Sunday, March 31, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part III)

Americans should never forget the preamble of the Declaration of Independence has been critical for providing civil rights to minority classes of citizens in United States history where the Constitution failed: ending slavery, woman’s suffrage, and other civil rights fights. For instance, the Missouri Compromise used the Declaration of Independence social contract theory to prevent slavery in certain territories; the women’s movement started in 1848 with the Declaration of Independence; the labor movement in the 1800s found both political and social freedoms in the Declaration of Independence; Abraham Lincoln moved the nation towards war using the principles found in the Declaration of Independence; communist organizer, Eugene Debs, discovered how the Declaration of Independence could support his labor movement; three time Democratic Presidential Candidate, William Jennings Bryant, used the Declaration of Independence to point out American hypocrisies dealing with persons of newly acquired territories in the Spanish-American War (Imperialism: social contract does not support conquering and governing those who do not consent); and Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech is based on those social contract theories found in the Declaration of Independence.

All that being said, early in American history and up to the present time, the Declaration of Independence has been attacked by many saying it has no relevance to the Constitution and it does not apply to everyone equally. This surely explains the Southern philosophy to defend slavery and even the Northern philosophy to deny free-Negroes and women equal rights. In their famous debates Senator Stephen Douglas would say Abraham Lincoln was no different than King George III. Douglas would elaborate by suggesting just as King George III passed laws regulating property (taxes) without consent, Lincoln’s emancipation of slaves would be no different. However, most people, like Douglas, would confuse the social contract theory of popular sovereignty with majority rule democracy: they are not the same because majority rule democracy places sovereignty in the government even without consent of the people. Put another way, Douglas believes it is the will of majorities to decide government policy based on political sentiment at the time and not that the natural law fundamental rights of every person are the same. Of course, Southerners had no issue arguing in favor of Lockean social contract theory and the Declaration of Independence when they held they had a right to revolution and to secede from the Union.

Social contract theory has taken many forms in world history and it is important to show its progression in the United States history. In particular, to show how America has veered from the social contract theory found in the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, early American history saw both the Patriots and Loyalists favor the social contract theory put forth by Samuel Pufendorf a century earlier. Pufendorf theorized that due to the social nature of man, they create societies. This, according to Pufendorf, is the “first contract” to establish a State where people create a government and therefore, consent to be ruled. Pufendorf differs from Locke because his theory consists of a double contract. Pufendorf’s second contract is “submission”. In other words, citizens must conform, even to a rogue government, because natural rights will be sacrificed regardless as to whether or not the government is legitimate. Since citizens provide the government with consent, Pufendorf rules out that governments can be coercive. Pufendorf’s theory of social contract can be summarized in one word: Peaceful. There is no contract to overthrow a government since peace must be maintained at all costs. One could see how this fits the Loyalists view to defend England against the Colonies. It also fit the early movement of American Patriots because their motto was to protest English rule, but to do so peacefully and to follow the law. As Americans pushed for freedom via revolution, American Patriots adapted John Locke’s views. The fight over the Constitution between federalist and anti-federalist also became a battle over Locke and Pufendorf respectively. Federalist and popular sovereignty won with the Ninth Amendment while the anti-federalist won major concessions with the other Bill of Right amendments securing a second contract between citizens and government.

Social contract theory was utilized extensively by both the North and South leading up to the Civil War. Northern abolitionists adhered to John Locke’s theories of popular sovereignty, social contract, and natural rights (all men are created equal). Northerners also adhered to John Locke’s revolutionary principles threatening to secede from the South on many occasions. Legal scholars such as John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Daniel Webster would maintain that it was the “people’s constitution”. Dorr’s Rebellion (1841), in Rhode Island, was a perfect example of people using social contract theory. Citizens rebelled because they wanted to update the State constitution to be more representative of the people.

On the other hand, the situation in the South was complex when it came to social contract theory. The South would use John Locke’s revolutionary principles to argue their right to secede from the Union. When it was convenient, Southerners would use social compact theories and principles put forth by Pufendorf to defend slavery. Since, according to Pufendorf, there must be submission of the people to maintain order even in the face of a rogue government, it is easy to see how individuals or citizens could become slaves of the State. In this sense, Pufendorf would argue that rights became duties to maintain the peace, even if the duty was to support slavery. Pufendorf would rationalize slavery by suggesting that masters owned only the slaves labor, not the entire man. And when it was convenient, the South would use social contract theories put forth by Hugo Grotius to defend States rights and federalism. During the expansion West, Grotius’s social contract and federalism reinforced each other. The South maintained the Union was a mere alliance of States, thus social contract theory only applied to the States. Did “We the People” of the Constitution suggest we the people of the Union (North), or we the people of the States (South)? This text believes that social contract theory applied to both the Union and States. Finally, the South rejected all social contracts when faced with more consistent and logical arguments by Northerners. For this reason, many Southerners embraced Edmund Burke since he did not believe in natural law fundamental rights or social contract theory. Since the Civil War, only one famous American truly embraced Burke, and that was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson would use Burke’s dismissal of natural law to defend his racism similarly to how the South would justify slavery. After all, with no social contract to ensure equality, then it is acceptable to discriminate against certain groups of people. Wilson would eventually drop his support of Burke as he moved to progressivism. However, Wilson’s progressivism was perverted because he would protect natural law fundamental rights of white males while neglecting the rights of everyone else.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part II)

Free will choices are first order decisions that are made prior to any moral choice. At times free will choices will conflict and leads humans to their second order decision-making process. When this happens, the morality, decision-making process takes priority over deciding tasks based on moral rules such as the “golden rule” (treat others as you expect to be treated) or the Pauline Principle (evil cannot be done even if good may come from the action). The first principle of morality guides citizens to make decisions which strive for the fulfillment of humanity. Free will decisions are not natural (or controlled by nature), but the natural law fundamental rights and moral decisions are controlled by nature or some higher being (God).

Society creates what is known as positive law which is derived from natural law. Positive law consists of community laws and statutes which guide citizens to make correct moral decisions such as laws against crime like murder or theft. It is also the belief of this text that judges can enforce natural law when legislative laws diverge from natural law even though many scholars believe that judges have no Constitutional authority to do so. This is false. Judicial review and the original intent of the Ninth Amendment, the privileges and immunities clause, and due process clause of the Constitution are the reasons why this characterization is false (discussed in detail later).

Natural law is an excellent guide to protect individual rights. However, natural law theory gets very complex and asserts things such as sodomy, pre-marital sex, adultery, fornication, masturbation, contraception, sex toys, pornography, addictive behavior, gambling, and homosexuality are morally wrong. Natural law explains there is a difference between certain types of pleasure. For example, sitting in a rocking chair would be considered an innocent pleasure whereas viewing pornography would be an evil pleasure. But this is a fine line: for example, where do you draw the line between art and pornography? Where do you draw the line between art and obscenity? Which historical novels do we ban for political correctness in the name of protecting youths from obscene language? The problem these questions creates is obvious: It means legislative and judicial opinions and biases will develop balancing tests to define what is pornography and what is not. Where natural law theorists stray away from common sense is when they treat individual action or behavior that does not violate the rights others as violations of natural law principles. Action or behavior that does not affect others (non-consenting persons) should be acceptable since it does not violate the common good. Even if doing drugs or masturbation are considered morally unacceptable actions, but should these actions be considered a crime or as violating natural law if the behavior does not violate the rights of others? Strict natural law theorists would say yes. But this creates conservative legislators and judges whose laws end up violating individual rights. For instance, Supreme Court morality precedent insists growing medical marijuana is not allowed to relieve chronic pain (even with a doctor’s prescription) does not violate anyone’s rights. Nor does anyone see how the right to work is severed by laws that make selling sex toys or pornography illegal. When this happens, judges and legislators are taking morality too far. After all, if it were a crime to limit all types of individual behavior based on natural law morality, a large percentage of the populous would be in prison.

And let’s not forget the hypothesis of this writing: to elevate freedom of contract as one of our natural law fundamental rights. In order to accomplish this task, it is imperative to understand how Supreme Court elevates fundamental rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution. There are three methods: The Ninth Amendment, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court doctrine known as substantive due process. Each method will be evaluated in detail.

Social Contract Theory

This text will adhere to the social contract theory written in the preamble of Declaration of Independence (the text is not trying to reinstate the doctrine, but only adhere to it). United States social contract theory is a contract between the government and the people and it has three main parts. First, there is a contract to form a government to protect the higher law natural rights of consenting citizens. Secondly, if the government fails to protect the rights of its citizens then it is the duty of citizens to overthrow the government. Thirdly, it provides less governance is best to maintain a desired state of nature.

The Declaration of Independence says: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This social contract theory written by Thomas Jefferson closely follows the theories set forth by John Locke. In Locke’s view no government or law was above the sovereignty of people (popular sovereignty). Locke was a master in defining the “principles” of government. Thus, the American Revolution became a movement over principles rather than over the form of government. Many liberal reformers like to downplay the social contract aspect found within the preamble of Declaration of Independence by focusing on the other parts of document or by incorrectly comparing it to the English Declaration of Rights which provided sovereignty to government (Parliament). The Declaration provides a perpetual contract where the people can change government whenever it is not properly protecting the rights of citizens. However, Jefferson writes “government long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”. In other words, there must be a legitimate reason for changing government, it cannot be merely for political and ideological difference. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 basically endorses the Declaration of Independence’s use of Lockean social contract theory giving credence to the document.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Contracts and Natural Law Fundamental Rights (Part I)


A contract is defined as “a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law”. Legally, a contract may also be “unspoken” or implied. Contracts are a big part of our everyday life. For instance, most business contracts are conducted with a hand shake. This is a “promissory obligation” contract that is binding and can be enforced by the law. At a minimum, breach of a promissory obligation would yield a lack of trust in that person or party by the public. This is why Congress has such low approval numbers (they do not keep promises). Individuals enter into dozens of contracts every day. Every money transaction that takes place is a contract. Thus, most people have contracts to cover phone, energy, home, water, TV, internet, food and other expenses such as insurance, car, services, and healthcare to name a few. The Constitution contains a contracts clause which protects lenders from borrowers defaulting on their loans. A person has two options when it comes to contracts. First, they can refuse to enter into a contract agreement or secondly, they can accept a contract agreement.

There are three legal reasons a court may void a contract agreement (outside coercion and exploitation): Public policy reasons, unconscionability, and bargaining power inequity. But courts have used these reasons to void perfectly good contracts, where there has been no coercion or exploitation, by the parties partaking in the contract. Take, for example, bargaining power inequity: Parties in exact equality have no reason to enter into a contract. For instance, there must be some inequity for Party A to enter into a contract with Party B. In other words, Party A wants more of what Party B has available for sale. For this reason, many bargaining power inequity rulings are bogus. Public policy reasons lead judges to input personal biases and opinions into decisions. For example, in a Massachusetts surrogacy case (R.R. v. M.H, 1998) the court sided with the surrogate mother who breached her contract by keeping the baby. The judge ruled it is not normal public policy to sell babies. This is obviously the judge’s opinion; if it is normal public policy to abort a baby, then why can’t people sell a baby, especially to prevent an abortion? Judges also use unconscionability to input biases and personal opinions. Consider the 1965 Washington DC case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. In this case, the court ruled in favor of a person who breached their contract by defaulting on their furniture payments. The court ruled that the furniture store could not repossess the furniture per the contract. Put another way, the furniture store was out the remaining amount due in the contract in addition to the furniture. In this decision, the court had empathy toward the plaintiff because she was poor. But the court’s decision would negatively affect hundreds of poor people living in the same neighborhood. In response to the decision, the furniture store reduced credit levels and raised prices to cover lawsuits since they could no longer repossess items for breach of contract. In another example, California courts have barred companies like Circuit City from using arbitration as a way to solve employee disputes. Instead, courts want companies to face lengthy and more expensive class action suits instead of settling disputes via arbitration. These actions force companies to cut employees, reduce wages, and or pass any increased legal costs onto the consumer.

But contracts are much more than the lender and borrower relationships. Implied or written contracts protect other types of relationships such as employer and employee, student and educator, and marriage between two persons. Implied contracts also protect our friendships. After all, true friends should be responsible to look out for the welfare of their comrades. Family is the core of society, but friendships (relationships: friends, workmates, and political acquaintances) are the glue that holds communities since relationship contracts work for the common good (general welfare) of the society.

It can be argued that contracts include the unspoken or implied relationships between one’s self and every other person in the world. After all, we cannot violate the rights of another person even if they are a stranger. Hence, a contract is implied that all humans will treat other humans with dignity, decency, tolerance, and respect to avoid violating the rights of others. A contract with humanity is not much different than the Golden Rule where individuals should treat others how they expect to be treated. Furthermore, John Quincy Adams felt society as whole is a contract “a partnership not only between who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are not born.” In other words, the living must respect the dead and at the same time pave the way for future generations. For example, Americans should never forget the millions that have died fighting for their freedom. For all these reasons, contracts are powerful and control just about every action an individual may partake.

Most definitions of contract say it is an agreement between two or more parties, but individuals make personal contracts in the form of schedules, goals, and missions that they want to achieve. It is a natural law principle that humans have the right to pursue and develop a life plan. These personal contracts are important for several reasons. First, they define our personality because these types of agreements are the easiest to break (like a New Year resolution). Those that achieve in life will more than likely attain most of their individual contract goals. On the other hand, those that fail in life will ultimately quit on most of their individual contract goals. For this reason, it can be argued that biggest disability facing Americans is that of quitting on our goals or personal contracts. Secondly, it is important to remember that all individuals have the “right to pursue happiness” but nobody is “guaranteed happiness”. The only way to achieve happiness is to set difficult goals and to attain them. Even this may not guarantee happiness but failing to meet goals will almost certainly lead to a miserable or handicapped existence. Consider how many Americans (environmentalists) believe that man has an implied contract with nature or the planet Earth. These individuals want humans to leave this planet a better place than when we entered into it. This would fit the social contract put forth by John Quincy Adams in the previous paragraph. This may also be an example of natural law and God’s contract with humans and vice versa. If this is true, then persons following this “implied” contract must set lofty goals in personal contracts to achieve the outlook they want for the planet. After all, anything worth achieving in life will never come easy.

Natural Law Fundamental Rights

It is also important to understand natural law fundamental rights. Natural law fundamental rights are higher level rights sometimes referred to as simply natural law. Natural law rights “must be recognized as self-evident to all.” A natural law right is one that would be right, good, and responsible (as opposed to wrong, bad, and irresponsible) for personal fulfillment and the general good of humanity (common good). Fundamental rights and natural law rights are usually identified as individual human rights, but in actuality they are collective rights because everyone has the same rights. Natural law rights are rights that all people are born with and they cannot be taken away by others or by any government. A few of these fundamental rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Fundamental natural law rights are contracts between a person and a higher being (it can be God or whomever you believe gave you the natural freedoms you enjoy). Government can protect these rights, but they cannot generate a fundamental right because fundamental rights existed before the creation of government and laws. But what happens when our fundamental rights are being violated by others or the government? It is then the job of the courts and our judicial system to protect our fundamental rights, even those that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But the Constitution does not protect individuals, whose rights are being violated, from wrongly decided Supreme Court cases. For this reason, this book will extensively evaluate the role of the Supreme Court in defining and defending enumerated and unenumerated natural law fundamental rights to protect God’s natural law contracts with each person in society.

Briefly, to better explain natural law, first there are several fundamental rights which guide our free will choices. Those natural law fundamental rights include the right to work, play, friendships, marriage, health, life, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice to name a few. Our free will decisions ideally strive for personal fulfillment for the common good. Free will decisions or choices should be made without the interference of emotions and feelings but instead be based on sound reason. According to natural right scholar John Finnis “Natural Law assumes that men had certain duties toward one another, as social beings, and had certain rights that men must respect.” Moreover, natural law principles conclude there should be “no arbitrary preferences among persons” to eliminate hypocrisy, biases, opinions, and selfishness. Furthermore, “There is no human right that will be overridden if feelings (whether generous or unselfish, or mean and self-centered) are allowed to govern choice ….”

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Why the Right of Privacy is Overused by the Court

The right to privacy was elevated by the Supreme Court during the controversial case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Griswold was controversial for several reasons. First of all, the Court could not agree on an acceptable way to elevate the right of privacy since it does not exist in the Constitution. Only Justice Goldberg, who cited the Ninth Amendment really got the decision correct. Justice Douglas, who wrote the convoluted decision cited the right of privacy was interpreted from a penumbra of privacy rights founded in the Constitution: No quartering of troops and no illegal searches and seizures to name a few. But the fact the founders cited only specific privacy rights certainly meant they did not want to protect all privacy rights as absolute. This brings us to our second point; the right of privacy is ambiguous and broad and is not meant to protect things such as crimes. For this reason, rights should be drafted narrowly to protect against ambiguity. Since the right of privacy can cover a wide rage of rights, it is often overused by the Court.

I willing to bet in a recent case, Carpenter v. United States (to be decided in 2018), that the Court will use the right to privacy to prevent the government from obtaining GPS data off cell phones without a warrant. But is this really a privacy case? No, it is a property case. The government should not be allowed to trespass on private property (a cell phone) without a warrant. Unlike privacy, property rights are protected in the Constitution. However, the Court has decimated property rights to the point that the Court protects privacy within the home, but the home itself is not protected. A home can be confiscated for anything the government feels will bring a public benefit (not use) to the community. This means no one’s home is safe. How can our privacy be protected in a home if the home is not fully protected (Kelo v. New London)? Heck, the government can confiscate private property even without just compensation (Penn Central Station v. New York).

Privacy rights have been used to protect other rights such as gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, and contraception. But even these rights can be protected by other means such as the right to contract that was introduced by the Court in Lochner v. New York (1905) and then rescinded by the Court in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). The right to contract has been outlined as a fundamental right in Justice Washington’s decision Corfield v. Coryell (1823). Washington’s Corfield decision became the basis for the Fourteenth Amendment drafted in 1868. But the progressive court overruled this right so government to intervene in everything that is economic including labor laws, manufacturing, wages, hours, farming, and even child labor. This is why it is much easier for a child to obtain an abortion then to get a job. In fact, it is harder for a child to watch a “R rated” movie, smoke, drink, vote, play a violent video game, work, or marry then to get an abortion. The right to contract was originally used to protect the employer / employee relationship. But it could also be used to protect marriage and even consensual decisions made by non-married couples. Privacy right cases always cite Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society Sisters (1925) since these cases elevate many fundamental rights such as the right of marriage and the right to raise a family. One can see how those rights may protect gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, and contraception. But these cases also protected other rights such as the right of contract among other things including the right to work a lawful profession. It is apparent that the progressive sect of the Court simply picks and chooses which of the rights outlined by Justice McReynolds in Meyer and Pierce they like and dismiss those they do not like. It does not work like that. Since Meyer and Pierce are still considered good law today, the Court has to uphold the entire decision, not just the aspects they like.

The freedom of contract could be used to uphold marriage between any two individuals and decisions about consensual sex. I cannot find anything that will uphold abortion. Abortion is a contract between mother and child and that contract is obviously violated. The Court even lets women obtain an abortion without notifying the father which is also a violation of the contract between two consenting adults. Abortion is not even a private matter since it happens outside the home and a record is kept of the surgery. If abortion is a right then any cosmetic surgery would also be a fundamental right. Sure, we have a right to choose a cosmetic surgery, but it is not fundamental because cosmetic surgeries are controversial and not a natural right that we can all agree upon with 100% confidence like the right to self-defense, to work a lawful profession, to obtain knowledge, to procreate, to care for our children, or to enter into a contract with another company or person. I am not saying certain privacy rights should not be protected, but it is my opinion that privacy is used in a manner that it has become the safety net to protect things that do not need special protections such as abortion. This is why the Court resorted to using privacy rights instead of property rights or even the right to contract. And if the right of contract is brought back, then that would decimate the legitimacy of the entire New Deal progressive revolution.

Monday, March 11, 2019

Why Truman was Like Obama (Part II)

Truman would not learn from his mistakes. Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean conflict. In Youngstown Steel and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952), the Court held that Truman’s impatient actions were unconstitutional: even during emergencies such as wartime. Truman could have solved the strike situation without nationalizing the industry. But Truman would nationalize several industries following World War II to circumvent the growing trend of union strikes. Truman would go on to call strikes un-American but Truman supported the unionization of labor as a Senator. Dealing with labor strikes displayed Truman’s not only inept problem-solving skills, but his overall contempt for the Constitution (which he also trampled on during his Senate days supporting the FDR progressive economic power grab). Of course, no president had a worse record putting their agenda in front of the Supreme Court than Obama. Obama is the only modern president to lose 50% of his agenda cases put in front of the high court. In fact, Obama not only lost over half of his cases in front of the Court, he lost most of them by a 9-0 majority.

There are also many eerie parallels between Truman’s conflict in Korea and Obama’s fight against terrorism, especially ISIS. Both Truman and Obama underestimated their opponents. Obama called ISIS the “JV team” and Truman, of course, being the bigot he is, did not see China as any kind of threat. While Truman got greedy because he lacked respect for China, Obama basically did nothing to thwart ISIS. Obama also did nothing to stop genocide and terrorism in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq while at the same time he created vacuums for terrorism to flourish in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. The Korea conflict ended in a draw, but Obama lost ground not only to terrorism but to rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. While Truman pushed McArthur to be overly aggressive in Korea; Obama achieved similar results by being much too passive with terrorism.

Both Truman and Obama were Nixonian in their paranoia. Truman, with the help of J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, wiretapped Senators, Congressmen, and even Supreme Court Justices. Truman was paranoid over Communism infiltrating his administration. Obama was just paranoid. The Obama administration was caught listening to the leaders of allies and of course used very questionable techniques to listen to Donald Trump’s incoming transition and administrative teams. While Obama used an Air Force 1 photo op over New York City to scare citizens into a frenzy fearing another 9-11, Truman was even more sinister by testing nuclear weapons in Nevada without warning citizens of its side effects. Needless to say, both Obama and Truman were blinded by their love of self and their super egos.

Both Truman and Obama administrations were also plagued by scandals. Obama scandals included Fast and Furious, IRS and media targeting, improper spying on political enemies, the Clinton email server, the Uranium One deal, and the Benghazi coverup to name a few. Interestingly, one Truman scandal was with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (present day IRS) dealing out favors to political allies was similar to the Obama IRS scandal which denied rights to political enemies. Both Truman and Obama abhorred the press. Obama held the lest amount of press conferences than any administration in U.S. history while Truman held many press conferences but was irate over his negative press coverage. And both Obama and Truman have a legacy of appointing bad Supreme Court Justices. Truman appointed four justices which are generally ranked among the 10 worst in United States history. The jury is still out on Obama appointees but Sotomayor has no business being a judge of any kind and Kagan is not much better.

Russia is an interesting topic for both Truman and Obama. Obviously, Obama was weak with Russia. Obama did nothing as Russia meddled in our elections; Obama did nothing as Russia interfered in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; and Obama gave Russia 20% of our enriched uranium. Obama always failed to act when faced with any type of Russian aggression. On the other hand, Truman talked tough against Russia but he did nothing to deter their aggression other than to build up our Nuclear arsenal and create the Central Intelligence Office (CIA). Truman was responsible for the arms race, the red scare (McCarthyism) and bitter feelings between the two countries. Remember Russia was in shambles after World War II losing over 10% of its population and it was in economic turmoil. Truman was in a unique position to try diplomacy first with Russia after World War II when relations were at a high between the two nations, but once again Truman acted with haste and destroyed that opportunity. Sure, the Truman Doctrine (hardline on communism and terrorism) is widely accepted and promoted by all administrations (except Obama) since its introduction, but only Truman had the opportunity to confront a weakened Russia. Russia would have the atomic capabilities by the time Truman left office.

While both Truman and Obama were bumbling fools, there were some stark differences between the two men. While Truman would do anything to keep America and its allies safe from the spread of communism, Obama did very little to protect Americans from the threat of our adversaries and terrorism. Iran, North Korea, and ISIS gains in power under Obama would have for sure gotten more attention under Truman. Truman also understood that presidents make mistakes and they should own up to them. He made so many that it was said to “err is Truman”. However, Obama would never admit to making a mistake and is the first president to leave office having never committed an error (at least in his own egotistical mind). When something went wrong in the Obama administration, he always claimed the John Banner defense: “I know nothing about that”.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Why Truman was Like Obama (Part I)

Truman, like Obama, had no business being president. Both accomplished next to nothing to earn that prestigious position. Truman was a failed farmer, banker, and businessman. Although Truman’s biographies incorrectly claim he would have made millions if he stuck it out, but it is hard to make millions after you go bankrupt. Truman had some success as an officer in WWI but that is about it. Truman turned to politics after failing in his other business adventures. This sounds a lot like Obama who achieved nothing before becoming a Senator, a lot less than Truman. Obama was at best a community organizer living off the taxpayers dime, but he never ran anything in his life. Truman gained political notoriety similarly to how Barack Obama gained his political success: working for organized crime lords in Kansas City (Obama worked for Chicago crime lords). Truman was a puppet for the Prendergast mob family while Obama was Tony Rezco’s puppet. Truman defended his actions by saying he could do more as an insider to a crime family to generate reform then as an outsider. But this makes Truman complicit to murder, election fraud, racketeering, and other crimes since he used these organizations to back him all the way to Washington. The same applies to Obama, he is complicit in any illegal activity conducted by Rezco. As a Senator, Truman had no new ideas and failed to introduced any significant legislation. Instead, Truman rubberstamped any FDR progressive policy from Social Security to the Tennessee Valley Authority. Truman never voted against any FDR policy including even more controversial ones such as packing the Supreme Court (Truman was one of the few Democrats who was on board with this move). Similarly, Obama achieved nothing as a 2-year Senator: he not only failed to introduce any legislation, but he voted “present” most of the time to avoid taking sides over controversial political issues to further his presidential ambitions.

Truman felt slighted by FDR because he gave him very little respect, but he did not do anything to earn any respect except to be his puppet. Truman was a Democratic National Committee compromise to be FDR’s vice president for the 1944 term. FDR would die only 82 days into that term leaving a failed person as president of the United States. As President, Truman’s “Fair Deal” was merely an unimaginative double down on FDR’s “New Deal”. Similarly, Obama would try to be a “New Deal” copycat 70 years later. Just as Truman’s Democratic Party lost control of the House and Senate 2 years into his presidency, Obama repeated this history because they were both terrible leaders. Obama, forced failed policies on Americans trying to reintroduce FDR New Deal policies such as ObamaCare and the “shovel-ready” stimulus. What Obama failed to realize is that 70 years after FDR there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs. Hence, Obama lost near super-majorities just 2 years into his presidency.

Truman failed primarily because he was impatient. Hence, he never took the time to understand issues. He made one impatient decision after another. Truman, like most super-ego presidents, thought he understood history and issues better than he really did. Truman, however, could be easily manipulated by his cabinet. Whomever got to Truman first with their side of an argument generally won the day. What’s worse, Truman was a bigoted man who even joined the KKK for a short period of time. Truman believed that Blacks belonged in Africa, Yellows belonged in Asia, and only Whites belonged in Europe and America. Truman’s view of African-Americans, Jews, and women would be biased until the day he died. Sure, the Truman administration passed some Civil Rights legislation and supported the creation of Israel for the Jews, but Truman only did these things to win votes. Truman hated blacks, Jews, and women. He saw them all as inferior to White males and this was displayed by his executive hiring record. On the other hand, Obama would be just as biased against Whites and the Police leading to the highest level of racial tensions since the LBJ administration. Obama only made issues out of white on black or blue on black crime, he never cared much about less politically charged criminal cases such as black on black or black on any other racial class of people. Obama, like Truman, also had contempt for women in the workplace or in government. Obama’s government would only pay women 72 cents for every dollar a man would receive for the same work. While Obama was not impatient, he and Truman were very good at being indecisive and waffling over issues. Truman waffled over China and by the time he left office Mao had won the civil war making it a communist state. On the other hand, Obama also waffled on foreign issues in Syria, the Arab Spring, and he even had a short window of opportunity in Iran that he passed on.

A good example of Truman’s leadership failures is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman explained his action by claiming it saved 250,000 American lives. But the most accurate estimates by Generals claim those numbers were highly inflated. Generals thought anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 American lives would have been lost invading Japan. This may seem low, but there are several reasons for these assessments. First, Japan had already been showing signs of surrender. Secondly, the Russians would be entering the War against Japan just 6 days after the second atomic bomb hit Nagasaki. Thirdly, the invasion of Japan was not set to begin for 3 months and Japan could have been made much less formidable with constant bombing of military targets. Finally, China also enter the fight against Japan. But Truman was impatient and could not wait to drop the bomb. The only logical reason for Truman to act in an impatient manner was to try to send a message to the Russians with whom Truman was negotiating peace talks after the fall of Germany. Obviously, Truman’s message to the Russians did not deter them in any way for a number of reasons. First, Russia was not a third world power as Truman theorized. Truman never thought Russia would obtain nuclear power, but his actions prompted the start of the arms race. Secondly, Truman saw Russia and the Nazis as one of the same. He told the New York Times the United States should support whomever is losing the war so Russia and Germany would continue to kill each other. Imagine the ramifications if we supported the Nazis and they were able to use that help to beat the Russians then maybe the world would be much different today (an Arian Race). In other words, Truman started fighting the Russians before WWII was over. Truman’s misguided decision was also based on the idea that the bomb would be used only against military targets. Instead, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated killing close to 350 thousand innocent civilians. Truman’s naivety, ignorance, and impatience forced him to act months before it was necessary. Similarly, Obama magnified the Bush administration’s drone weaponry program which led to much higher collateral damage. Obama feared putting troops on the ground to capture high ranking enemy terrorists just as Truman feared putting troops on the ground in Japan. Truman went to war unilaterally in Korea and Obama went to war unilaterally in Libya. It is no surprise that both an unstable North Korea and Libya are two of America’s biggest foreign threats today.

Friday, March 1, 2019

Why Abortion is No Different than Sterilization Laws

Current abortion laws are not much different from those outdated compulsory sterilization laws. The Court held in Buck v. Bell (1927) that compulsory sterilization was legal. Justice Holmes declared “Three generations of imbeciles was enough” and Carrie Buck was sterilized. States used sterilization as a means to eliminate “defective” persons. Defective persons could be anyone with epilepsy to more extreme purposes including racial purity. Germans used Justice Holmes opinion in Buck for their defense at Nuremberg to fight war crimes. Buck has not been overruled, but its decision was diminished by Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). Sterilization continued in the United States into the 21st Century. At the same time sterilization and eugenics were gaining popularity it is no surprise that abortion also gained more credibility.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, not only promoted abortion, but she also supported eugenics and sterilization. Sanger also saw abortion as a method to eliminate defective persons including minorities (especially African-Americans) and anyone who has a birth or mental defect. Today, many of Sanger’s extreme abortion philosophies have come to fruition. Half of all abortions are preformed on African-Americans who only make up 13% of the population. And abortion is being used by persons to eradicate “defects” such as downs syndrome. Recent articles have said that Iceland has almost eliminated downs syndrome persons and many countries are following their lead including the United States.

First, I would like to point out that downs syndrome persons are healthy and live highly functional and productive lives. They are happy persons who rarely become wrapped up in decisive politics. We need more persons like this, not less! The United States and our Constitution protects downs syndrome persons from discrimination. But isn’t aborting a down syndrome baby discrimination? How is this any different than China allowing millions of abortions of female babies each year? It is not any different, they are both discrimination. Chinese families are mandated to have only one child and a male is for some reason more desirable and therefore many families abort female babies. This is no different than aborting a downs syndrome baby.

Some argue abortion and sterilization are not the same since abortion is a voluntary act while sterilization was a mandatory act. I completely disagree. First, in many cases abortion decisions are influenced by liberal outlets and are not voluntary decisions. Secondly, a voluntary act of discrimination may be even worse than someone mandating discrimination because in many cases healthy babies are aborted for no reason other than birth control. Finally, both abortion and sterilization follow the philosophy of eugenics introduced over a century ago to eradicate “defective” persons and promote racial purity.