Conservative Political Commentary

[Under the Radar?] Anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-globalist, pro-Constitution, and usually with an attempt at historical and economic context (This blog was given its name before I decided it was going to be a political blog.)

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

The Electoral College: Comments on Its Importance and Value

By Eddie Howell

There are some very important issues related to the Electoral College today, and arguments over whether it should be maintained or abolished. There is an effort by some of the losing side of the presidential election to persuade electors pledged to Donald Trump to change their votes to Hillary Clinton. This, in my view is a subversive effort to undermine the Constitution.

Some articles by and some linked, along with videos, by The Lexington Libertarian are quite helpful. I will also add my own comments.

The following is a video explaining the function of, and some of the reasons for, the Electoral College, which seems to be the least-understood aspect of our presidential election system:

And an even more serious effort is underway for states to pass laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate with the highest number of popular votes in the nation, regardless of the vote in their own states. This would completely negate the provisions of the Constitution on this matter and disenfranchise the voters of the states.

This is an underhanded effort to undermine the national electorate, and probably constitutes treason. It is illegal to interfere with someone's legal vote. In my state, Texas, for example, Trump was the winner, but under this law, Texas would have to cast all its electoral votes for Clinton, assuming she won the popular vote. Ridiculous, but people are seriously pressing for this law, which would go into effect when the states passing it have the required 270 electoral votes or more, circumventing the Constitution.

It is patently unconstitutional, but a liberal court might OK it if it were challenged. Dick Morris ably explains the law, which has passed one house of the legislature in several states, and also the urgency of stopping it before it can go into effect:

(Videos via The Lexington Libertarian)

Mark Newman of the Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan has provided several maps illustrating the results of the 2016 presidential election. I will refer to two of them, the results by state, and by county. The county map shows that only a small fraction of counties in the U.S. had Democratic majorities, and the rest had Republican majorities. Also, as shown by the state map, significantly more states voted GOP than Democratic.

The Electoral College is supposed to represent the states. It was set up, very wisely, by the founders, because the fact that the U.S. consists of united states is important. States are nor simply units of the Federal government, but, as the Declaration of Independence describes it,
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. [Emphasis added]
Quite a Declaration! The states subsequently established the U.S. Constitution, and delegated certain powers to the Federal government, which were considered advantageous to their people, carefully enumerating the powers so delegated. The Electoral College was designed to preserve a measure of state power while recognizing the differences in population. To abolish the Electoral College would eliminate the influence of most states in the presidential election. The states with the most large cities would determine the winner, and less-populated states would have no influence. The Electoral College exists because the states are important. Without it, the major cities would dictate policies for everyone, whether or not they would be of any benefit to other parts of the country.

The Electoral College should be preserved as a vital part of our political system, and changes to it should be done only by constitutional amendment. A change which would be beneficial, in my view, would be a requirement that electors vote according to their pledges, not using secret ballot but a public vote, and face severe penalties for not doing so. Or, perhaps, create a mechanism to automatically award electoral votes to candidates according to the state-by-state results.

You may sign the petition Dick Morris referred to here.

Further reading: Electoral College website

Thursday, November 10, 2016

“Not My President”? Try Another Country – or, Just Grow Up, It'll Be O.K.

The election of Donald Trump has very likely saved America from a fatal internal collapse. The domination of the left in our major institutions, especially government, is and has been a palpable threat to our continuation as a sovereign and free nation. Trump has heroically won the election and now must carry out a momentous and difficult plan to “Make America Great Again” and “Drain the Swamp.” A tall order indeed, but very necessary, and one that I think would never otherwise be attempted in this lifetime, let alone succeed.

The left's response is largely indicated by the protest demonstrations in major cities across the U.S. Rent-a-mob thugs, joined by ignorant college students taught by misguided if not evil professors, and also by some people who just want to make trouble. They are protesting and some are committing violent acts. Others are looking for opportunities to do violent things if they think they can get away with it.

Authorities seem unable to enforce permit requirements, and while they are willing to let people exercise their rights to protest, they are usually arresting people whose conduct gets out of hand. One may hope this business will soon wear itself out and things will quiet down. But by what do the protesters try to justify their actions?

“Love trumps hate”? Those who disagree with them aren't loving enough? What are they showing in these protests. To me, it doesn't look like love.

Many having discarded all religion except secularism or atheism, and adopted the overdone vulgarity and rudeness that marks much of our present day interaction, they often have no hesitation to curse and berate Donald Trump in the worst possible language in their demonstrations. This behavior is like that of those the Bible called “sons of Belial” and “worthless men.” If this represents the Democratic Party, it's not likely to attract worthy members. These protesters cannot claim much of a moral high ground with this behavior, and with some still calling for murdering policemen and people who disagree with them.

If they believe in democracy, why protest a legitimate democratic election? Why protest the presidency of a man who has not yet taken office?

Their accusations against President-elect Trump are not only flimsy, but actually false. They lack understanding of American tradition and the principles of political activity. They want the freedom for themselves, but not others.

Universities have become some of the stupidest places in America, and why parents would want to pay good money to send their children to that kind of environment, or why someone would want to be a student there on their own, is a mystery to me. Going to college is for many people difficult enough from the costs, the overwhelming debt, and, these days, the lack of jobs, that it can turn out to be a very negative experience that takes years to get over. Add to that the nonsense that some professors are spewing, and some students buying into, and you have a very bad situation.

When students, some at the behest of their teachers, make unreasonable demands, and administrators gladly comply, reinforcing those demands with more and more onerous rules, the whole business and mission of the university is basically lost. Political correctness is the standard rather than academic achievement. Worthless courses in worthless majors increase. It almost seems that some professors require their students to essentially turn communist if they want good grades. And students are encouraged to be the “precious snowflakes” or “cupcakes” that have to be protected from heretical opinions (i.e., those not shared by the professors and administrators). These opinions have to emphasize gender and ethnic diversity, although not intellectual or political diversity. And “inclusion,” that is, nothing is allowed that might offend someone of the coddled population.

To protect these “students,” “safe spaces” must be provided, “trigger warnings” issued, and professional counseling made immediately available. These considerations might involve racially segregated dorms or classes, and political correctness. Warning signs must be posted, and leaflets distributed. “Masculinity” is always suspect, as is being white.

This is actually the closest thing to fascist dictatorship we currently have in America. It is almost a requirement to refer to those who offend against the political correctness as being fascists or like Hitler. Most of the students and probably most of the professors have no idea what actual fascism is or who Hitler was or what he did.

There are plenty of videos and articles around that appear to show that some college students know little about history. They may have strong opinions, but are not well informed.

I am grateful for organizations like Campus Reform and the Foundation for Individual Freedom in Education (FIRE). Fox News Channel's “On the Record” program had been running a segment called “Campus Craziness,” pointing out some of these ridiculous realities.

If the protests continue and become more violent, there will have to be more robust law enforcement to quell them. Liberal Arts and Social Science education, once justly regarded as a vital part of education is often going begging as something people want to actually study, and is being replaced by pieces of leftist propaganda indoctrination. No more emphasis on actual individualism or thinking for oneself, but rather, the supposed necessity of starting with the right conclusions.

What's especially sad is that many of these college students came to school with a more or less idealistic outlook and a real desire to learn things to make the world better. What they have too often encountered is the bitter leftist political venom of professors.

Hopefully many of these protesters will learn some things to help them become mature enough to appreciate the great blessing of our American political system, that, for all its flaws, is unmatched in history or in the world today.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Why Donald Trump is Easily the Best Choice for President

Ten Reasons, Among Many, to Vote for Donald Trump
    1.  Government corruption will be rooted out with a serious and strong effort.
          2.  America will regain respect and influence in the world.
          3.  Trump will avoid wars, and any we have to fight will be won.
    4. Trump will nullify Obama's unconstitutional Executive Orders.
    5. Immigration laws will be enforced. Syrian refugee influx will be stopped and reversed.
    6. Illegal immigration will be stopped. Illegal immigrant criminals will be imprisoned or sent home.
    7. Sanctuary cities will be ended.
    8. Respect for law enforcement will be restored.
    9. Trump will not be a part of the globalist elite cabal that wants world government to subjugate all citizens except the elites. They would attempt to rule everything at every level. Some of them have expressed a strong desire to reduce the world's population and might take steps to do so through wars, pestilence and famine.
        10. Trump Administration will jump-start the economy with 
              A. Reform of regulations
              B.  Lower taxes
              C. Better trade deals. 
Trump plan will encourage businesses to hire workers, stay in the U.S., and bring money home from foreign countries.

Ten Reasons, Among Many, to Vote Against Hillary Clinton

    1. As the Wikileaks email releases and O'Keefe videos show, as well as various published reports by people who have investigated the Clintons, notably Peter Schweizer (Clinton Cash) and Dinesh D'Souza (Hillary's America), the Clintons operate an international crime syndicate which has enriched them by pay-to-play schemes
    2. The danger of nuclear war and various other wars would be increased, with unnecessary death and destruction to follow. Her actions in Syria would needlessly provoke Russia, for example.
    3. Hillary would double down on Obamacare and move toward single-payer insurance, placing most medical decisions in the hands of bureaucrats, and reducing availability of services.
    4. Hillary would raise taxes for all taxpayers, which would result in another recession.
    5. Her great increases in spending, plus a slower economy, would increase deficits and debt, with no relief in sight. She is committed to globalism, not what's best for America.
    6. She would increase government control of the media through more cronyism and try to silence dissent through FCC and copyright harassment. She would go after First Amendment freedom of speech by enforcing political correctness.
    7. She would continue to weaken religious liberty through government regulation.
    8. She would support more EPA regulations, reducing freedom. The EPA has already overstepped its boundaries greatly, and has done more harm than good under Obama.
    9. Hillary would continue Obama's practice of going after political opponents through government agency harassment, such as IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, EPA, etc.
    10. She would move toward stricter gun controls, followed by attempts at confiscation. She has stated that prohibition of guns a la Australia should be considered.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Donald Trump States His Case in Strong Gettysburg Speech; Are the Polls Reliable?

By Eddie Howell

Donald Trump's Gettysburg speech on October 22 outlined his plans for the first 100 days of his administration, should he be elected president. The speech is a sort of summary of his policy plans and goals, which most Americans other than diehard or low-information liberals would probably find agreeable. I highly recommend listening to the speech.

The Clinton side, complete with lawless dirty tricks as exposed by James O'Keefe and the ProjectVeritas Action Fund, has pulled out numerous schemes to sabotage Trump's campaign and rig votes, all of which should result in legal troubles for the DNC, Clinton campaign, and their “consulting” organizations.

The mainstream media, which in politics is now worse than worthless, cannot print or air a story on the campaign without a marked slant in favor of Clinton. The corporate media is in a cozy relationship with Clinton and is in full sympathy with her socialist and globalist elite backers and sympathizers, such as George Soros, the EU, the UN, etc. Trump is throwing a real scare into these people, and they are desperate to defeat him. Thus, many of the polls are slanted toward sampling more Democrats and producing the desired results. But like the Brexit polls, many could be proven completely wrong. The idea for liberal pollsters is to suggest that the election is already decided, and Trump supporters need not bother voting, which is simply not true. Some respected polls are showing Trump in a very competitive position. The Investor's Business Daily poll as of 10/24/2016 shows a virtual tie between Trump and Clinton. This poll was the most accurate in the last presidential election.

Stony Brook University Political Science Professor Helmut Norpoth, who has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in five consecutive presidential elections, says his model indicates that Trump has an 87 per cent chance of winning on November 8. His model differs from some others in taking into account the results of primary elections. See for more details. In this video, the professor discusses his prediction with Tucker Carlson:

Polls and predictions can be wrong. A lot depends on voter turnout, and that relates to the intensity of voter enthusiasm for their candidates. Are they willing to face unfavorable conditions (weather, etc.) to go to the trouble of voting? Also, many have already voted or will be voting before November 8. And new surprises may still happen. It's going to be interesting.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

American Self-Rule or Globalist Ruin: Choose One

By Eddie Howell

Some Republicans abandoned Trump after release of his lewd comments about women. The debate helped to show the need to defeat Hillary and elect Trump. Much greater issues are at stake. Remember, Hillary has public and private positions on the issues. On immigration, she is for amnesty, sanctuary cities, and open borders. Several issues each alone would be enough reason to vote against her: Supreme Court nominations, Second Amendment, socialized medicine, etc., etc.

Some well-known Republicans have withdrawn their endorsements of GOP nominee Donald Trump in the wake of comments he made 11 years ago. While no public official should fail to reject such comments, those who are so quickly abandoning their candidate are, in my opinion, doing a disservice to their party and America. The issues involved in this election are very much greater than usual, and it comes down to a life-or-death struggle for America as a free and prosperous country vs. a big banana republic ruled by globalist socialist elites, a nation borderless and overrun by suspicious characters.

The current administration, supported by (and in some cases led by) Hillary Clinton has done such damage to the U.S., short- and longer- term, it is incalculable. Trump represents the only real hope we have of improving anything about America that is touched by government. The alternative is a tragic collapse. The globalists are truly frightened of Donald Trump because he represents the restoration of American sovereignty, pride, and world influence, i.e., what used to be the normal American condition.
A “return to normalcy,” if you will.

Today, we have an administration which (1) throws around billions of dollars like they are nothing, racking up unpayable debt; (2) has no intention of restoring economic growth, and wouldn't know how to do it if they did; (3) doesn't mind that America is disrespected around the world; (4) is out to destroy America as a sovereign nation through massive unvetted immigration, sanctuary cities, paid protest mobs, and undermining of respect for police; (6) keeps and tries to increase a permanent government-dependent underclass while reaping their votes; (7) puts forth candidates of proven lawlessness and corruption; (8) always wants higher taxes and more spending; (9) chooses to be disdainful and out of touch with the American people, and (10) hating the Constitution, prefers to rule by decree. It is no exaggeration to say that the federal government is out of control, with policies that constitute treason.

When it comes to comparing these horrible realities with Trump's locker-room talk (which is much like I heard sometimes in high school), comments made eleven years ago, apologized for, and repented of, by Mr. Trump, we must realize he remains our only political hope for preserving our nation.

I agree with Mike Huckabee's comments. The establishment types are afraid Trump will win. Huckabee keeps things in perspective:

It's Quint or the shark. We will get one or the other.

Monday, August 22, 2016

The Election as Anger Management

By Eddie Howell

Many Americans today are sick and tired of the political left. We've found that the government cannot be trusted to simply do its job, but thinks it has to be involved in everything and be in control of everything. Most Americans are smart enough to know that government exists to serve the people and not to be their master. People are sick of government's coddling of those who are in the process of destroying our nation. That is because the government itself is a special interest, out for its own power and the public be damned. That's what the great American system has become. I, like millions of others, am sick of it, and I don't wish to pretend otherwise.

Donald Trump rally, Milford, NH, February 2, 2016. (Trump campaign photo)
President Obama is such a bad president, that very little he does could surprise me. What a hypocrite! But he wouldn't let a mere flood in Louisiana interrupt his all-important vacation. He himself criticized George W. Bush for his Katrina flyover, and Obama couldn't be bothered to do even that. Bush had good reason for doing what he did, but he was slammed by the “mainstream media” for it.

The Obama Administration, globalists that they are, are truly frightened of Donald Trump. If Trump does nothing else, he has thrown a great scare and a lot of anxiety into the elitist camp. People are growing tired of government interference in everything. They are beginning to realize that Obama, Hillary, George Soros, and others are fine with the racial violence and anti-police activity going on, which they are deliberately stirring up. Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization and no amount of “official” sanction by Obama, Lynch, or anyone else will change that. They also seem to tolerate radical Islamic terror attacks, as evidenced by their lack of interest in doing anything substantial about them. So afraid of Islamophobia, ya know.

Are people going to quietly accept the hundreds of thousands of “refugees” that are slated to come into our country to join those already here? ISIS says that they are coming with them. Angela Merkel is either deliberately trying to destroy Germany or else just doesn't care what trouble these people are causing in her country. The globalists are apparently engineering this destruction for their own nefarious purposes.

The elites are trying to get the people to share their extreme dislike for the anti-establishment movement, trying to paint Trump and others as dangerous, and are somewhat succeeding, with the help of their propaganda ministry, the MSM. The time is past when the mainstream media reported the news with any reliability. Outside of some right-leaning outlets, there is very little responsible journalism in America any more. It's America's version of Pravda now on NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. Nothing there is to be automatically believed. It's truly the left that's dangerous, not Donald Trump. Of the two presidential campaigns, his is the only one that is telling the truth. As far as I can tell, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has ever accomplished much of anything to benefit the United States of America. What they have brought is division, death, debt, and weakness.

You can contrast their supporters with those of Donald Trump. They are law-abiding, mature citizens and not like the street thugs who “protest” and attack them. They are working through what's left of our political system to support a good candidate for president. He and they are abused every day by the leftist elites and the press.

They are law-abiding and responsible, but they are very angry and justifiably so. There are limits to what Americans will put up with in terms of being abused and pushed around. There is a reason for the fact that their support for Donald Trump is so strong and unwavering. He is a responsible candidate whose values correspond with theirs, and who has the strength to deal with our problems. He is not an establishment weasel or proven criminal like his opposition. He knows George Soros is funding BLM, paying them to create trouble. Trump is taking the high road, trying to educate people as to what is going on and correct it through our political system. The elites seem to be trying to bring that system down for their own benefit. America has had dirty politicians and elections before. Hopefully, we'll get through this election cycle with a better president and administration than what we have now.

There is a lot wrong in America, politically and morally. I believe we've been under God's judgment, and that's why we've had Obama in the White House. At any rate, he has been a tough punishment for the U.S. Perhaps those who are seeking America's redemption will be successful enough in prayer and work that we will see a positive change not only in our government, but in our culture, which government has been working to destroy. Politicians can do a lot, but there are some things only God can do.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Yes, It Was Ransom

Iran hostage crisis, 1979 -- 52 American hostages from the U.S. embassy were held for 444 days
By Eddie Howell
Obama promised “hope and change,” and he's brought about quite a bit of change and left many of us hoping for an end to his changes. The change promised by Donald Trump is essentially designed to return our country to a normal condition, rather than let it be destroyed by Hillary Clinton. She would double down on Obama's misguided policies and leave America greatly weaker, poorer, less safe. And less free than we've been since the days of King George III.

Obama's changes have brought about a “new normal” of amazingly large and unwise actions that do not in any way benefit America. In this latest ransom payment (“contingent on release of American detainees”), serious weaknesses in America's dealing with the terrorist nation of Iran are highlighted.

Our 1979 hostages were released when Ronald Reagan took office. To get the hostages freed, the Carter Administration agreed to return frozen Iranian assets of $7.9 billion, and made several other concessions. That looked a bit like a ransom. Iran apparently didn't want to negotiate with Reagan. Carter's Secretary of State Warren Christopher negotiated the deal, but Reagan signed the agreement. Carter was detemined to get the crisis ended before his term expired. Possibly Reagan thought the only alternative would be war, and, anyway, he chose to honor his predecessor's agreement. 

Subsequent events events should have been sufficient to void the agreement before now. Serious sanctions have been placed against Iran in the years since the hostage crisis. The sending of an airplane loaded with $400 million in cash to Iran was, in my view, extremely unwise and arguably treasonous. Oh, and coinciding with the release of prisoners makes it even more foolish and shameful. Yes, Iran says it was a ransom. They got $400 million to speed up their nuclear project, and increase their terrorist activities. This is supposed to have partly settled a deal from 35 years ago, when America sold Iran weapons, that were never delivered because of the hostage situation. Why should that money ever be paid back? And the $400 million is just the first installment of $1.7 billion to be refunded to Iran. The deal was made before the jihadists came to power. It's not properly the current government's money anyway.

If any other president, particularly if he were a Republican, had a plane loaded with $400 million in cash sent to Iran, whatever the reason given, he would have been endlessly criticized and probably impeached. But the Obama Administration's lame explanations are supposed to satisfy everyone that this was not ransom. If it looks like ransom, sounds like ransom, and smells like ransom, chances are it's ransom. 

As has been observed, the U.S. is now the world's greatest financier of terrorism around the world. The bad behavior of Iran should long ago have caused them to forfeit any agreement to end sanctions or have anything returned to them beyond what the U.S. Congress thought necessary. And this wasn't necessary. It puts Americans everywhere is more danger than they were in previously. Iran has killed lots of Americans. We shouldn't be facilitating our own victimization by terrorists. What next? Getting Iran's “Supreme Leader” to address a joint session of Congress?

Sunday, August 7, 2016

With the Clintons, Dishonesty Is Just Part of the Problem

By Eddie Howell
The documentary motion picture “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, based on his book of that name is available for free viewing on YouTube

There's an old one-liner that goes, “I've read so much about the dangers of smoking that I've decided to give up reading.” That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about politics in America these days – I've read so much about the fawning so-called “journalists” who love Hillary, and the lying liberals who seize on every opportunity, real or imagined, to demean Donald Trump, it's just disgusting.

Trump has a very good chance of becoming our next president if the left doesn't assassinate him.

I watched the documentary “Clinton Cash” on YouTube the other day, and I must say, it seemed very factual and well-sourced. I plan to read the book as soon as it arrives at my house from Amazon.
[I also plan to see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary “Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” currently in theaters. It is based on D'Souza's book of the same name.]

Based on the film “Clinton Cash,” and what has been reported over the years about the scandal-a-week Clintons, it seems to me that Hillary is like Al Capone, only on a much larger scale, and probably a lot meaner. She almost makes Capone seem like a philanthropist by comparison.

The scale of Clinton corruption and hypocrisy is breath-taking. By selling influence and virtually inviting bribes, directly, and through their “charitable” foundation, the Clintons have amassed great wealth for themselves and their friends through shady, and often taxpayer-funded, schemes. In Haiti, for example, with Bill representing the United Nations' and Hillary the United States' relief efforts after the devastating earthquake several years ago, great promises of rebuilding were made. Large contracts were awarded to Clinton cronies, but very little helpful rebuilding work was actually done. But the Clintons and their friends made a great deal of money at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, using the people of Haiti, then the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Similarly in Africa and elsewhere, the Clintons have praised and propped up tyrannical dictators in order to get lucrative concessions awarded to their friends, friends who have directly paid them six-figure speaking fees and/or contributed millions to their foundation. And so it goes. As the film points out, they have often back-tracked (flip-flopped) on some of their cherished liberal principles to do some of these deals – things like environmental concerns, human rights abuses, and other issues. As is often said, “follow the money,” and Schweizer and friends have done that and it turns out that many millions of dollars have found their way to the Clintons personally and to their foundation in very questionable circumstances.

The Clintons are adept at saying the right things, but if one observes what they actually do, one must wonder how they get away with these things.

America has seen some rich, profit-making families, but never on this kind of scale, profiting from influence peddling on the basis of past and present government offices held. It is shocking and would be much more so if more people were paying attention.

But dishonest activities are not the only, and not even the main, thing that makes the Clintons a blight on America. Their political agenda is, I believe far more dangerous than their crooked money-making schemes. They are right in step with the globalist elites who are working toward a one-world government that holds tight control over everyone and everything. Agenda 21, anyone? Saul Alinsky?
Their kind of “progressivism” (Hillary's that is, not what President Bill Clinton practiced) threatens doom for the American ideal of liberty. The Bill of Rights would soon be out with the daily trash, starting with the Second Amendment, then the First, and so on, until our “rights” would be defined by a statement of political correctness, in line with what the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, etc., want.

Hillary, as president, would double down on Obama's policy failures (though from the Progressives' standpoint, successes) in health care, taxes, “social justice.” race-baiting, etc. She would continue to push onerous taxes (but ever-greater borrowing), reams of regulations, massive legislation that no one reads, all aiming at total control over the local neighborhoods from police to housing to land use. Their ideal would be a docile, government-dependent population living in small spaces, driving small cars that cannot go far or fast, or, better, no cars, just public transportation. Eventually the majority of people would be on food stamps and in poverty, maybe getting “free college,” but with nothing meaningful to use it for. The elites would be the exceptions, living like the Obamas live now in terms of luxury and a degree of freedom. Eventually, dissidents would be placed in re-education (FEMA?) camps or just eliminated entirely.

All that sounds (and is) extreme, but it would take place over several years and a few generations, little by little, as the government became able to neutralize opposition in order to implement it. At some point, even “elites” who were no longer helpful would be gotten rid of also. These things would happen gradually but methodically. “Progressives” have pursued their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson and before, and history shows that they flirted seriously with fascism and Soviet communism along the way, and have been enamored of collectivism in general, and great executive power in particular. As a present-day example, Obama, often and on many issues, shows his disdain for the government-limiting Constitution, bypassing Congress and ruling by decree.

Conservatives have complained and even sued, but Congress generally has shown little to no inclination to seriously stand up to Obama's usurpations. And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan et al wonder why people are upset with the establishment, including the Republican establishment?

Personally, I say away from the GOP with those Republicans who will vote for Hillary. Their days of GOP influence will soon be over. Trump is not everyone's choice for president, but he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. The fate of the nation is at stake. The next election and the next few years will show whether America is willing to stand up for her principles, and whether Western Civilization is deemed by the people in all Western countries to be worth saving. To the extent that the globalists have their way here and in the West generally, there will be large Muslim population growth, greatly increased terrorism, much more racial strife and the obliteration of America as a sovereign nation. There will be more unconstitutional treaties and regulations, bad trade deals, crime, poverty, and general misery. That's if the globalists win. The Brexit vote and the Donald Trump presidential campaign represent a movement that is probably our last best chance to stop globalism and preserve America as America.


Some people who might be labeled “conspiracy theorists” have said that the Bible-prophesied Antichrist (“The Beast”) and false prophet of Revelation have appeared already, and they name who they believe it is. I'm not prepared to think that, although things seem to be moving in such a manner, that if left unchecked, it will soon be feasible for these satanic characters to appear. See Revelation, Chapter 13. Consider: Technology is already in place that could be used to implement the “mark of the beast,” insofar as not allowing anyone to buy or sell unless he or she possessed some required physical or electronic “mark” is concerned. Two things pointing toward this are (1) the cashless society – everyone could buy or sell only through a universal banking system, with every transaction recorded, monitored, and fully traceable, and (2) negative interest rates, which would preclude earning anything from savings or checking deposits, with balances gradually and selectively dwindling, so as to reduce or eliminate economic power of account holders. Negative interest rates are currently being used in some places, and the idea of a cashless society is being talked up, and seems to appeal to some people. What's not in place yet is the religious aspect, whereby people will worship the Antichrist, which is what the “mark” would signify. Scripture says that those who refuse to take the mark will be put to death, and those who take the mark can never be saved, but would spend eternity in hell. Our secular-minded world would greatly be deceived into believing the Antichrist's lie. But this is how the Antichrist could come to power – through a one-world government, trying to take control over everyone and everything. Of course, they couldn't do it entirely, but great damage would be done and millions of souls forever lost, and many saved only by giving up their physical lives. Only the return of Jesus Christ will prevent all humanity from being wiped out. But He will return and prevent this total destruction, and set up His righteous kingdom.

Many Christians believe these things will happen soon. It may be fairly soon, or not for a considerable time. One thing certain is that no one knows when Christ will return. When He does, it will be unexpected. Another thing certain is that He will return. Therefore, Christians are advised to be ready.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

New Taxes, Anyone?

By Eddie Howell

 The late conservative columnist Robert Novak said that God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes. The GOP has a very mixed record in this regard; their opponents the Democrats have been very consistent in their efforts to increase taxes and spending. Since it's hard for tax revenues to keep up with massive spending programs, stratospheric deficits have resulted, to which both parties have contributed.

Both presidential candidates have spending plans that would strain the deficit, but depending on the makeup of the Congress over the next few years, there could be some restraint applied. Of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton has the most aggressive spending plans, seeking to provide everything liberals could wish for, and maybe even outdo Bernie Sanders' admittedly socialist agenda. Free or nearly free college, more government regulation and enforcement for mandatory benefits for workers (child care, paid family leave, equal pay for equal work), more refugee and other immigration with benefits, plus more military adventures abroad. If you listen to Hillary's speeches, you may note that almost everything she proposes will require more government, more regulation, and much more spending, not to mention more in-your-face and on-your-back government. While supposedly aiming the financial burden at the “rich,” it turns out that the rich are everyone who owns a business, and ultimately anyone who has a job and is currently paying income taxes. But it's true that higher incomes are hit harder as percentages, due to the Buffett Rule.

According to Tax Foundation analysis, Hillary's plan, if enacted would increase tax revenue, and decrease after-tax income across the board, and reduce economic output. In other words, it would lead to a recession. There would be reductions in jobs, wage rates, and capital investment. Not a good prospect for middle-class earners who haven't seen a real raise in years.

Donald Trump's plan calls for significant corporate and individual tax reductions that would stimulate economic growth. According to Tax Foundation analysis for Trump's plan, wages would increase, jobs would increase, and capital investment would increase.

Neither plan looks likely to decrease the national debt, but progress on that can be made only by cutting spending. You can be sure that Hillary's plan will exacerbate the deficit problem more than Trump's. Her plans for more social engineering and massive immigration would preclude any deficit-reducing progress. Spending cuts would be easier to find in a strong economy than in a declining one.

Economically, it's a clear choice: pro-growth with Donald Trump or no-growth (except government) with Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Either Freedom or the Establishment: Has It Come to This?

George Soros
By Eddie Howell              (Photos: Wikipedia)

America is scheduled to have a general election in November that is nothing if not momentous. Assuming Obama does not declare martial law and attempt to stay in office, we will elect either a successful businessman, who appears to have repented of some of his establishment beliefs, and wants to “make America great again,” or a relic from the past, Hillary Clinton, whose biggest accomplishment is getting away with serious crimes. Her record in statesmanship consists of a world set aflame, largely through her decisions and ineptness, which seems consistent with her “extreme carelessness” in handling sensitive information. Her proposals promise what I would call “more of the same, only worse,” building on the “achievements” of Barack Obama. Obama's record would be better if he had spent his entire two terms taking vacations and playing golf instead of trying to do anything serious. But he is a member, with George Soros, of the elites of the world, who view ordinary people as beneath contempt and large institutions as their piggy banks and servants.

Hillary, like Obama, has no problem receiving any kind of financial contributions from foreign powers and suspect domestic entities. She will do nothing that Wall Street wouldn't like, or that might slow down dangerous “refugee” immigration. She is for open borders, and would continue Obama's come-one-come-all immigration policies. Whatever decent or constructive impulses she possesses are completely overshadowed by her dangerous and destructive policies. Her support for Planned Parenthood, which was founded with the deliberate aim of wiping out the black population, is just one example of her death-dealing political views. For some others, see the Middle East.

The so-called “Free World” we have enjoyed for lo these many years is in its greatest danger since the Cold War and the beginning of the Iron Curtain. The establishment elites know this and are either orchestrating the trouble or else they are pathologically stupid. My belief is that they are not on the side of liberty, and are deliberately out to destroy what's left of Western civilization as we have known it. Enough billionaires seem to be planning some kind of apocalyptic retreat of safety (maybe even on another planet), that it makes one wonder about their overall state of mind.

The elite trend setters of Hollywood and elsewhere are doing all they can to destroy traditional morality and religion and put the focus on pleasure, government dependency and “free stuff.” Political Correctness exists in order to stifle opposition and try to shame people who might oppose the demonic destruction of the West. Muslims must be protected from “Islamophobia,” homosexuals from “homophobia,” and Christians presented as ignorant bigots and therefore fair game for whatever abuse the elites think they can get away with.

The “populist” anti-establishment movement, exemplified by the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Britain's “Brexit” vote stem from real and valid concerns.

The American Declaration of Independence includes the following statement:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Emphasis added)
To “throw off such government” should, ideally, happen through elections. That seems to be the goal of the world populist anti-establishment movement. We'll see where it leads. But there must be some important changes, and fairly soon.

The present U.S. Administration seems to regard the Founding Fathers as radical extremists who should have never encouraged the Revolution. In fact, the Founders were extraordinarily brilliant, talented and courageous men of strong moral fiber and foresight, who were willing to risk everything for liberty. There aren't too many people like that around today.

Benito Mussolini
The liberal elites (“progressives”) have tried and to a considerable extent succeeded in selling the notion that “America” is supposed to provide everyone with all they need, and freedom must be curtailed if it gets in the way of the Progressives' great program, which includes everyone, “for their own good.” Progressivism is simply thinly veiled fascism, a la Mussolini, with a strong dose of Marxism mixed in. Crony “capitalism,” with big corporations colluding with government to wipe out competition and rule the marketplace, is actually the very opposite of a free market economy. The favored few will benefit, at the expense of everyone else. Obama might not be able to destroy our economy entirely in eight years and replace it altogether with fascism, but he is making a lot of “progress.” The end result would be massive poverty, a third world economy, and banana-republic politics. Freedom as we have known it will be a distant memory.

To listen to the misguided speakers (some of whom are well-intentioned) at the Democrat convention is a gut-wrenching experience for anyone who is devoted to the American ideal of freedom. The liberals want to make everything they don't like illegal (guns, for example) and everything they like (free college, for instance) mandatory. The underlying theory, of course, is that people are too stupid to decide things for themselves and must be guided by a faraway firm hand at the top. Any reasonable study of socialism will show that it is not sustainable. Experience shows that eventually the worst people are in charge, and dissenters are put to death. Before that, an economy like Venezuela comes about, and government micromanagement like Communist East Germany is installed. All leftist government flies in the face of American tradition, economic reality, and human freedom. The natural rights of human beings are sacrificed on the altar of dictatorial tyranny.

The top levels of government in the United States are characterized by extreme, widespread cynicism, greed, and lust for power and money. If the entire top echelons of the Executive Branch, and much of Congress and the federal judiciary were to resign and leave America today, it would be a great improvement.

If the anti-establishment forces don't have substantial success in the next few years, we will see Europe overrun by Islamic violence and America in turmoil over terrorism, violent crime, and liberal attempts to take away guns, and to establish mandatory political correctness and shred the Constitution. We are witnessing in these days, if not the emergence of the Antichrist, at least a look at how he is likely to come to power.

Vote as though your vote were the most important of all. It may be one of our last meaningful elections.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Easy Choice: Trump, Not Hillary

Donald Trump
The Donald Trump phenomenon has been useful in bringing to the debate some important issues, issues that have been suppressed in the name of globalism and the New World Order by the elitists. Now that Trump is the GOP's presumptive nominee, having accumulated record numbers of votes, the voices of the candidate and his supporters are being heard. This suggests that many Americans are tired of having their concerns ignored and disagreeable and evil policies thrust upon them by their supposed betters. (Disclosure: I was a Ted Cruz supporter until he dropped out of the race, so I'm a bit late to the Trump train. I like Cruz's outsider perspective and conservatism.)

But Donald Trump is the vote-getter, with an admittedly populist message that deviates from Cruz's conservatism. The GOP can ill afford to ignore the voting results. The voters' concerns ought to be those of the great majority of the GOP constituency, for these concerns have been ignored too long. For Republicans of the #NeverTrump movement, I say this: If you prevail, the US could very well be done in by the Obama-Clinton monstrosity you would allow into office. A third-party run could do that.

Hillary Clinton
There are many reasons for Trump's appeal, among which is that Trump would be a far, far superior president to Hillary Clinton. She represents the continuation of Obama's socialist/fascist attitude that is destroying freedom day by day. She represents those who want “free stuff” with as little individual effort and responsibility as possible. She represents those who want to force upon our nation every kind of sexual immorality and perversion they can. She represents those who want to embrace the Muslim invasion, the illegal immigration, and the anti-Christian attitude. She represents those who literally want to take away all guns from citizens, and has said as much. She represents those who want to anoint climate change as the number one priority when in fact it is an evil hoax designed to empower government and impoverish the citizens. She represents the anti-life agenda of Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. She would pack the Supreme Court with “progressive” (read: socialist) activists who would dismantle the Bill of Rights in the name of “social justice” and judicial supremacy.

Trump has indicated that he would appoint conservative justices to the Court, starting with someone to replace the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia. Hard shoes to fill, but it must not be with an activist liberal.

Trade, one of Trump's core issues, is an area where he will need conservative advice. Tariffs will not help the economy, nor will they bring jobs back. The way to do that is, as much as possible, get government out of the way, promote real free trade, and get out of those awful entangling globalist agreements. Trump wants us out of WTO, NAFTA, TPP, etc., and that's good. If he wants “fair trade,” establish real free trade with the government stepping in only to prevent trade abuses such as dumping below-cost products in America to gain a market foothold.

I think Trump will build the wall he has proposed, and it will be a bargain whether Mexico pays for it or not. Gaining control of our borders is essential to immigration reform and national security. It is not at all unreasonable to place a moratorium on all further immigration pending the repair of our system, and it seems imperative that we prevent the proposed thousands of “refugees” from entering our country. A temporary ban on all Muslim entry into the US is not out of the question. As for the deportation issue, Trump's proposal to deport all illegals certainly is feasible, and makes more sense than Obama's policy of releasing convicted criminal illegals into the population to kill, steal, rape, drive drunk, etc. even further. And the Border Patrol needs to be allowed to do their job. Hillary Clinton, of course, would do none of this. Nor does she have the first clue about how to grow the economy or create jobs. She could only, like Obama, grow government and create more regulations and taxes.

Foreign policy is an area where Mr. Trump would need good advice and help. America First is a good starting point. Based on his foreign policy speech, he seems to be mostly on the right track. He knows it is very important that we rebuild our military, since Obama has been determined to gut it. I believe he would treat our allies better and deal with our adversaries far better than Obama and Clinton have done. Together, they have created the biggest mess in the Middle East in years, with prospects for improvement steadily diminishing. Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and ISIS show their abject failures. Trading high-value terrorist prisoners for an accused Army deserter, and lying to the families of the Americans killed in Benghazi, are two of the most egregious scandals on the Obama-Clinton record. It wouldn't take the world's greatest statesman to do better than this. Trump did not build his business success without getting advice and help from good people along the way. His stress on competence is good, but he also needs some encouragement in downsizing government. I would be optimistic about a Trump Administration, and near despair if it's Clinton or Sanders.

I believe that for Republican leaders and officials who still believe Trump must be stopped at all costs, your days of inflluence in the GOP are likely numbered, just as the anti-Goldwater people seemed to fade from the party after 1964, even though Goldwater lost big. The GOP leaders whose main contribution in recent years has been to fund Obama's agenda and refuse to stand up to him, need to see the light and either change their ways or be shown the door. While Trump certainly would like to unite the party and smooth things over a bit, a Trump Administration will be a rebuke to government incompetence and malfeasance on the part of either party. Hopefully, Trump will see the truth of Reagan's 1981 statement, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Much can be accomplished simply by getting government out of the way and focused on its legitimate functions, which do not include controlling absolutely everything Americans do.

Trump represents the triumph of American nationalism over globalism and the assertion of an “America First” economic and trade policy. Sounds good to me. Even if Trump is a less-than-perfect president (they all are), we can be put on a better track than what we're on now, and begin to see something positive out of government instead of pure negativity. I will be happy to vote for Trump and pray that he wins.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Can Trump Make America Great Again? Doubtful.

Donald Trump
Peter Schiff
By Eddie Howell

Donald Trump has a catchy phrase: “Make America Great Again.” But in every major area that presidential politics must address, serious doubts arise as to foreign policy, domestic policy, and economic policy. If he is to succeed in economic policy (if he becomes president), he will need to rethink what he's been saying about trade policy. As it is, he'd be an improvement over Barack Obama, and be much, much better than Hillary Clinton.

Trump likes the idea of threatening or imposing tariffs on trade partners he regards as unfair to America. Certainly, many improvements can be made in regard to American trade policy, but Trump's plan does not look like the answer. (Foundation for Economic Education) analyzes the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs (1930) in regard to its contribution to the Great Depression, and finds that its negative effects were more profound than many economic historians believe today, and finds fault with their economic models. For instance,
[I]f losses of GNP were not evenly distributed across the economy but were concentrated (say, in export-oriented states), the tariff most likely distorted monetary conditions significantly. Two percent of GNP does not sound like a big change, but if it’s concentrated in one-fifth to one-third of the states, it’s very large indeed. The tariff dramatically lowered U.S. exports, from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.4 billion in 1932, and a large portion of U.S. exports were agricultural; therefore it cannot be assumed that the microeconomic inefficiencies were evenly distributed. Many individual states suffered severe drops in farm incomes due to collapsing export markets arising from foreign retaliation, and it’s no coincidence that rural farm banks in the Midwest and southern states began failing by the thousands.

Donald Trump should understand that the tariffs he has in mind would be counterproductive. Peter Schiff has the following straight-forward analysis of why Trump's tariffs wouldn't work.

I should note that Schiff is predicting a major economic collapse soon, which would render the tariff issue moot. Schiff makes sense on tariffs and lots of other things, but, while there are danger signs, the kind of collapse Schiff predicts seems unlikely in the near future, especially if Obama's regime is replaced by a pro-growth administration. At least we can hope so.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Paul Kivel's Misguided Criticisms of Christianity

By Eddie Howell

At an event called "The 17th Annual White Privilege Conference," activist Paul Kivel's speech blamed Christian beliefs for a whole array of the world's ills, from Middle East trouble to racism. David Limbaugh, writing for Newsmax, easily answers these criticisms, and notes that Kivel reflects the positions of many leftist academics: Anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-conservative, intolerant of dissenting opinions, and focused on identity issues such as race, gender, environmentalism, etc.

David Limbaugh
Leftists have a warped view of capitalism, (the actual enabling system for bringing millions out of poverty and into prosperity), blaming it as a "flawed" system that makes people poorer. This arises from their well-known love affairs with socialism and Keynesianism, which lead to certain failure. If we actually had the "unfettered capitalism" that Pope Francis bemoans, we would have pro-growth, pro-individual policies that give rise to prosperity and liberty. That would be much better than the high level of government control of everything we have now.

Paul Kivel
Limbaugh shows the errors of Kivel's criticisms of Christianity and capitalism. The concern over "white privilege." of course is right in line with the left's ramped-up race baiting, which too many whites are too willing to embrace. I think Limbaugh's brief article should not be missed.

Photos from Yahoo image search. For attributed original sources, for Kivel and Veritas Evangelical Seminary for Limbaugh, each link resulted in "File Not Found."

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Remembering the Forgotten Man

By Eddie Howell

                William Graham Sumner

[I am re-publishing this article from November 2009 because I feel the issues discussed are very relevant in
this election season when Democrats/Socialists are making such wild leftist promises]

In this article, I quote rather freely from William Graham Sumner’s essay, “The Forgotten Man.” It is well worth reading the whole essay, and whether you agree with Sumner or not, you can see that his position is reasoned and consistent. He describes the person who is truly forgotten in all the government’s glorious spending programs to benefit the “less fortunate,” the various “petted classes,” as Sumner called them.

William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was born in New Jersey, moved with his family to Connecticut, where he attended public schools and Yale College. “After graduation, he studied ancient languages and history at Göttingen (1864) and theology and philosophy at Oxford (1866). The following year he was appointed tutor at Yale and then was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal Church. In 1869 he left Yale to be rector of churches in New York City and Morristown, N. J. In 1872 he became the first professor of political and social science at Yale - a position he long held.” He was a sociologist and a proponent of free-market capitalism and severe critic of government social programs and imperialism. His major work was Folkways, analyzing social life in terms of mores, institutions and values. [1]

The Forgotten Man (1883) is described in his essay of that name. His Forgotten Man is still very much the forgotten one today, the one, C, who, when A and B get together to decide what should be done for the suffering X, is compelled by the resulting law to also do for X what A and B have determined. He is never thought of, yet he is the one who sacrifices and pays for the “help” that is to be given to X.

Who Are We “Helping”? And Who Pays for It?
Sumner writes:
“The notion is accepted as if it were not open to any question that if you help the inefficient and vicious you may gain something for society or you may not, but that you lose nothing. This is a complete mistake. Whatever capital you divert to the support of a shiftless and good-for-nothing person is so much diverted from some other employment, and that means from somebody else. I would spend any conceivable amount of zeal and eloquence if I possessed it to try to make people grasp this idea. Capital is force. If it goes one way it cannot go another. If you give a loaf to a pauper you cannot give the same loaf to a laborer. Now this other man who would have got it but for the charitable sentiment which bestowed it on a worthless member of society is the Forgotten Man. The philanthropists and humanitarians have their minds all full of the wretched and miserable whose case appeals to compassion, attacks the sympathies, takes possession of the imagination, and excites the emotions. They push on towards the quickest and easiest remedies and they forget the real victim.

Now who is the Forgotten Man? He is the simple, honest laborer, ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not appeal to the emotions or excite the sentiments. He only wants to make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the independent and productive laborer all the time. We do not remember him because he makes no clamor; but I appeal to you whether he is not the man who ought to be remembered first of all, and whether, on any sound social theory, we ought not to protect him against the burdens of the good-for-nothing. In these last years I have read hundreds of articles and heard scores of sermons and speeches which were really glorifications of the good-for-nothing, as if these were the charge of society, recommended by right reason to its care and protection. We are addressed all the time as if those who are respectable were to blame because some are not so, and as if there were an obligation on the part of those who have done their duty towards those who have not done their duty. Every man is bound to take care of himself and his family and to do his share in the work of society. It is totally false that one who has done so is bound to bear the care and charge of those who are wretched because they have not done so. …” [2] (emphasis added)

Do Sumner’s Arguments Apply Today?
The injustice of overburdening the Forgotten Man is obvious, yet it is the pattern of all legislative welfare and philanthropic programs. People today are taught to have a sense of entitlement to government assistance. If they decide not to fulfill their duties to work for their living and live responsibly, it must be society’s fault, and the C’s of the world must be ordered to help them.

As I mentioned in a previous article, during FDR’s reign, the “forgotten man” label was applied to the aggrieved X, leaving C as forgotten as ever. [3]

The current Administration, under Barack Obama, is trying to squeeze everything possible out of C to transfer much of his substance to government, thence to Obama’s favored X’s, the permanent government-dependent underclass the government has created, as well as socialist activist groups like ACORN, big labor unions, big banks, trial lawyers, environmental activists, etc. Some of the C’s of our society are beginning to band together in protests such as Tea Parties, marches, and so on. They will either have influence or be wiped out economically and socially. It should be noted that in the rare event that C raises any objection or complaint, he/she is criticized by government and their media lackeys as a member of an “unruly mob,” too unsophisticated to understand what the elites know is good for society.

The liberals’ conception of fairness is “equality” which, if it were realized, would result in all being impoverished in every way. We already have too much of the socialists’ “trickle-up poverty.”

Most Americans really do not mind paying taxes for the legitimate functions, i.e., constitutional responsibilities, of government, but are not nearly so much in favor of the socialist welfare state, and the enabling of people addicted to irresponsible behavior. The main people in favor of the welfare state are those who would receive benefits, those who would administer the system, certain politicians, and those who want to be helpful, but neglect to consider the social and human costs, as well as the economic costs of government social welfare. That said, almost all agree that a (at least) minimal safety net is needed to help those who are actually unable to support themselves. The problem arises when this is exaggerated.

As for government relief efforts, one might point to the government’s efforts after Hurricane Katrina. No, I don’t mean FEMA’s slow response at the beginning, but their continuing efforts to provide help for years afterward to people who should have been left to care for themselves sooner. Also, while the Katrina victims were truly suffering, many other people were suffering in an equally bad or worse way, who received no government help whatsoever, nor did they ask for any.

Similarly, the families of those lost in the 9/11 attacks were (I think) very generously compensated by the government. Money can’t replace a lost loved one, but on any given day, a number of people die tragically and their families get nothing from the government, nor do they ask for anything.

I don’t mean to suggest that it was wrong to want to help these people, but that it should be seen in perspective.

Government entitlements that are well-established threaten to greatly damage our economy in future years, because these obligations are unsustainable and can never finally be met. In addition, they unjustly burden the taxpayers every year. Younger payers of these taxes cannot realistically expect to benefit from these programs. They are among the forgotten men and women.

Conclusion, Again Quoting Sumner
“It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political science. If a student of any of these sciences ever comes to understand the position of the Forgotten Man and to appreciate his true value, you will find such student an uncompromising advocate of the strictest scientific thinking on all social topics, and a cold and hard-hearted skeptic towards all artificial schemes of social amelioration….” [4]

[1] William Graham Sumner biography,, at

[2] William Graham Sumner, “The Forgotten Man,” 1883, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays, The Online Library of Liberty, at

[3] Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008. Originally published by Harper & Brothers, 1946, page 179

[4] Sumner, see [2].

Photo: Portrait of William Graham Sumner from The Warren J. Samuels Portrait Collection at Duke University. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.