Biblical and Constitutional Politics
Validating My Politics Website
(The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and Illegal Immigration)
By Gary F. Zeolla
Several events that happened in June 2018 validated various statements and predictions I have made on my Biblical and Constitutional Politics website. In this two-part article, I will overview these events and validations, to show that readers of this website are receiving accurate commentary, not the fake news that is so common today.
In my article Democrat and Media Lies About the Republican Tax Plan, I state that the Republican tax plan which President Trump signed into law would be a boon for the US economy. Specifically, I state, “The point is, tax rates most definitely affect the economy, and when the economy is doing good, all people benefit in the form of having jobs, higher wages, and lower prices.”
The first point about wages has proven to be the case. We now have unemployment rates below 4%. In fact, for the first time in US history, the number of available jobs exceeds the number of people looking for work. Specifically, “U.S. job openings rose to 6.7 million at the end of April , compared with the 6.3 million Americans who were unemployed” (WSJ). That is truly astonishing.
Moreover, all sectors of the US population are benefiting, with African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates at the lowest levels ever recorded:
Nine years into an economic recovery and 15 months into the Trump administration, the U.S. economy continues to expand and add jobs.
The unemployment rate is now 3.9 percent for all Americans, the lowest level since 2000, while the jobless rate for black workers is 6.6 percent, the lowest figure since record-keeping began in the early 1970s. Yes, record-low joblessness for the black population, and for Latinos, a 4.8 percent rate that ties their record low. Both still are higher than the 3.6 percent rate for whites.
There’s much to lament in the inequality of opportunity for African-Americans in particular. Yet there is also clear evidence that the longer this era of economic expansion continues, the greater number of people benefit (Chicago).
Also just as I predicted and contrary to some media reports, we are experiencing a moderate growth of wages in the US, “Wages in the United States increased 4.56 percent in April of 2018 over the same month in the previous year” (Trading; Wages). “In addition, the tightening labor market is expected to start generating significant wage inflation in the second half of the year. As such, many economists believe the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates three more times this year” (Reuters).
Thus, wages are increasing, and this is expected to not just continue but be even more robust as the year progresses. Unfortunately, that will lead the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates.
It should be noted, the Fed kept interest rates at or near zero throughout the Obama presidency. That was to bolster the economy and to keep prices (inflation) low. If the Fed had kept interest rates at more reasonable levels, the Obama economy would have been even poorer than it was. See my article Obama’s Legacy for more in this regard.
But here, the important point is, after keeping interests rate at such a ridiculously low levels to bolster Obama and his poor economy, the Fed now feels free to raise interest rates to more reasonably levels given the robust economy under Trump. But that will have the effect of causing inflation. In fact, due to the interest rates already being raised, we are already seeing an increase in inflation.
Buoyed by a strengthening economy and increased confidence that the Federal Reserve will reach its inflation target in the near future, central bank policymakers suggested the path of future rate hikes could be “slightly steeper” over the next few years than previously thought, according to minutes of their March meeting released on Wednesday (Money).
The inflation rate in the US increased to 2.8 percent in May of 2018 from 2.5 percent in April, beating market forecasts of 2.7 percent. It is the highest inflation rate since February of 2012. On a monthly basis, consumer prices edged up 0.2 percent, the same as in April and in line with expectations. Gasoline and shelter made the largest upward contributions. Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.27 percent from 1914 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 23.70 percent in June of 1920 and a record low of -15.80 percent in June of 1921 (Trading; Inflation)
What this means is, I might be wrong in my prediction of “lower prices.” But the inflation rate is still lower than average. And what inflation there is is not due to Trump’s policies but the Fed’s reaction to his policies. And that reaction is because the economy is so much more robust now than it ever was under Obama.
Moreover, with wage growth at 4.56% and inflation at 2.8%, the average American is better off financially by 1.76 percentage points. That translates into a higher standard of living for most everyone. And if you are one of the 3.4 million people who found a job since Trump was elected, then you are much better off than you were a year and half ago.
That last statistic comes from Trump’s campaign rally in Duluth, MN on June 20th. He reiterated the same stat in his rallies in North Carolina and North Dakota the next week. But if you were watching CNN or MSNBC, you didn’t hear that, as those networks never carry his rallies. As I said before on this website, those fake news media outlets do not want to let Trump speak for himself, as when he does, he contradicts all of their fake new reporting. But Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network always carries his rallies, as they have nothing to hide.
And Fox News Channel’s practice is more prosperous, as 3.5 million people watched its coverage of the Duluth rally, while only 1.1 million people were watching CNN. CNN’s ratings are so low that the Food Network is now beating them (Hannity). Given that disparity and those low ratings, you would think CNN would get the message that its practice is not practical, but it is too set in its anti-Trump ways to realized it is killing itself with its bias reporting.
Finally, and back to the economy, due to the tax cuts, I state, “revenues to the federal govern will increase, not decrease, and if anything, this tax law will decrease the national deficit and debt, that is, if Congress can resist the temptation to increase spending.” That was proven true when April 2018 saw the greatest US budget surplus ever.
The Congressional Budget Office is reporting that the federal government took in $515 billion in April. With outlays of only $218 billion, the $190-billion surplus represents the largest in history. What’s more, the CBO said the surplus is $40 billion more than expected (American; CBO).
The long-awaited report by the Inspector General (IG) was released on June 14, 2018. It upheld many of the points and contradicted none that I made in my two-part article Chronology of Corruption in the US Government and Unjustified Attacks Against President Trump. There was in fact much corruption in the FBI’s handing of the Clinton email probe and in the instigation of a Special Counsel to investigate supposed Trump/ Russian collusion, just as I document in that two-part article.
There were six main FBI personal involved in this corruption: former FBI Director James Comey, FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and three additional FBI agents, who are referred to as Agents #1, #2, and #3 in the report.
The only point in my lengthy numbered list that might seem to have been contradicted is Point 39 in Part Two: “All of this collusion between the media, Democrats, many in the FBI and DoJ, and other Obama holdovers still working in the US government is due to all of them not being able to accept the fact that Trump won the election and due to their hatred for him.”
The reason this might seem to have been contradicted is the media has been misrepresenting the IG report as reporting there was no bias in the FBI’s handling of these cases. For instance, CBS News claims, “the report found that political bias did not affect the investigation and it gave support to the decision not to prosecute Clinton.” But that is not what the IG report says. What it actually says is the following:
However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual (OIG).
Note the words “documentary or testimonial evidence.” That means the IG did not find a specific document, meaning a text message, email, letter, or other written statement, in which Comey, Strzok, Page, or the other three agents specifically say they rigged the investigation into Hillary’s emails or that they instigated a Special Counsel to investigate Trump due to wanting Hilary to be elected and Trump to lose. However, there was much evidence of bias for Hillary and against Trump. This was seen in a previously unreleased text message between Strzok and Page. It reads as follows:
PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
STRZOK: “No. No he won't. We'll stop it.” (CNN).
This was not the only such comment by these two in the report, but it is the most glaring in showing bias. And due to such statements, it is clear to any unbiased reader that there was in fact bias in the investigation into the Hillary email scandal and into supposed Trump/ Russian collusion.
It must be remembered that if in fact Hillary had been indicted, that would have ensured Trump would win the election. As such, for Page and Strzok to “stop” him would require Hillary not to be indicted. To say that bias did not affect Points 23 and 24 in my article is quite absurd. Those are:
23. In his initial draft, Comey writes that Hillary was “grossly negligent” in her handling of classified materials. With the aid of FBI Agent Peter Strzok, that is later changed to “extremely careless.”
24. The reason for the change is the former is the wording of the statute and would require Hillary to be charged with a felony, but by the change, Comey could chide Hillary without having to charge her.
Moreover, the Strzok and Page lovebirds also said they had an “insurance policy” just in case Trump won. That “insurance policy” was most likely the Trump/ Russian collusion investigation that they thought would lead to Trump being removed from office.
We’ll also see what Strzok and Page were texting to each other a month after the 2016 election, when the two anti-Trump / pro-Hillary FBI employees would still likely be fuming from Hillary’s loss. Perhaps the texts will even shed light on the August, 2016 comment from Strzok to Page about an “insurance policy” - which has been widely interpreted to mean that the FBI had a contingency plan in place to smear Trump using the Russia investigation in case he won. The texts were later explained by the WSJ - citing “individuals familiar with the matter,” to mean that Strzok simply thought the FBI needed to pursue the Russia claims more vigorously (Zero).
The media can try to downplay all of this, but it is clear bias did in fact have a factor in both the Hillary and the Trump/ Russian collusion investigations. That is even more obvious when one realizes that both Strzok and Page were on Mueller’s Special Counsel team, along with two of the three unnamed FBI agents mentioned in the report, until all of this bias came out. As such, I am correct in saying the whole idea of Trump/ Russian collusion is a “hoax” (Points 38,45, and elsewhere on this website).
In addition, Comey is called “insubordinate” in the IG report for his press conference on July 5:
Comey acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership about his plans to make a separate statement because he was concerned that they would instruct him not to do it. He also acknowledged that he made this decision when he first conceived of the idea to do the statement, even as he continued to engage the Department in discussions about the “endgame” for the investigation.
Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions (OIG).
That insubordination in itself is case for firing. There is much additional evidence of Comey’s incompetence in the IG report. As such, I was correct in referring to “the faulty claim of obstruction of justice” in Point 45 of Part Two, as in no way was President Trump “obstructing justice” when he fired Comey. Comey in fact deserved to be fired.
The only question is why Comey was not fired sooner, by Obama, like right after he exonerate Hillary in that press conference. That press conference and his statement that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” was a clear breaking of FBI protocol and a cause for firing. It was in fact, a ridiculous statement:
Having briefed my findings, conclusions, and recommendations to senior leaders, I found FBI director Comey’s conclusion statement to be simply bizarre. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” This statement defies logic and the available information in the public domain. There should have been sufficient evidence for any prosecutor to charge Hillary Clinton on violating a number of statutes (American; No.).
Consequently, that two-part correctly articulates
corruption in the FBI. But note, many of the points in that two-part article
were not covered by this IG report. But there are two more IG reports
forthcoming, and Congressional hearings are ongoing, and those will assuredly
verify many more of the points.
Recent SCOTUS Rulings on Freedom
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has been releasing rulings from its most recent session. And those rulings all confirm one of the main reasons I decided to vote for Donald Trump, as detailed in my article Vote for Third Party or Trump?
That article was written back in the fall of 2016, before this website went online. It details my struggle over voting for Donald Trump due to his crude comments. But I ultimately decided to vote for him for one main reason—the Supreme Court. And these SCOTUS rulings show that I was correct in my thinking back then when I wrote:
I know I said I would vote third party rather than voting for Trump or Clinton, but after much thought and prayer, I voted for Trump. I did so as after the final debate and with the Wikileaks’ releases, there is no doubt in my mind that a Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the USA. That will especially be the case if the Dems take over the Senate. In that case, Hillary will appoint the most radical Supreme Court justices imaginable, and the Senate will approve them. That will open the door to the erosion of the Constitution.
I can easily foresee Hillary using executive orders to erode freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and States’ rights. IOW, the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments will be gutted.
Just as I had hoped, as soon as Trump took office, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Scalia’s seat on the bench. Though I had misgivings about the manner in which he was confirmed, I was very glad that he was, as I write in my article Gorsuch and Syria: Two Events with Far-Reaching Ramifications:
It is assumed Justice Gorsuch will vote with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. If he does, that will mean there will be many 5-4 right-leaning votes in the near future. But that is not guaranteed. There have been many appointees to the court who were thought to be right-leaning who ended up voting mostly liberal.
But thank God Justice Gorsuch is in fact voting with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. And with him doing so, just as I predicted, three very important 5-4 right-leaning votes were just handed down by the Supreme Court.
The first ruling came down on June 26, 2018 and relates back to my concern about freedom of speech and of religion being restricted if Hillary had been elected. In the case, a California law requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to post information about abortions was struck down as being unconstitutional on a First Amendment basis. The court’s reasoning was that the First Amendment protects against being forced to make speech you disagree with just as much as it protects your right to speak what you believe.
The next case came down the next day and concerned if non-union members could be required to pay fees to labor unions. The Supreme Court had ruled back in 1977 that they did have to do so. The reasoning back then was that non-union members benefited from the unions due to collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the unions.
But since that time, unions have become major contributors to political campaigns and issues, with those donations almost always going to Democratic candidates and supporting liberal policies. Conservatives objected that they were being forced to support political candidates and causes that they were opposed to. The court ruled that this was an infringement of their First Amendment rights.
Conservatives on the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was unconstitutional to allow public employee unions to require collective-bargaining fees from workers who choose not to join the union, a major blow for the U.S. labor movement.
The court, in a 5-to-4 decision, overturned a 40-year-old precedent, arguing that the rule could require workers to give financial support to public policy positions they oppose (Washington Post).
The fact that this ruling overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling is significant for reasons that will be explained in Part Two. But here, this ruling will severely hamper labor unions’ left-leaning political activities, but it is a boon for free speech, or more correctly, to not being forced to support something you do not support.
This is similar to the ruling that came down on June 4, 2018 that said a Christian baker could not be required to design a cake for a homosexual wedding.
In the biggest religious liberty case of the year, the US Supreme Court sided 7–2 against a state commission that unfairly singled out a Christian baker who declined to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The high court ruled that state penalties levied against Jack Phillips, the Colorado business owner at the center of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion since the regulations were not applied neutrally.
While the court clearly came down in Phillips’s favor, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged in the court’s opinion that similar cases (like those that have come up involving photographers and florists, as well as pizza shops and a range of other businesses) may be adjudicated differently (Christianity Today).
As indicated, this was a 7-2 decision, not 5-4 like the previous two, so if Hillary had been elected and had nominated and got confirmed a liberal Justice, this decision probably would not have gone differently, but then maybe it would have been different. Remember, the justices deliberate for a reason, so that each can try to convince the others that their position is correct. Maybe Hillary would have nominated a justice whose arguments were so forceful that it would have changed the other justices’ minds.
Moreover, note that Justice Kennedy specifically said this ruling does not mean the Court will rule similarly in similar cases. The reason is, the issue here for the Justices was the injustice Phillips had received at the hands of the Colorado court. He had been chastised for his religious views, and that chastisement of religion by the government is clearly unconstitutional. But the issue of if a person can be forced to create art for a view he or she disagrees with was not settled. In fact, the Christian florist case was not ruled on but sent back down to the lower court for further review. But it could very well come before the Supreme Court again.
But still, these rulings can be summed up in one word: Freedom. The Court has upheld freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And it was a fear of an erosion of those rights under a Hillary presidency that led me to vote for Trump.
This article is continued at Validating My Politics Website (The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and the Border) – Part Two.
See end of Part Two.
Validating My Politics Website (The Economy, Government Corruption, SCOTUS, and Illegal Immigration) - Part One. Copyright © 2018 by Gary F. Zeolla.
The above article was posted on this website June 29, 2018.
Articles 2018 Articles
Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information
Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics