slanderous lies and cover-ups for their Biden-voters even while admitting to them. The Washington Compost has threatened violence if Trump wins, naturally. There is good reason to presume that if Trump wins, the transition of power will not be peaceful. But that is for another part in this lengthy endorsement. It is not a good state for our democracy either way.

When the riots first broke out, there was obvious, undeniable destruction of private property and Democrat leaders were busy manufacturing excuses for the violence. Such as the bold declarations that the violence is part of "racial justice" and other nonsense such as that. None of it is justifiable. No suffering is justifiable. If Floyd was murdered (and growing evidence shows he likely wasn't), then suffering cannot be justified. Yet Democrat leaders rushed to impose this on the rest of us. Trump was severely blocked by Democratic leaders from enforcing order. There is nothing more fundamentally important to freedom than proper order. If private property can be taken freely, there is no freedom.

Even the Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen, failed to condemn the barbarity that was enacted against private property throughout the country. Instead, she participated in a protest. Albeit, that protest was entirely peaceful, but she never condemned the rioting or the looting nor stood to defend private property. Looting and rioting and burning down churches are never acceptable. And so Trump was the only leader to be able to have the nerves to dump tear gas on a group of rioters threatening to burn down a church. He received much flak for that from the neo-con ruling class. According to James Mattis, the only time you're allowed to use force is on a hospital in the Middle East.

Yet even still, the feds wouldn't put up with the Lincoln Memorial being savagely vandalized. It was only then that the neo-con establishment started caring somewhat. But Trump and Barr actually went to measures to protect a church and they were condemned for that. Neo-con sources condemned their usage of tear gas on "peaceful" protesters. There was no evidence that this group of protesters was peaceful. They just ran along with that demonic lie. The real reason why they attacked Trump is because he had the nerve to defend a church from being savagely ripped to shreds by a hoard of Vandals.

The current climate in Portland is even more proof that law and order is needed. Prior to sending in the feds, rioters were ripping apart and barbarously ripping down and burning down buildings. Nothing was stopping them. The Democrats blamed Trump for the violence. Trump didn't cause any of it. They knew that. It was all a demonic lie. Trump sent the feds in, the rioters were quelled. Trump withdrew the feds, the rioting started again and yet the Democrat leaders made the egregiously false claim that Trump's usage of federal law enforcement was fueling the riots. A Trump-supporter was viciously murdered on August 29, 2020. Immediately following, the Portland police were deputized to act as federal agents. The rioting is quelled yet again.

Trump also had a response to Kenosha when the riots broke out. Gov. Tony Evers refused to let the police enforce the law. Trump sent in the National Guard. Cities that are burned to the ground are not free cities. Rioters and looters and barbarians roaming around the land is not evidence of a free society. Barbarians should be rounded up and locked up. Get the bums off the street! Trump was the only one in government to defend a church from being burned down. If he is condemned for that, then he should be put in office another four years. The swamp is not drained, the swamp creatures are trying to finish him off.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/03/trump-stay-in-office/?arc404=true

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 4, The Military Industrial Complex

The war economy created in Germany in 1914 "is the first realization of a socialist society and its spirit the first active, and not merely demanding of a socialist spirit." (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 185)

From his campaign in 2016, President Trump has consistently vowed to withdraw troops from war-zones in the Middle East specifically. These are where our current wars are taking place. There can be no doubt that the warrior-like mentality is what fuels most the fascist and socialist spirit. As war calls for allegiances to be made and divisions to be mandated. War has united people together and it has divided people against themselves. War has generated heroism and it has generated barbarity. But a socialist empire is one that thrives on keeping perpetual wars continuing. Perpetual wars of aggression of "us vs. them". It is no surprise to find the Warlord John Kerry reflecting on the U.S. entrance into World War II as a motivation to keep the continued wars going in the Middle East. Indeed, he lost to Bush, who started the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. It is always some war the neo-cons wage as an effort to control society.

If one wants proof and further enunciation on the controlling effects of the "warrior class" on society, one need look no further than Animal Farm or 1984. The pigs were constantly at war with one farm or another and this kept the animals in check, this fueled their devotion to the pigs, and it generated complete dependence on the pigs for their survival. Oceania was also constantly at war whether it be with Eurasia or Eastasia. The goal of perpetuating wars was to keep the denizens of Oceania submissive and dependent on The Party. Any one who thinks it is fascist to not perpetuate the wars is either lying, a fascist, or is simply ignorant of history. Trump though has taken a remarkably different attitude. Sen. Rand Paul stated at the RNC,

President Trump is the first President in a generation to seek to end war rather than start one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Madison once wrote, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

I had even mentioned on a blog of my own that never got going that the President has had a remarkable performance, despite the severe neo-con pushback in his administration, of doing exactly this.

In addition, he has also begun withdrawal of troops from not only Syria but also from Afghanistan. Again, if you are a neo-con, you are probably in a frantic fury about this. Maybe you like dropping bombs on other countries that we’re not even technically at war with? But war is not a good thing. It is an objectively bad thing. Even if we accept the premise that a just war is morally permissible, that does not magically mark war as “sometimes” a good thing. It marks a just war as, at best, a necessary evil needed to remedy potential outbreaks of other significant moral wrongs used to oppress people. Further, there was never any evidence put forward of Assad’s guilt any way. Another significant accomplishment being the most recent is the peace talks with the Taliban.5 The war in Afghanistan has been going on nearly two decades and finally, there is evidence that the war is finally coming to an end. That is not just simply a policy accomplishment for the President, that is an accomplishment that his two predecessors failed to achieve. This, despite his own “lack of experience”. Poli-hack Blog

In the early goings of his administration, Kim Jong Un was launching nukes left and right. There was strong rhetoric but the goal was to send a defensive warning to Kim Jong Un that Trump would not allow Los Angeles to be nuked. A defensive war is permissible but not wanted. All of a sudden, Kim Jong Un had a major change of heart and agreed to meet with Trump. You haven't heard of the rhetoric any more as of that point. The administration has made recent mistakes with Iran but in the United Arab Emirates' peace treaty with Israel, Iran may become less of a problem in the future.

Trump has been a constant enemy of the neo-con establishment and by continuing to pull troops from war zones, he has taken this country tremendously in the right direction. That is the complete opposite of what a fascist leader would do. Vote for Trump if you want fewer wars. Biden's campaign is under the complete control of the military industrial complex that will continue to feed terrorist groups like the Kurds and al-Nusra.