A Nation of Sheep, Afraid of Words

Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 12.54.06 PM

I want to start this post off by taking a closer look at what Donald Trump actually said in his now infamous “2nd Amendment speech” yesterday. Here’s the part that generated all the controversy:

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

First of all, I agree that this is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing for a Presidential candidate to say. So while I don’t think he should’ve said it, I also don’t think it’s the biggest deal in the world. Moreover, mainstream media and pundits across the land are unanimously interpreting it as a call for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. I didn’t read it that way at all.

For instance, he starts off his thought by creating a hypothetical scenario “if she gets to pick her judges.” So at that moment he seems to be thinking about a post-Clinton presidency; a time after which she has already picked the judges. If the judges are already in place, what would an assassination of Clinton accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

As such, I interpreted Trump’s subsequent words to reflect his opinion that “2nd Amendment people” might resort to armed resistance in the face of gun control measures implemented under a Hillary Clinton administration. While I don’t think this is a wise thing for him to publicly ponder, it’s not a remotely outlandish scenario. For example, should “assault weapons” be banned during a Clinton presidency, there remains that lingering issue of the millions upon millions of such weapons already in the public domain. Thus, if legislation is eventually passed to confiscate these weapons, I have no doubt that armed resistance to confiscation would be widespread. This isn’t a call to arms, it’s just stating what I believe to be an obvious fact.

However, if that was the point he was trying to make, he chose a really stupid way of doing it. If you’re going to use that type of language you’d better be really smart about clarifying exactly what you’re trying to express. Nevertheless, I still think it’s significant that Trump’s comments appear to be him blabbing about what response might be considered by “2nd Amendment people,” in a world after which aggressive gun control has already been passed and signed off on by the Supreme Court.

Further evidence to back up my interpretation can be found a few moments later when he says the following:

You know, when the bad guys burst into your house, they’re not looking about into Second Amendments, and, do I have the right to do this? OK, the bad guys aren’t going to be giving up their weapons.

But the good people will say, “oh, well, that’s the law.” No, no, not going to happen, we can’t let it happen. We can’t let it happen.

As you can see, he’s clearly thinking about a hypothetical post-2nd Amendment world. This is clear when he says “the bad guys aren’t going to be giving up their weapons.” Trump’s mind seemingly wandered into an imagined future world where gun confiscation is a reality, and he muses that only 2nd Amendment people can stop it. Personally, I don’t think a Hillary assassination ever crossed his mind, he was just being flippant about a potential future confrontation.

Moving along, what bothers me so much regarding the media uproar about his statements is not just that what he said seems to have been intentionally misinterpreted, but that we are focusing on words as opposed to actions. All the while, there are plenty of things Trump has actually done that make him a highly offensive candidate who isn’t really as anti-status quo as people think. I’ll give you two examples. First, let’s look at the man who Trump picked to head his campaign finance team: Steve Mnuchin.

Here are a few snippets about the man from an article published in the New Republic titled, Donald Trump’s Finance Chair Is the Anti-Populist From Hell:

Donald Trump’s first major staff selection since securing the Republican nomination, national finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, co-founded and manages the hedge fund Dune Capital. Not only did he make partner at Goldman Sachs, so did his father in the 1960s. With over 30 years of experience at the top levels of finance, Mnuchin was present for every recent major banking innovation, including those that brought the country to the brink of economic collapse.

Mnuchin’s presence in the campaign reveals how the qualities Trump loyalists projected on their hero don’t measure up to the truth. They have venerated him throughout the Republican primary for rejecting the dirty business of pay-to-play politics, and for populist vows to protect the ordinary worker. But in selecting Mnuchin, not only has Trump submitted to the realities of presidential campaign finance; he’s chosen one of the most notorious bankers in America to carry it out.

When I heard Mnuchin’s name last week, I immediately remembered the front lawn of his mansion. Back in 2011, local housing activists and the Occupy movement in Los Angeles camped out on that lawn to save the home of Rose Mary Gudiel, a La Puente, California, resident who faced eviction after being just two weeks late on one mortgage payment. The activists threatened to move all of Gudiel’s furniture into Mnuchin’s $26 million Bel Air estate if the eviction wasn’t stopped. Twenty police officers and a helicopter met the protesters.

Why was Mnuchin’s front lawn the focal point for the protest? Because years after forming Dune Capital in 2004, Mnuchin’s hedge fund purchased the failed lender IndyMac, one of America’s largest home lenders and a leading distributor of Alt-A mortgages, a subprime hybrid which did not require borrowers to accurately state their incomes. After IndyMac failed, Dune led the investment group that purchased it from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 2009, renaming it OneWest Bank. Mnuchin became OneWest’s principal owner and chairman.

OneWest accomplished these foreclosures through fraud. Erica Johnson-Seck, a vice president of foreclosure and bankruptcy for OneWest, explained in a July 2009 deposition that she “robo-signed” 6,000 foreclosure-related documents per week, spending just 30 seconds on each sworn affidavit that attested to the veracity of all relevant information in the case. Johnson-Seck admitted to not reading the documents before signing them, to not knowing how the records were generated, and to not signing in the presence of a notary, all of which made the affidavits she signed false evidence in court.

The OneWest subsidiary Financial Freedom executed 39 percent of all foreclosures on reverse mortgages between 2009 and 2015, despite servicing only 17 percent of the market, according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) obtained by the California Reinvestment Coalition. OneWest disclosed in its most recent annual report that it’s under investigation for this disproportionate share of “widow foreclosures” by HUD’s Inspector General. The victims include 103 year-old Myrtle Lewis of North Texas, who OneWest put into foreclosure after her insurance coverage lapsed; Karen Hunziker, who got a foreclosure notice from OneWest ten days after her husband passed away in 2014; and a host of others.

Trump’s loyal fans aren’t likely to scrutinize Mnuchin’s record, but they should. You can measure political candidates in part by who they associate with. The foreclosure history in Mnuchin’s past reflects an extreme mentality of profit at all costs, and hardly a viewpoint of standing up for the little guy. Trump as populist was always something of a pose, covering for a deep nationalism and antipathy to immigrants. The Mnuchin pick just brings that into sharper relief.

Trump’s main money-chaser has profited off the suffering of ordinary Americans for years. There’s no reason to believe Trump will offer a better deal to the working class.

A President Trump isn’t going to lay a finger on Wall Street. Not a finger.

So what about foreign policy? He talks a good anti-interventionist game, but look at who he just named to play a senior role in his transition team: Mike Rogers.

So who is Mike Rogers? Let’s turn to the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) will play a senior role on Donald Trump’s presidential transition team, advising on national-security matters, several people familiar with the process said.

Mr. Rogers’s involvement in the transition team was described as preliminary and not finalized. He is close friends with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is leading Mr. Trump’s transition team, and he could lead the national-security group within the transition team or play another top role, these people said.

Mr. Rogers is in some ways not an obvious choice for the Trump campaign. During his 14 years in Congress, Mr. Rogers was seen as a member of the GOP’s interventionist wing. In 2014, he called for sending ground troops to fight Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Rogers was also one of Congress’ leading critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a foreign leader with whom Mr. Trump has suggested he could repair relations.

After leaving Congress, Mr. Rogers launched an organization, Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security, that hosted a series of town-hall events with GOP presidential candidates in Iowa. The goal, according to the group’s website, was to “enhance the knowledge base of citizens in the early states to help elect a president who supports American engagement and a strong foreign policy.”

All of this makes me further doubt the honesty of Trump’s Wall Street critiques and his supposed anti-interventionist foreign policy. Moreover, the bigger point is that there are plenty of genuinely troubling things about Trump, yet the media chooses to focus obsessively on his gaffes and stupid statements. It’s essentially the whole “social justice warrior” mindset gone wild, and it takes the political debate down to a 3rd grade level, which is exactly where much of the media prefers it.

For example, by focusing in on the things that Trump says, as opposed to the things that Trump does, the media gets to do the same for Hillary. As such, American political coverage degenerates into a analysis of gaffes, counter-gaffes and witty tweets composed by staffers. This serves to give Hillary Clinton a free pass on all the horrible things she actually has done over the decades. Moreover, this obsession with gaffes and gossip ensures that her current scandals, which should be at the top of the news cycle, are replaced with the latest idiotic thing that Trump said.

As an example, what about the latest revelations related to her email scandal. We learned the following from today’s New York Times article, Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap:

WASHINGTON — A new batch of State Department emails released Tuesday showed the close and sometimes overlapping interests between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department, a charge that Mrs. Clinton has faced in the past and has always denied. 

In one email exchange, for instance, an executive at the Clinton Foundation in 2009 sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the United States ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there. 

In another email, the foundation appeared to push aides to Mrs. Clinton to help find a job for a foundation associate. Her aides indicated that the department was working on the request.

The State Department turned the new emails over to a conservative advocacy group, Judicial Watch, as part of a lawsuit that the group brought under the Freedom of Information Act. 

The documents included 44 emails that were not among some 55,000 pages of emails that Mrs. Clinton had previously given to the State Department, which she said represented all her “work-related” emails. The document release centers on discussions between Mrs. Clinton’s aides and Clinton Foundation executives about a number of donors and associates with interests before the State Department.

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

28 thoughts on “A Nation of Sheep, Afraid of Words”

  1. Trump still is the FU vote. No matter what at this point. People are so sick of this BS and Washington DC, they want Turmp in there to burn it down. He’s the hand grenade in their cogs and wheels rolling over us. That’s what it has come to.

    Reply
  2. Hello Michael,

    My interpretation of this whole incident was that Trump was using the media. By his wording he managed to communicate…

    Hillary wants to effectively abolish the second amendment, which Hillary hasn’t really denied.

    You may not like me, but I will appoint conservative judges

    I fully support the second amendment.

    I think Trump is betting the American people are smarter than the media give them credit. You’d really have to be an idiot to think Trump is literally asking to kill Hillary. Dan rather said something like it’s a direct call to violence. There’s nothing direct about it. The minute I heard it, I knew what Trump was doing.

    I do agree with you, though, we are at an all time low with the media. Blatantly twisting words, creating straw men, etc. beyond the whole borders are racist code words, it’s just pure stupidity.

    We will never have good candidates with our media, protecting corrupt cheaters or completely fabricating character assignations on those who don’t fall in line with progressivism. We get corrupt and resilient.

    Have you read Orwell’s essay on politics and language? It’s a good short read.

    Reply
  3. Jill Stein? Jill Stein? Drop the “Liberty” part of your spiel, Michael. Have you even read Dr. Stein’s platform? There’s not one shred of human freedom anywhere in it.

    Reply
    • She’s against war, empire and interventionism abroad.
      She’s against cronyism and Wall Street bailouts.
      She’s in favor of civil liberties.
      She supports Snowden.

      Those are top issues for me. She’s not perfect, but no one is, and she’s about 1000x better on all of those issues than Trump or Clinton.
      I agree with enough of what she has to say to consider voting for her.

    • Fine, consider voting for her of course. Yes, she does have some worthwhile views. But look at just a few items she wants to provide as “rights”:
      -Jobs
      -Healthcare
      -Education
      She also wants to “end poverty”.
      The problem with progressives is that their version of rights always mean that somebody else is about to get their wallet emptied, whereas Libertarian rights require no action from anyone else; just stand aside.
      We already have the government providing education and healthcare (does the VA ring a bell?). How are those working out so far? You want more of the same?
      And didn’t Johnson already wage a War on Poverty? How many trillions have been wasted on that adventure? How’d that turn out so far?
      Michael, if you don’t have economic freedom, you don’t have freedom at all. And Dr. Stein does not want you to have economic freedom, period.

    • I’m not saying I agree with everything Jill Stein supports. I’m saying that I am in alignment with her on enough issues for me to consider voting for her. I was initially going to vote for Gary Johnson (as I did in 2012), but his seeming support for the TPP made me reconsider. Plus, he seems more interested in pandering to Jeb Bush type people than libertarians at this point.

      Personally, at this moment in time I see ending 1) Empire 2) Corporate cronyism 3) The assault on civil liberties as the biggest issues in America. You can feel free to disagree.

      China is a good example. Many would argue they have far more economic freedom than the U.S. but far less political freedom. Which country would you rather live in?

      There’s no question in my mind. For all it’s faults, I’d pick the USA without a doubt. You may disagree, but economic freedom in itself does not = a great place to live.

    • Note that I did not say freedom comes from economic freedom, but rather that lack of economic freedom curtails human freedom. In other words, a free market economy is a prerequisite for free people, but not a guarantee.

      I do agree with you that your 3 listed points are big threats to America; maybe even the biggest threats. But I cannot for the life of me see how a progressive statist like Dr. Stein reconciles her talking points about restoring the Constitution and our civil liberties with her desire to redistribute resources at gunpoint.

      My ultimate point being that I am surprised somebody like yourself who espouses freedom, and indeed has the word “liberty” in his website as well as in his standard closing would consider supporting a proponent of state-sponsored violence.

    • Your point is taken, and I agree with you on the importance of economic freedom.

      Since I view the issues mentioned as existentially important to the nation, I can consider supporting someone who is willing to defend them and engage in the arena of politics to expose the importance of them to a wider audience.

      Let’s not be nitpicky here about me using the word “Liberty.” If you think I am anti-Liberty and don’t think my articles and what I do in life is consistent with liberty, that is your prerogative and you should stop reading me.

      I think we had a good conversation/debate about ideas, let’s leave it at that.

    • Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say you were anti-liberty, nor did I say your articles were inconsistent with same.
      I have enjoyed your articles for years, and have been a regular reader.
      However, I have never commented because I have never been moved to do so.
      The reason I finally did comment is because I am so perplexed by the apparent contradiction between your stated beliefs and potential support of candidate Stein.
      You haven’t really clarified it either. President Stein would be a net destroyer of freedom for Americans for the reasons I outlined.
      The best I can glean from your responses, is that you think she would extract us from our many global conflicts, and that’s of paramount importance to you.
      But if you believe her policies will restore your civil liberties, I think you are sadly mistaken.

    • I have clarified it, perhaps not to your approval, but that’s not my job. My intent on this site is twofold: 1) Share news I think is important. 2) Provide my perspective on major macro trends/issues.

      I think she would be a net beneficiary to freedom for Americans. Just as you claim she would do nothing to help civil liberties, I could claim she would do nothing to affect economic freedom because her proposals on those issues could never pass Congress.

      At the end of the day, I believe Jill Stein strongly believes what she says on those three issues, and as President could have a meaningful impact on them. So that matters to me. A lot.

      Again, if this isn’t good enough for you, that’s ok with me. If it’s not ok with you and you think there is some unacceptable contradiction on what I say versus what I propose to stand for, you should definitely stop reading the site. I don’t waste my time reading and arguing with people I deem to be hypocrites. I hope you don’t come to this conclusion, but I’m comfortable with it if you do.

    • I fear we’re at an impasse.
      I still do not understand how you reconcile your stated beliefs with Dr. Stein’s platform. She’s a statist, and by definition must use force to accomplish her objectives. This is entirely antithetical to libertarian ideology and civil liberty. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I am not sophisticated enough to get your point.
      I don’t think you are a hypocrite, nor do I think your conclusions are unacceptable; they are yours to make, of course.
      I will continue to visit your site, as I do find value in it.
      But as for this Stein thing, well, I just don’t get it. But thanks for the discussion.

    • I agree, we are, but thanks for the discussion. I always appreciate people respectfully challenging my positions. I can be wrong just like anyone else.

      I would end with that fact that I could accept your conclusion that Stein is an economic statist, and I don’t adhere to those positions. However, she is very good on issues that matter to me greatly, so in net I can consider overlooking that part. Some people value the economic positions of candidates above all else, and for someone like that I completely understand not voting for Jill Stein. All people must decide for themselves which issues are most important and decide accordingly.

      Finally, I do not self-identify as a libertarian or anything else. Just want to make that clear.

    • Understood. I was using “little L” libertarian to denote “ideals of liberty”, not necessarily the Libertarian Party.
      Thanks again.

    • Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how making healthcare, jobs, and education a right is an infringement on civil liberty. Nor do I see the “gunpoint” & “violence” correlation. I think only middle class, upper middle class and wealthy folks think like you do. Born into a comfortable life, you don’t understand struggle, and therefore don’t understand how other people could. Libertarian ideals seem to operate on the assumption that the American Dream still exists. Let me ask: why is a massive military budget and tax breaks for the rich not “an end to liberty”? And yet ending poverty is?To me the dissonance is deafening.

    • Making jobs, healthcare, and education a right is an infringement on civil liberty because to provide those means you have to take from someone else.

      FYI, I have not been born into a comfortable life, I do understand struggle,

  4. Thanks MK; food for thought. Following the money and asking who benefits always aids in getting to the bottom of issues and knowing that when the fish stinks, it starts at the head. I’m more informed now but bummed out never the less.

    Reply
    • Thank you for your comment. The purpose of this site isn’t to convince people I am always right and they must follow my lead, but rather, to explain the world as I see it and then let people come to their own conclusions.

      Some people can’t handle that, and lose their minds because I simply don’t see the world exactly as they do.

  5. He is just being Berry Goldwatered. They told so many lies about him and mis-interpreted everything Goldwater said about social security, etc. he was labeled an extremest. while JFK Murdering LBJ got elected and brought us the viet nam war, great society multiculturalism, the bad civil rights act, and nearly bankrupted the usa. same scenario, different time. These people are relentless.

    Reply
  6. Thank you Michael,
    It is a pleasure to read analyses that are both informative and insightful, and that actually are “fair and balanced.”

    Reply
  7. We are in the unfortunate position of determining who is the greatest danger, the one that would cause the greatest harm, and who is in the best position to stop that person. To me it is obvious the Clinton would cause the most harm and Trump is in the best position to stop. Normally I would be like you and vote 3rd party, but the stakes are too high this year

    Reply
  8. Does it matter anymore what anyone says?

    “Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.”
    m.phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html

    “Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.”
    “He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy.
    “You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.””
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    Reply
  9. I think you’re right about Trump meaning armed resistance, but in that case he should have said so when he clarified his remarks later instead of saying that he was talking about “voting” and that there was no other way it could be taken. If he’d simply explained that he meant people protecting their lives and property from the bad guys he would have come off great, but now it still sounds like armed resistance against Clinton herself.

    Reply
  10. I am offended by your article. You have micro-aggressed me in my safespace and I will report you to minitru you thoughtcriminal scum!

    Reply
  11. Donald’s comment was perfectly fine and appropriate. He was only mentioning that the second amendment people could possibly prevail in court and congress against a Hillary stacked court, as they have done for decades now. Alas, but even his supporters have fallen for the lie that he was implying violence.

    Reply
  12. Thank you for informing about Mr.Trump advisors,that surely make Mr.Trump less trusth worthy.I agree with Mr. Paul Craig Roberts earlier writings,he should seek the advice from dissenters.
    Regarding Jill Stein being the only genuine anti-establishment,that I belive is a long shot.
    Why?
    She is jewish,for Christs sake!!
    Yes sir,I have read Kevin Macdonald’s epos “The Culture of Critique”.
    A quistion Mr.Krieger,are you jewish,or of german ancestery,as we can read from the name on this site?
    Thank you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply