Monthly Archives: June 2017

This post is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent The Good Men Project.

I would just say that of course there needs to be a degree of independence between [the Department of Justice], FBI, and the White House and a line of communications established. The presidents new at this. Hes new to government, and so he probably wasnt steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, FBI, and White Houses. Hes just new to this.

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, stated this at a press conference in defense of President Donald Trumps hope that former FBI Director, James Comey, would suspend investigating fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, for possibly negotiating or colluding with the Russians prior to Trumps taking office.

Though all new presidents face a learning curve when moving into the Oval Office, Donald Trump knows virtually nothing about the functions and running of the federal government, and he seemingly lacks any desire to learn. He should have at least taken Gold Star father, Khizr Khans, impassionedoffer at the Democratic National Convention last summer to borrow his copy of the U.S. Constitution to understand the very basics of the job.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Having a very steep learning curve in understanding the selling of merchandise in a department store is one thing, but just [being] new to this in arguably the most powerful and impactful office on the planet is quite another.

I expect the surgeon who operates on my cataracts, and similarly, the president of my country to have a superior degree of competence, show a high standard of care, and continually update their knowledge base as additional information comes forward. Anything less places people at risk for severe injury and sets up the conditions for malpractice.

Paul Ryans attempted excuse for Trump this week, and, more generally in his spineless refusal to speak out against this presidents abusive and morally bankrupt antics in word and action begs the question: Why does Ryan support a president who he previously had serious doubts about during the primaries regarding Trumps temperament and ability to lead?

Both men agree on one primary assumption attributed to Thomas Jefferson: That government is best which governs least. Trump and Ryan (Tryan), however, take this to the extreme.

Tryans agenda centers on a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, including such tenets as reducing the size of the national government and granting more control to state and local governments; severely reducing or ending governmental regulations over the private sector; privatization of governmental services, industries, and institutions including education, health care, and social welfare; permanent incorporation of across-the-board non-progressive marginal federal and state tax rates; and possibly most importantly, market driven and unfettered free market economics.

One need simply look at Tryans attempts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act; to severely curtail environmental regulations on industry and, for example, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed to reduce the chances in the banking sector of repeating the disastrous policies leading to the last economic recession; to push for the privatization of social institutions such as education with the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the Department of Education; to pass a draconian so-called tax reform plan and a national budget that places billions more dollars into the pockets of the rich and super rich, while imposing increasingly greater hardships on the remainder of our people by taking away many of the safety nets and programs needed by deserving U.S.-Americans and countries in the form of aid.

Trump most certainly does not understand, while Ryan was weaned on the philosophy of objectivism (or rational individualism in which proponents assert there are objective standards of truth) articulated by Ayn Rand in her novels and non-fiction works.

Ayn Rand, who has become the intellectual center for the economic/political/social philosophy of Libertarianism, constructs a bifurcated world of one-dimensional characters in her novels. On one side, she presents the noble, rational, intelligent, creative, inventive, self-reliant heroes of industry, music and the arts, science, commerce, and banking who wage a noble battle for dignity, integrity, personal, and economic freedom, and for the profits of their labors within an unregulated free market Capitalist system.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface

On the other side, she portrays the looters represented by the followers, the led, the irrational, unintelligent, misguided, misinformed, the corrupt government bureaucrats who regulate and manipulate the economy to justify nationalizing the means of economic production, who confiscate personal property, who dole out welfare to the unentitled, the lazy, and in so doing, destroy personal incentive and motivation resulting in dependency. Welfare Ayn Rand terms unearned rewards, while she argues for a system of laissez-faire Capitalism separating economics and state.

Ayn Rand bristles against the notion of collectivism, of shared sacrifice and shared rewards. Rather, she argues that individuals are not and should not be their brothers and sisters keepers; that one must only do unto oneself; that one must walk only in ones own shoes and not attempt to know the other by metaphorically walking in anothers shoes; that personal happiness is paramount; and that ones greatest good is what is good for oneself rather than for the greatest number of people.

In other words, Ayn Rand paints a world in which the evil and misguided takers wage war against the noble and heroic makers.

Paul Ryan blamed men in the inner city on their real culture problem for their higher rates of unemployment during his appearance March 12, 2014 on Bill Bennetts Morning in America program:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Earlier, Ryan spoke in 2012 that:

Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. So were going to a majority of takers versus makers in America and that will be tough to come back from that. Theyll be dependent on the government for their livelihoods [rather] than themselves.

Ryan, who demanded personal family time as a major condition for taking over the House Speakership, consistently opposes legislation that would extend paid family leave benefits for new parents. For example, in 2009, he voted against the proposed Federal Employees Paid Parental Act.

Paul Ryan claimed that he read Ayn Rand growing up, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are, he told members of the Atlas Society, an organization devoted to Any Rand in a 2005 speech.

The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. He went on to say, And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.

The so-called Libertarian battle cry of liberty and freedom through personal responsibility sounds wonderful on the surface, but we must ask ourselves as individuals and as a nation, what do they really mean by and what are the costs of this alleged liberty and freedom?

We must, first, cut through the coded xenophobic, racialized, and classist language, for often when politicians use the words poor, welfare, inner city, food stamps, entitlements, bad neighborhoods, foreign, culture of poverty, they tap into many white peoples anxieties and past racist teachings of people of color.

Ayn Rand and by extension, Tryan would rather blame poverty within our communities and low achievement in our schools on the cultures of those suffering from the social inequities. This cultural deficit model detracts and undermines us from interrogating and truly addressing the enormousstructural inequities pervasive throughout our society, which these Libertarians would have us multiply if we were to follow their lead.

So-called social issues become wedge issues to attract people to a particular candidate. In the final analysis, though, when middle and working class people vote for these candidates, they essentially vote against their own economic self-interests.

Ragnar Danneskjld, Ayn Rands so-called moral crusading pirate and symbol for justice in Atlas Shrugged, quite tellingly expresses Ayn Rands true purpose when she puts these words in the pirates mouth:

Ive chosen a special mission of my own. Im after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of mens minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.

Hank Rearden, one of Ayn Rands righteous industrialists asks: What man.

Danneskjld replies:

Robin Hood.He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, Im the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Read this article:

Trump & Ryan's (Tryan's) Co-Conspiracy in Moral Bankruptcy - The Good Men Project (blog)

People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, Im not a crook. So said President Nixon.

What about President Trump?

Crook is a funny word. The armchair Nietzscheans out there will be warmed by the knowledge that crook over the years has described both a bishops crozier and an instrument of deceit crook meant trick in Middle English, but that noun sense of the word did not quite survive into modern English except for in the expression by hook or by crook, the first recorded use of which is found in a John Wycliffe tract from 1380.

The episcopal and criminal applications of crook both are straightforwardly metaphorical, hence the modern English crooked as well as the punchier bent, which has been used both to mean deviant (often as a synonym for homosexual) as well as corrupt: Mickey Spillane, whose literary output since the time of his death has been remarkable, wrote of the danger of a bent cop, two perfectly Spillanean syllables.

(Mickey Spillane was Ayn Rands favorite novelist not named Ayn Rand.)

Nixon seems to have been using crook to mean criminal. His famous Im not a crook declaration came during a controversy involving his personal finances, and the next sentence was: Ive earned everything Ive got. Merriam-Webster defines crook as a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices. If by crook we mean criminal, then President Trump is not that: He has been on the wrong side of the law on a few occasions, but those were civil rather than criminal matters, for instance his payment of a settlement in a federal housing-discrimination lawsuit. We settled the suit with zero with no admission of guilt, Trump insists.

No admission of guilt is not quite Im not a crook, but something closer to Al Gores pleading that no controlling legal authority prevented him from engaging in various questionable fundraising antics. As Charles Krauthammer wrote at the time: Controlling legal authority. Whatever other legacies Al Gore leaves behind between now and retirement, he forever bequeaths this newest weasel word to the lexicon of American political corruption.

The American Heritage dictionary defines crook as one who makes a living by dishonest methods. That sounds a bit more like Trump, who is inordinately proud of his own adventures in apple-stealing, boasting of his buying political favors from the likes of the Clintons: When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. Trump made clear that what he is talking about is quid pro quo political corruption: When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. The real-estate business is heavily regulated, from planning and zoning to labor rules. (That touches another Trump legal misadventure: a dispute over unpaid wages to the illegal immigrants who worked on Trump Tower.) A friendly decision from a local agency can be worth millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. So, is Trump a crook in the American Heritage sense? Yes, by his own description.

The president is ensnared in a mess of nested corruption claims: that he or members of his campaign had improper contact with shady Russians monkeying about with the U.S. presidential election and/or other foreign actors; that he pressured subordinates to show him political favoritism in investigating these claims; that he fired James Comey because the FBI director would not promise him favorable treatment; that these alleged actions constitute obstruction of justice or a similar serious offense.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that all of these claims end up being completely without merit. How should we go about investigating them?

It is impossible to get at that in a meaningful way without considering the unsettling question: What sort of man is the president of these United States? We know he is a habitual liar, one who tells obvious lies for no apparent reason, from claiming to own hotels that he does not own to boasting about having a romantic relationship with Carla Bruni, which never happened. (Trump is obviously a lunatic, Bruni explained.) He invented a series of imaginary friends to lie to the New York press about both his business and sexual careers. He has conducted both his private and public lives with consistent dishonesty and dishonor. He is not a man who can be taken at his word.

Conservatives used to care about that sort of thing: Bill Bennett built a literary empire on virtue, and Peggy Noonan wrote wistfully of a time When Character Was King. But even if we set aside any prissy moral considerations and put a purely Machiavellian eye on the situation, we have to conclude that having a man such as Trump as president and presumptive leader of the Republican party is an enormous problem for conservatives and for the country corporately. Allegations of petty corruption against Donald Trump cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because no mentally functioning and decently informed adult thinks that Donald Trump, of all people, is above that sort of thing. Quid pro quo patronage? Hes proud of it. Dishonesty? He boasts about it in a book published under his name. Question: If a young, attractive, blonde woman employed by the Trump Organization came forward claiming to be having an affair with the president, why wouldnt you believe her? Because Donald Trump isnt that kind of guy? Hes precisely that kind of guy thats the main reason anybody outside of New York ever knew his name in the first place.

Of course it is the case that Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are predisposed to believe the worst about the man. But the fact is that doing so is not obviously wrong or unreasonable. Trump apologists instinctively want to treat Democrats exaggeration and hysteria as contemptible scandal-mongering, but their defenses no hard evidence of collusion with the Putin regime! sound a lot like no controlling legal authority.

The question isnt whether the president is a crook. The question is: What kind of crook is he?

READ MORE: James Comey: Memo Master Donald Trumps Obstruction of Justice Accusations James Comeys Testimony Explained

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

See more here:

Trump's Credibility Problem - National Review

New York Times

How the Dark Web's Dread Pirate Roberts Went Down New York Times He was fond of the same Ayn Rand quotes as other founders: The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me. He had his own version of a consigliere, in the form of Variety Jones. (Ulbricht's ex-girlfriend gets a lot of space ...

See the original post:

How the Dark Web's Dread Pirate Roberts Went Down - New York Times