On US President Donald Trump's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly of September 19, 2017

[Extensively updated September 20, 2017 at 8 PM Pacific Time] I'm not saying I disagree with every last thing President Trump said, and I'm not defending everyone and everything mentioned below simply by pointing them out.

Tom1

Tom Usher

The US economy isn't doing better because of any neoliberal/Austrian-School measures, quite the contrary. How much of the recent stock-market trend has been due to corporations buying back stocks versus raising new capital to spend on research and development? That buy-back process has slowed some, but its historical impact has been significant. We don't need measures to simply cause froth or bubbles. We need sound measures, which means sustainable and reasonably stable.

The Franklin Roosevelt administration's New Deal put in place many regulations. As a result, the frequency and depth of recessions was greatly reduced and people were not wiped out left and right by bank runs and such. It wasn't radical enough for me, but it was a vast improvement over what we had before. Beginning even in the Carter administration, but greatly ramping up under Reagan and probably climaxing under Clinton, the New Deal financial regulations were undermined and undone. The result: the Great Recession. Had the deregulation frenzy not swept through the US, the Great Recession would not have happened.

The libertarian-capitalist minded would have had us not employ any Keynesian fiscal stimulus after the crash of 2008 that was caused by inadequate financial market regulations (which came before any GSE mistakes at Fannie or Freddie following suit). Those libertarians would have allowed total liquidation of all ill-liquid and insolvent corporations. Doing that would have resulted in a depression at least twice as deep and painful. Understand that libertarians are actually fundamentally opposed to even the SEC. What we should have done instead was nationalize the insolvent corporations that were deemed at the time to be too big to simply allow to fail and close. We should have done much more stimulus, not less.

It has been clearly shown that properly timed fiscal stimulus produces more economic gain than it cost to deploy. For every dollar properly deployed, the economy can reap more or less half again as much depending upon certain variables, such as the government's borrowing rate, which was near what is termed the "zero lower bound" (extremely inexpensive).

On Ukraine, it underwent a CIA-orchestrated coup. Victoria Nuland, an avowed neocon and an Assistant Secretary of State for the US at the time, personally directed handpicking the leadership of Ukraine even before the coup was over. The whole thing was in direct violation of the Ukrainian Constitution and was designed to usher in neoliberal economics and allow open fascists to take positions of power.

The people in the Donbass region of Ukraine in particular are decidedly anti-fascist and anti-neoliberal economics. They know completely about the US-caused, illegal coup and have stood up to fight it, which is their right under real international law. The people in Crimea held a free and fair referendum to join Russia rather than stay in Ukraine and be subjected to the leadership of hyper-violent, fascistic coupsters.

As for North Korea, Kim doesn't want to be another Qaddaffi or Saddam Hussein. Both Qaddaffi and Hussein were murdered after a process of massive false propaganda (a pack of lies) spewed about each by US "intelligence." Some of the criticisms against them were legit, but most were not. Neither nation is better off now than it was. Both could have been greatly improved without wars. It's more difficult to know about North Korea, but it's not unreasonable to more than suspect that much of what has been claimed as fact against Kim is also false propaganda.

President Trump made North Korea sound like a complete economic basket case. However, North Korea's economy has actually been doing much better in recent years. That scares the capitalists, who always seek to crush all non-capitalistic systems and then claim those systems never worked (more on that below).

Turning to Syria, Assad is not a dictator. He was elected and is more than willing to stand for election again in a free, fair, open, fully monitored election. It's up to the Syrian people whom they want as their democratic leader, not the United States so-called "intelligence community."

In addition, Nobody has ever proved the Syrian military or government used chemical weapons. In fact, the allegations have been roundly debunked. Even James Clapper under Barack Obama told then President Obama that it was not a "slam dunk" that Assad used such weapons. It's the main reason President Obama did the chemical-weapons deal rather than attacking Syria under a "red line" pretext.

Furthermore, Assad turned out to be completely right that Al Qaeda and IS types were simply waiting in the wings ready to swoop in on the tailcoats of the "moderate rebels" with plenty of help from Wahhabists and others in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. IS beheads people and turns little girls into sex slaves. Who in his or her right mind thinks Assad is not actually a bulwark against that sort of thing? Who thinks the Syrians were ready to immediately transition into a Western-style democracy (whatever that really is) while being able to hold back the IS types?

The same applies to Iran. When Obama became President, it was still largely being stated that Iran "has a nuclear-weapons program." Many people, myself included, demanded any hard evidence of such. Absolutely none was ever forthcoming, and Obama and the others finally were literally forced to start using the term "alleged." That was the main reason for the nuclear deal with Iran. Iran didn't have a nuclear-weapons program, and it still made a deal to limit itself concerning nuclear energy and development. However, because people such as President Trump don't understand Iran's real position on Israel, he, Trump, calls the deal "bad."

Iran is for what the Palestinian people want. Iran is perfectly willing to accept an Israeli-Palestinian vote concerning two states or one and the right of return, etc. Iran does not seek to dictate to the Palestinians or Israelis. It just doesn't want an Apartheid Israel lording it over the Palestinians, which I don't either.

Iran isn't doing what the US tells it to do, but it isn't doing anything that US allies haven't been doing in spades. Just look at what the Saudis have done to Yemen. It's the most under-reported international tragedy and has been for some years now. President Trump has only curbed the Saudis concerning Qatar because Trump doesn't want Qatar and Iran to be at all cozy. He hasn't gone after the Saudis for clear war crimes against the Yemeni people, who have been suffering greatly simply because the Saudis think they have the right to lord it over all neighboring nation-states, save perhaps Israel.

Looking at Venezuela, we see Maduro is routinely termed a dictator. He too was elected (by a process that makes the US election system appear hugely antiquated). The US CIA has undermined the Venezuelan economy via the black market for currency exchange and has been openly supporting fascists in Venezuela. Also, the people are not starving. It's a huge lie repeated over and over Big-Lie-tactic style (which is a neocon specialty).

Venezuela was under a dictatorship propped up by the US. The US did that throughout Central and South America. It did it so US corporations could control the resources, markets, and labor in those nations. The same mentality is behind the attacks on Maduro now.

Maduro's predecessor, Chavez, overthrew the US-backed dictatorship and embarked upon transforming Venezuela slowly into a social-democratic state. It has not yet arrived at that position. It is far from socialist or communist. It's still a mixed economy.

By the way, President Trump ignorantly uses "socialist" and "communist" as if all such must be one-party dictatorships. They don't. If the Soviet Union hadn't been subverted at the barrel of guns in their parliament by the Bolsheviks, the USSR would have been a democratic-socialist endeavor instead. The people would have been able to vote in fraud-free elections for their leaders.

They went from monarchy to one-party dictatorship. They had no real experience with democracy. It matters.

Even Vladimir Putin doesn't really understand the dynamics they went through and are still going through. Even in the US, the people have a difficult time understanding the difference between freedom/liberty and anarchy.

Anarchy is not democracy. It is not freedom. It is ultimately enslaving.

As with Syria, the Venezuelan people have a right to decide without US intervention (well beyond "meddling" alleged by the US concerning Russia in the US elections).

If the US were to have kept out, then the poor of Venezuela would have benefited much, much more and the nation's economy would be doing vastly better right now even in the face of crashed oil prices that slashed the nation's profit margin because its oil is so incredibly expensive to refine, being heavy and quite sulphuric.

Socialism works quite well when it isn't under attack. The NHS in the UK still works better than the US's capitalistic medical system by far even though the NHS has been severely and deliberately undermined by the Tories in the UK. That's just one example among many throughout the world. Does President Trump really think the socialistic interstate-highway system built under President Eisenhower should all be private toll roads because those freeways don't work? They work and work well as freeways.

Think about it. The US didn't place sanctions on Cuba because Cuba was dictatorial and anti-democratic. It did so because Cuba wasn't privatized. The US hasn't been about promoting real democracy anywhere, ever! It's always been about opening and controlling the economies of other nations. The US government has typically not given a damn about democracy but rather been completely against it unless totally controlled (meaning fake "democracy") by US-controlled private elitists.

How well do you think the Cuban economy would have been doing all these decades had the US not placed one economic sanction on Cuba? Cuba has been deliberately held back not because socialism doesn't work but because it does.

Let me state emphatically that any nation practicing true democratic socialism, if left to compete internationally against any other form of government (no economic sanctions or military or other attacks), will do better than any mixed economy and certainly better than any anarcho-capitalist country.

By the way, President Trump didn't even mention the Palestinians. There's plenty else he didn't mention, but he's an Anthropogenic Global Warming denier too.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.