Trump calls out the big guns at the Mexico-United States border…

A few moments ago, President Donald Trump issued a statement describing his authorization of national guard troops to provide back up for federal customs and border agents along the Mexico-United States border. Mr Trump caused a little confusion on 3 April 2018 during a conference with some Baltic region presidents when he told the press that the Administration was “preparing for the military to to secure our border between Mexico and the United States.” Military was a poor word choice thus the confusion not only in published press reports but on the part of the Mexican government as they considered Mr Trump’s proposal last Tuesday..

Under 18 USC § 1385, no part of the Army or Air Force can be used as a “posse” to execute any U.S. laws. The Department of the Navy has rules that follow Posse Comitatus Act, but I can see a president trying to get around that hole in the law by arguing that the statute does not specifically prohibit the Navy and the Air Force from playing police.

Under 10 USC § 12406, however, the president can “call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute the laws.”

Mexico may not take too kindly to an implication that their citizens are invading the United States, but a significant number of Americans, particularly those living along the southwest border, may believe that. I don’t see the actions of Mexicans attempting to enter the United States without so much as a visa or passport as being aggressive, especially those who get in front of a border agent and are willing to plea their case for some type of amnesty.

What could be looked at as aggression would be a tragic scenario where a guardsman shoots a foreign national. Gunned down by a federal or state law enforcement agent is one matter. Gunned down by a soldier becomes an international nightmare.

 

The Russian attack on democracy was ineffective because they don’t understand democracy.

American democracy is about the creation of a political marketplace where the taxpayer receives certain protective services in exchange for her vote. These services include police services, fire services, transportation services, commercial trade platforms, cultural services, legal and regulatory frameworks, and education services, to name a few. They are delivered by local, state, and federal governments and their costs are recovered by government in the form of property, sales, and income taxes and other fees.

Politicians squabble before, during, and after the election season on how best these services should be delivered, how much the government should pay to deliver them, and how much of the bill the taxpayer should foot for the government’s efforts. Classical liberal, progressive, and conservative philosophies collide during these debates and the clash of perspective is most apparent during election season when more people are paying attention. To secure the majority of voter approval for position and philosophy, politicians engage in the blood sport of electioneering, a blood sport that includes embellishments, character assassinations, and a lot of misinformation.

Reports abound of how a Russian firm, the Internet Research Agency, entered the political fray between 2014 and 2016 and used social media posts, tweets, and blogs to upset the elections. Their activity during an election year would have been business as usual were it not for their status as foreign agents conducting these activities. Whether or not they upset the political markets with their activity will be hard to determine.

For example, will investigators be able to say that the cost of the exchange of the vote for services increased due to Russian interference? I see no data that describes politicians seeking higher taxes for government spending as a result of any information provided by Russian trolls.

Did any information introduced into the political markets by the Internet Research Agency cause voters to leave the market? I have heard one argument that black voter participation fell because of Russian disinformation about Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has drawn the ire of some blacks as a result of her description of black teenagers as “predators” and her Clinton Foundation taking financial advantage of earthquake relief efforts in Haiti. It is questionable whether any additional misinformation by the Russians could have created any further negative view of Mrs Clinton by blacks. She may have done enough on her own.

American democracy bases societal cohesion on the vote, the ability of the masses to elect its leaders. Leaders promise, as I laid out before, protective services. But what would happen to the democratically-based cohesion if the dependence of Americans on protective services were drastically reduced or eliminated? What if more Americans had 3-D printers and could manufacture their own tools or furniture? What if more Americans grew their own vegetables in their own apartments? What if more Americans were able to take advantage of devices that use unlicensed spectrum in order to form their own local communications networks and reduce their communications expenses? What if more Americans used solar or wind to energize their homes? What if engineers could design apartment buildings such that each unit could take advantage of solar energy?

A true attack on American democracy would be a demonstration of how to live independent of the political elites that thrive on the electorate’s unwillingness to be or ignorance of independence. Whether a democracy or an authoritarian regime, nation-states are about centralizing power. When they attack each other, destroying the core is all that is needed for the knockout punch. Given the Russian Federation’s history of allowing true freedom, an attack on democracy based on independent sovereignty would be thinking way outside the box.

No, American democracy was never really attacked by the Russians. It simply got poked by a player who didn’t have the legal credentials to enter the ring.

 

MLK Day 2018 and Europeans still wouldn’t trade places with you

Ask the average European or a modern day descendant of Europeans if they would trade places with a person of African descent, the answer would be no. At that point the person of African descent would have a decision to make. I can continue with the kumbaya of appeasement or I can use today’s technology and the loopholes in law to vacate, to go my own way, to be sovereign.
 
Mr Trump’s alleged comments (alleged because none of you were in the room and the people who said he said it did a poor job of standing up to him, hence cannot be trusted) should signal to people of African descent that it is time to give up the “We shall overcome” mantra when the oligarchs are signaling in no uncertain terms that “You can’t overcome when you were never issued a warm welcome.”
 
And if global support against Mr Trump’s alleged comments is what people of African descent in America are hoping will swoop in and save them like Jesus, those hopes are best put aside because, and probably due to a persistent disconnect with global affairs, the globe really does not look at us with any high favor either.
 
One would think that on a day that blacks celebrate the birth of a man that preached about freedom, that freedom from a failed narrative that has served to only imprison blacks in a continuous cycle of delusion regarding justice would be their goal.
 
As usual, I expect too much ….