Archive | DOUG SMITH RSS feed for this section

Doug Smith: The Perfect Man

12 Oct

Modern progressive obsession or liberal mob oppression?

 

doug and mark 1

Doug Smith is an historian and associate editor at Free State Patriot

10.12.2018


 

Brave soul, ’twere well if all the same would say,
And artists aim their patron’s wish t’obey.
What signifies a wart, or e’en a scar?
Leave both, skilled hand, and paint us as we are.
The crowfeet paint, the wrinkles on the brow,
The hollow cheek, the form inclined to bow,
The tear-dim’d eye, the hair well streaked with gray,
The hardened hand, begrim’d with soot and clay,
And if you use the seer’s revealing glass,
Remember this, ‘
All flesh is as the grass.’

Joseph Horatio Chant

 

Winston Churchill once got into an angry argument with his butler, and they exchanged some heated words. Later, they had this exchange:

WC: “You should apologize, you were rude to me.”

Butler: “You were rude to me first.”

WC: “Yes, but I am a great man.”

I think that nicely sums up the dichotomy that was Sir Winston Churchill. Students of history, whether they admire him, as I do, or detest him, can easily agree on two salient points.

winston-churchill-9248164-1-402

Winston Churchill

WC was a man of many parts, some of them shocking to the sensibilities of people who did not come to maturity during the reign of Queen Victoria, and begin a political career the very year of the start of the Edwardian era. He was a man of his times and his class, which is to say his attitudes on Empire may shock modern sensibilities. FDR said of Churchill, He is not a Victorian, he is The Victorian. He grated on peers of his own time as well. He was not, in short, a collegial gent with whom you might enjoy sharing his evening cognac and cigar. He was eccentric, opinionated, a man of the 19th Century British Empire making his way in the most turbulent part of the 20th.

He was also a brilliant man, courageous and astute, and the singular indispensable man of 1930s England. He once said, “History will treat us well, for I intend to write it. “ And so he did, winning the Nobel Prize in Literature. As much as it is true that absent George Washington, it is doubtful that American in her current form would exist, it is utterly certain that, absent Winston Churchill, England would have been defeated by Hitler, and the face of the 20th century world would have been very different indeed.

So I find it curious that the modern progressive leftists insist on wart-less heroes. One wonders if they have a mirror. In their quest, like some out of place, frustrated Diogenes, for the “perfect man”, no doubt to people their “perfect Utopia”, they readily toss out the memory, or the actuality, of truly great men. They are, like the lefties, and me, and, forgive me, but you as well, alloyed and flawed. But it is sometimes the case that flawed men can do exemplary things.

Progressives, who are the latest iteration of the Utopians, whose sordid, foolish, and bloody history stretches back into antiquity with the Spartans, Plato, and perhaps even the Tower of Babel, are like warped versions of Diogenes, searching the world in a futile quest for an honest man. But instead, they waste their lives, much of their energy, and as always, much that is good in the world, seeking perfection. Their idea of a perfect society, is (of course!) one in which the “best and the brightest” (always beware that term), by which they mean (of course!) themselves, will make all the decisions for the less enlightened Plebes, ( the rest of us) and usher in the Age of Aquarius, or Enlightenment, in short, Utopia. (It is worth noting that the so called Age of Enlightenment in fact coincided with the French Revolution, the Jacobins, and the Terror: mob rule which murdered 16,000 people, and brought about not a Utopia, but Napoleon and decades of war.) Despite the noble sounding words, the Utopians/progressives always bring about the result of misery, starvation, terror, and oppression. They do it with the highest of “intentions”, the ends justifying the most brutal and horrible means, but their reality Is the means. There are never “ends”. The Soviet Utopians, under Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev, had control of the Russian empire for 70 years and ruled with brutality, causing some 100 million deaths, until they finally collapsed of their own weight. There was never the promised Utopia, nor was there ever going to be.

I reflected after the latest progressive mob spasm over an astronaut quoting from Winston Churchill, a truly great man, one of the greatest of the 20th century, (choke on that, snowflakes), because they disagree with some of his positions. In the progressives’ search for the perfect man, who they will never find (well, they could of course, but they would not want to look where He lived.), great achievement means nothing. Sharing their current sensibilities and beliefs is everything. This explains a great deal about the modern leftist, and why he inevitably fails. The Left celebrates correct thought (as did Stalin and Pol Pot) far above effective action. Thus Bill Clinton can say, with a hint of weeping in his voice, “I never worked so hard on anything in my life” about a failed attempt at legislation, and be celebrated. Jimmy Carter can drive the country into the doldrums that are the late 70s, and swing a hammer or give some speeches, and be thought of as a good man.

Thomas Jefferson penned the documents that began a new and unique nation and people in an 18th Century world; one that would forever change the face of the world moving forward, yet be sneered at by the Left for being a man of his times. George Washington, who is properly viewed as the Father of his country, without whom we would never have won the war, and would likely have established a new monarchy and began England all over again, is likewise reviled for being an 18th century aristocrat.

All of these men were men of their times and reflected the beliefs of the age in which they lived, but put their values and beliefs to good use and lead their nations into something better.

This is the distinction the leftist who finds his hair melting that one might quote a gem of wisdom from a man who held Victorian views, but led a successful fight against a brutal tyranny with ambitions to enslave the world. “Perfect” is always the enemy of “Better.”

Winston Churchill was not a perfect man. But he left his world a better place. He is one of my heroes. He may have believed the British Empire ought to continue to rule India, but he ensured that Hitler did not rule everything. He was not the perfect man whom the left seeks, but never finds. But he was a man of accomplishments who stands in stark contrast to the leftist who uses the “correct” terms and expresses the “right” beliefs, but oppresses speech and freedom, and ultimately, builds the Gulags. (If you are too young to know that term, read The Gulag Archipelago.) We have much to learn from imperfect men who accomplished good and thus left their mark on their world.

Unless we waste our lives vainly ignoring them while searching for the elusive “perfect man.”

For the leftist who is serious about finding the perfect man whom they may follow, don’t waste your time reading my words. Instead, try the Gospel of John.

Doug Smith: Is Huntington, WV. headed down the same path as San Francisco?

1 Oct

Reflections and so much more from historian and Free State Patriot associate editor, Doug Smith.


 


DOUG FOR FSP

Doug Smith: Historian and Free State Patriot associate editor

October 1, 2018


 

Although I spent many years away from her, the River City of Huntington, WV is my home town. I spent parts of my boyhood there, but my Father’s moves pulled me far afield and I also grew up in Ohio, Virginia, and California. After High School, I became a Navy sailor, and, as one would expect, saw even more of the world and country. These travels give me a somewhat different perspective on my hometown than those who spend their entire lives hanging their hats on a hook in Huntington.

As a boy, there came the point when I was deemed able to take a bus to downtown on a Saturday to walk around and explore. I can remember (Always!) getting a bag of nuts from the Planter s store, sometimes a BLT from Whites, or a Milkshake at the lunch counter at Kresge Department Store, exploring the stores for Christmas gifts, even enjoying a Disney movie and a box of popcorn.  I loved the smell of the bus fumes (a matter of contention: some did, others despised it. To me, it smelled like Huntington) I remember going with my Dad to watch the Thundering Herd, (or the Blundering Bird, as we called them when they blew it started to lose) play Bowling Green.  There were trees to climb, dirt to dig, pop bottles to collect and sell for pocket money. All in all, it was not such a bad place to be a young boy in the late 50s and early 60s.

In 1977, the US Navy sent me off as a 21-year-old young sailor to Mare Island, California, on the North side of the San Francisco Bay, for a 2-month school. I left my young wife and 18-month-old daughter (who imperfectly understood Daddy’s travels: for her I was on the airplane to California for 9 weeks) in WV and went off to further my education as a Submariner. While I was there, I took advantage of my travels to visit Sacramento, Vallejo, and San Francisco. San Francisco was quite the experience.

I had fresh seafood on Fisherman’s Wharf, saw the Ripley s Believe it or Not Museum, went aboard a replica of The Golden Hind; Sir Frances Drake’s ship, had lunch in Chinatown, and took a cab down Lombard Street, one of the curviest in America. I heard street musicians playing bagpipes, string quartets, jazz Saxophone, you name it. I bought an Aran sweater from an Irish import shop. It was quite a place to visit.

I also saw, somewhat to my surprise, a young man with a long raincoat, with many pockets, strolling along and singing, like street vendors his wares: heroin, cocaine, marijuana. Say What?  I had an inkling then that something was not quite right about San Francisco.

Looking at San Francisco today, they are a city which just committed $ 750,000 a year to cleaning up human feces from the streets from their homeless population. They put out maps of where the poo builds up, so you won’t step in it. A medical convention that had been hosted for years cancelled.

San Francisco is far down the path of decades of extreme progressive rule. They have the sort of mind set that rewards failure, undergirds bad mistakes, and punishes hard work and achievement. And they are a living, or perhaps, dying ongoing experiment proving the premise that what you pay for and encourage, you get more of. So, San Francisco becomes a scofflaw city, welcoming illegal aliens with criminal records, rejecting law enforcement, and achieves notoriety when one of their aliens murders a tourist, and is then acquitted by a jury of San Franciscans.

If you were considering visiting and spending your money in San Francisco after hearing of my adventures in 1977, think again.  San Francisco has chosen to be warm and welcoming to IV drug addicts with free clean needles, violent citizens of other countries, homeless street dwellers, while driving off hard working citizens and businesses with high taxes, over regulation, and the highest cost of a place to live in the country. At the same time, they have looked down their elitist noses at the military, which has a long history in the San Francisco Bay area, cops, and business and condemned them and made them feel unwelcome.

Rudy Giuliani took the approach that what you accept, you get more of and proceeded to instruct the NYPD not to tolerate low level crime such as the “squeegee “guys or broken windows. The result? NY under Rudy became one of the safest big cities in the world, as crime overall took a nose dive.  

And San Francisco? Well, ask Kate Steinle. Wait, you can’t, she was murdered in broad daylight on a busy street in San Francisco. In 2017, SF lost more population (moving, not murdered,) than any other city in the US. 46% of current residents plan to move away. Companies have been bailing in droves. Even the Raiders (from Oakland, just across the Bay Bridge,) are moving the franchise to Las Vegas after this season. (Aside: The Las Vegas Raiders? That conjures all sorts of images.)

Pardon the puny allusion to the Poo Problem, but San Fran is circling the drain.

And as for my erstwhile hometown? If you work there, you get to pay an extra fee each week to the City. If you shoot up there, the City will provide you a nice clean needle, since they are all about the safety of IV drug use. Heaven forbid we let it be dangerous or spread disease. Business does not seem high on the list of Huntington priorities. Huntington manages to lose long time businesses to other locales when the choice in Huntington or virtually anywhere else. Once we could beam with pride seeming a bottle from Owens Illinois, or (if one is a Submariner) seeing a Main Sea Water valve stamped DeLavel, Huntington, WV. Not anymore.  

Can you imagine a parent today letting their 10-year-old repeat my adventures on the bus? No peanut shop for them. Nor would they feel safe to wander the streets of Huntington. Nor do businesses feel safe or welcome, in their revenues or hiring employees nor in the safety of their facilities.

Now, how much of this is a result of the liberal, grasping policies of Huntington political leadership?  I’ll leave that as a thought exercise for the residents of Huntington. Walk down pothole filled streets, past boarded up buildings with desperate “For Sale” signs, consider the ¾ million-dollar poop patrol out scooping up what so far, we still deposit in porcelain and send to a treatment plant in Westmoreland, and pause to wonder: Are we doing the same things? And if we are, how far are we from the “poop patrol” and half the population, the working half, fleeing the old town?

Huntington used to be a heck of a town, not the Big Apple, but not so much wrong with it. Not so much anymore. Maybe it is time to alter course.

 

Doug Smith: Some Advice to Progressives and the Younger Generations

16 Sep

doug 2

Doug Smith is an historian and Free State Patriot associate editor

September 9, 2018


 

 

As a Conservative, I adhere to the principle that nothing is free:  TANSTAAFL (There aint no such thing as a free lunch). But I am aware that everybody loves a bargain, and lots of people want free stuff.  Having stated my principle regarding “free stuff” in advance by way of fair warning, here is some “free advice and wisdom. Do with it as you will. May it serve you better than your degree in Pre-Columbian-Art from Columbia and your $ 150,000 student loan debt.

  1. You are not always right. Neither are you always wrong. No one gets it right every time, nor do they get it wrong every time.  Will Rogers perhaps said it best: “There was never a horse that couldn’t be rode, and never a rider that couldn’t be throwed.”  A mature, adult human will make peace with these facts and learn a truth from them. Check your assumptions.
  2. Know why you believe what you believe. Be able to defend your articles of faith. Apologetics, from the Greek Apologia, means to make a defense. Arguing your beliefs based on “Mom said so” stops working when you are about 10. Basing it on, “Well you’re mean and ugly and your Mommy dresses you funny” stops at about 5. Challenge your beliefs. If they are true, if they are valid, when you question them, when you question the reasons that you believe them, you will finally come to rock solid evidence of a few basic things you can unshakable believe. This practice will serve you well.  If you can challenge and then defend your own beliefs, you need never fear when they are challenged by others. If you cannot, then you may have built a system of belief with no solid foundation. Truth is not the same as opinion. If someone tells you the truth, be it an author, boss, professor, preacher and you challenge it, dig back to its roots and discover why it is true, it will still be true. This is what we used to call “Education.”
  3. People will disagree with you. That is ok. Hearing ideas you don’t know or believe will hardly kill you, or even hurt you. It may stretch your mind. But (See 1, and 2, above) people who disagree with you are not always wrong, and they are not always right. Know why you believe what you believe and disagree. Debate your position. You may learn something. They may learn something. The moment you refuse to hear any position or opinion other than your own it the moment when you stop learning. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not. Bullheadedness is very resistant to treatment. If you try to be protected from hearing speech with which you disagree, you lose the chance to apply principles 1 and 2 and challenge not only yourself, but the one with whom you disagree, to defend their position. If you disagree, and they are wrong, 2 will prove it. If they are right, or a little bit right, 1 will help you learn.
  4. There ARE NO safe spaces. That is an absurd concept. As a growing child, you wanted to get away from Mom and Dad, who wanted to keep you in a safe space, so you could live a more dangerous life. We try to keep children safe enough not to die, but they will climb trees, fall out of them, break bones, skin knees, and live a dangerous life. Life IS dangerous. It WILL eventually kill you. But you are going to have to experience things that might hurt you and learn to survive them, ideas you don’t like and learn to deal with them, or debate them, or reject them, relationships that are challenging, all the parts of being a functional adult. I don’t like snakes. So, I could have stayed in a bubble where I was never around one, protected by my parents. Except: my mother is dead. My Father is 82. I am old enough for Social Security. And there are snakes in the world. I learned to deal with snakes. Don’t reach under a wood pile without lifting it from a distance. Watch where you step in the woods. I did not sit in a safe space from the age of 8 till now to avoid snakes. I learned to deal with a danger in the world in which I lived. So, when it comes to snakes, I am a safe Person, not a person who lives in a safe space. I am also a dangerous person. I ll blow that snake in half and not blink an eye. But I won’t kick a dog or a kid. Be an adult. Be safe when safety is called for, dangerous when danger is called for. Safe spaces? No one lives there. You live in the world. Grow up. Deal with it.
  5. I don’t give a fig about your self-esteem. Neither does anyone else, despite what they told you in schools. I don’t want you to feel good about yourself just for existing. If you are my child, I love you because of who you are, and you are unique and important to me. But to feel good about yourself, DO something. You all have someone who loves you and to whom you are important. I ran track in Jr High School. I sucked. I was not built to be a runner. I got no trophies for participating. My self-esteem was not tied to that. I was a fair musician, and a decent writer, and a great sailor. I feel good about those things. I esteem myself for those accomplishments. You want to feel good about yourself? DO SOMETHING. Get a job. Pay your bills, feel good about doing what you can with your abilities.  If you have high self-esteem and do nothing, you are going to portray a self-importance that will irritate people. DO something.
  6. Let us explore a bit the concept of TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Bars used to advertise “Free Lunch.” It was, of course, a lie. Yes, you could come in and drink their beer, and eat a sandwich they had thoughtfully provided. And in doing so, pay more for your beer than you would in a place with no “free” lunch. Guess who bought your lunch? You did. TANSTAAFL.  Some hotel chains provide a (bad) “free” breakfast. Can you figure it out? For the feeble breakfast, or in fairness, sometimes a good breakfast, you are paying more for the room than you would otherwise, or than you would in another hotel down the road. Because? There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Painted across a broader canvass, when your employer provides you with “free” healthcare and gym memberships, they are doing so by paying you less than they would otherwise. And when government offers free stuff, like healthcare, housing, food, needles, education, the list goes on and on endlessly, the principle still applies. And even more so, because government has no money. That bears repeating. Government has no money. How can that be you say, since they have a trillion-dollar budget? Government, has no money, so the money they spend, or promise to spend, must come from somewhere else. Anyone? Bueller? If you have a job, like I do, look at your pay stub. See how much you grossed? See how much was taken out before you got to touch it?  And that, children, is how the government gives free stuff. Not free, because somebody had to work and produce the money to buy that sumptuous lunch. There really is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost.
  7. The way to get more is to become worth more. Don’t expect to get more for what you do just by continuing to breathe. If you are worth minimum wage when you are hired, (often a questionable premise) you will become worth more if you learn to do more, if you show you are reliable to show up, if you become better at your job, if you learn to do more and other jobs.  Sorry to shake up what you have undoubtedly heard from politicians and other people who don’t have to pay you, but you are not entitled to a certain wage. If you can’t afford what you want to make what you make, buckle down, work harder, learn more, don’t make obligations you can’t afford (spouse, children, car payment, 1000-dollar cell phone), and improve your lot. No one owes you a good living. No one owes you a Living, period. The compact under which we live is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, you get to live, and are free to earn your living as you see fit. You are not entitled to eat my food.
  8. Most people don’t care that you can quote French poetry or determine which period in Chinese history produced a vase, of if you have read Das Capital, the Little Red Book, or Upton Sinclair. They care if you smell bad. Take a shower. They care if you keep your word. Don’t make promises you cannot or will not keep. They care if you pay your bills. Pay what you owe. Earn what you expect to receive and expect to receive what you earn. Giving, or receiving charity is a choice. Forced generosity, however grand sounding we make it, is simply theft. Be a good neighbor, whether on a tree lined street, in a tall building, or in a barracks. Be kind, speak gently, be ready to help when you can. It is far easier to deal with the results of living this way.
  9. Despite the social chic that has tried to show otherwise, it is a good thing to love your country and your people, and to defend them. Patriotism is not reflected by despising and finding constant fault with your country. It is in defending and supporting it.  If you are an American, you live in a nation that is wealthier, freer, and more desirable than any nation in the history of the world. She has grown and become steadily better, correcting inequities, and learning from failures, in a way few others have done. If you focus on the 10% that needs improvement, you miss the 90% that is laudable. Note that for all the bluster of the wealthy chic every 4 years, few leave this country. None who lack the resources to live in luxury, insulated from the realities of other countries do so. Many, on the contrary, desperately seek to come here. Reflect on those truths. And find a sense of gratitude. You will find that the vast majority of people who have worked to build the country, who have fought and sacrificed to keep it secure, or who have buried those who did, will honor that sense of gratitude far better than the child throwing a tantrum because his cake is not big enough.
  10. Equality means the game is the same and the rules are the same for everyone. It does not mean we will all get the same.  There is no shame in the guy who pushes a broom down the halls of a hospital, but I expect that the Surgeon who says good morning to him will make more money. A lot more. If you expect otherwise, then hand the scalpel to the janitor and have him remove your appendix. There is no equality of outcome, because people are created equal, and there the similarities cease. We could mandate that Thom Edison will make exactly the same as the push broom operator. But the push broom operator will give us clean floors. Thom gave us light bulbs, recording equipment, movie cameras, electricity in our homes, microphones, fluoroscopic X Ray systems, well, I could go on. I’m ok that Edison made more than the guy who swept out his lab. If we are all to have equal outcomes, then they must, necessarily, be those of the least capable among us. Paying the guy on the broom a million bucks won’t make him produce a light bulb, paying Edison 10 bucks pretty much ensures that he won’t, either.

These are a few truths based on life and observation of the human condition. Life exists in places other than student centers on campuses and coffee shops. Those of us who live out here in the world learn these things by trial and error, often more error. But learn them we do. Come, join us in the adult world. It is not the rainbows and unicorns you may be expecting, but it is not such a bad world. We mange. Grow up and join us.

 

Doug Smith: Progressive Programs Promise Political Zanadu

10 Sep

They simply don’t promote personal responsibility!

doug 2

Doug Smith: Historian and Associate editor at Free State Patriot

September 10, 2018


 

There are some essential elements to every Progressive idea or program. These are worth bearing in mind as you vote for or against Santa Claus at the ballot box.  Senator Marco Rubio s latest proposal on a Paid Family Leave Act, paid for by government, provides an excellent opportunity to review a few of these.

 1)They are progressive.

  In this context, the word means it will creep ever toward the same direction. There is no End to the idea, just ever-increasing demands for more “free stuff” from government, and not coincidentally, more control by government of those getting the freebies.

(As a sub note to the above,)

 2)    There are no freebies. TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

  Progressives are divided into 2 categories on this fact: True believers whose magical thinking makes them certain that Government has unlimited resources, but stingily refuses to share it, and cynical opportunists who understand this quite well, but are willing to use the fiction to further their own power. From its founding, all the way to Barack Obama, who spend more money that he did not have than all 43 POTUS before him combined, the Government “Has. No. Money.” They can only spend money in 3 ways:

 Borrow it. This ultimately costs every taxpayer, because Barack and Mitch and the powers that be in DC are committing YOU, not them, to pay the payments and the interest on their debts. Imagine if you saw your neighbor driving a $ 60,000 SUV, then got a bill in the mail for the payments on his ride, one you were demanded to pay.

 Print it. The Federal Reserve is a whole other article, and a problem in and of itself, but suffice it to say, when the government can print money by fiat, without backing up each bill with gold reserves, “The full faith and credit of the US Government” means, once again, YOU will back them up. So, if you have $ 100, and there are $ 1,000,000,000 dollars in circulation, and the Government (read that FED) decides to print, with no additional wealth to back it, another billion in currency, your 100 overnight becomes a 50. Sound outrageous? Unbelievable?

 Steal it. Seem harsh? By steal it, I mean taxes. Of course, no one comes to your house with a gun and demands 25% of your earnings. However, refuse to pay your taxes and see how long it is before someone with a gun comes to your house to cart you off to jail. Taxation is by force. The government takes from us part of what we earn, the deal being we get to choose, through our representatives in the House how much they may take, and for what they may spend it. Which of course, brings us back to progressive politicians, and the ever-growing programs, which will spend ever greater amounts of the money they tax from you. You are still paying, in every paycheck, for programs that were begun under Franklin Roosevelt.

Which leads us to the 3rd thing worth noting about progressive ideas and programs:

 3) They never ask, let along answer, the question of how we pay for it. 

The closest they come is a few well-worn clichés: Let the Rich pay their fair share, if we cut spending on Defense, we are only talking about (at this point we are meant to insert some figure which they will argue is inconsequential.)  As the late Sen Everett Dirksen once said, “A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, first thing you know you are talking about some real money.” (Progressives, I should note, do not get the joke.) Never mind paying for it.  If it sounds good do it.  War on Poverty? Yes! Poverty is bad. Let’s spend 20 Trillion and wipe it out. Whereas the common household husband or wife must say “Rib Eye? Rib Eye good! Rib Eye $ 12/lb. Can’t afford Rib Eye. Pork Chops, here we come.  Of course, the common Joe in the grocery store is spending their own money and cannot print more if they run out. (Well, they CAN write a bogus check, but, unlike Congressmen, they go to jail for that.) Politicians NEVER spend their own money. They spend yours. Which is why you will eat Pork Chops or Macaroni and Cheese tonight, and not Rib Eye.

  On the subject of, “if it sounds good”: this is another aspect of progressive ideas. All they must do is sound good.

 They don’t have to work. They must appeal to emotions. Wipe out poverty! Help the poor! Improve the cities!  Progressive never hold themselves or their ideas accountable for the (inevitable) failure to work. “I’ve never worked so hard on anything in my life.” “I feel your pain.” (If you are young, you may not recognize those as Bill Clinton’s response to the failure of some of his progressive ideas. Progressives maintain that if they feel good about it, if they feel your pain, then they should not be held to account for “results.”  If it failed, and I care about you, then you should still trust me, and let me spend even more, and do more of the same, on a larger scale, to fix the problem created by the failure of my last 3 attempts. But for all their “caring” and “feeling” Progressives and Utopians have yet to discover how to pass a law or spend a dollar that will make water run uphill, or gravity not pull objects to the ground.

 Or make socialist ideas and central planning result in anything other than the disaster they always are. (Go to Venezuela and try to buy some toilet paper.)  Progressives remain sublimely convinced that progressive/socialist/utopian/statist ideas that have never worked, have always failed, will work out IF ONLY you give THEM the money and the power to make them work as they think they should. Of course, it also involves the power to MAKE people behave the way progressives think they SHOULD behave, and not the way they do.

 So, with that background, a few observations about the latest Socialist proposal from Senator Marco Rubio, who seems to want to be the new John McCain. (I knew John McCain, Senator. You are no John McCain.) And yes, I called it Socialist. And so, it is. (Progressive, it should be noted, wishes to progress toward, eventually, Socialism. 

It sounds good. (Progressive!) Why, of COURSE, Moms and Dads, and Grandma, should all have time off to bond with the new baby. Family is important. And so, it is. And fathers, breadwinners, have been for Eons, coming to see the new baby, gazing loving, if awkwardly at it, then heading back to the fields to plow and beat the rain. Because that baby has to eat. As does its Mom. And so, we work. Or, as in my own case, we go to sea, and come home to a baby months older than when we left. Because we have a job to do. It sounds great that we should give some time off, BUT: notice a couple of things. I just mimicked a progressive. Because it sounds good. But I did not mention Who gets to pay for it. The employer? No, he won’t. Or rather he will but will pass that along in lower wages for the one who gets the time off, more work for their coworkers while they are off, lower wages for them as well, because if the employer must pay for work not received, the money, Dear Marco, HAS to come from somewhere.

 I remember a number of years ago, hearing Herself, Hillary, whining that the FMLA that her hubs had just signed “Only gave 6 weeks, when Mrs. It takes a Village, Idiot, felt sure that everyone would agree that 12 weeks was needed. And, of course, they should be paid for the time off.  (See? Progressive: more is never enough, someone else has to pay for it, it sounds good) 

 Now, Marco s plan (and, by the way, Hillary’s) is that Government (at this point you should bow and genuflect and the mention of the great Deity of the Left) will pay for it. But what did we observe about Government? Think hard, I’ll wait.

…..

Right!  Government Has. No. Money.

 So, if Government pays for 12 weeks of new baby leave, (Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the same people who want the right to dismember said baby, alive, in the wombs, and sell its body parts to buy a Lamborghini, are the ones pushing hardest for this latest “Gummint” Freebie?) Gummint has to TAKE the money from somewhere.

(as a thought exercise, reach in your purse or wallet. Take out all your money. Count out 10%. Put it back in your wallet and put the 90% in an envelope marked Government. Feel happy? Because that was the top marginal tax rate under Jimmy Carter, before the Reagan revolution lowered it to 39%)

 Now, Marco wants to pay for the leave by the mechanism of delaying retirement for an equal number of weeks, and essentially borrowing the money from the individual’s Social Security account. It seems too obvious to state, but

 There IS NO Social Security Trust Fund. Congress long since spent that. What is paid out to current retirees must come in from current FICA taxes taken from current workers. Because: (Say it with me)

 Government HAS-NO-MONEY!

 So, if Dick and Jane, who both have to work, because Progressive taxes make it impossible for families to live on a single income, as they could when Dick and Jane helped us learn to read, have a baby, and both get 12 weeks paid family leave, not only are they NOT borrowing from an account which they will pay into later on, they are NOT paying in now for 12 weeks, and are increasing the amount taken out of Gummint revenues for 12 weeks. So, if we have current commitments now, the Dick and Jane times the number of babies born every month equals that much more that Marco would have us pay out right now. So, Government must reach into its wallet, and take out (Average 76,000 babies born each week in US times average salary of 48,000 time 2 parents comes to $7.6 billion each week time 12 weeks comes to 91 Billion to fund Marco s little program)

 BUT! What have we learned?  Government has no money.

 So, 91 Billion must be borrowed, or taken out of other funds, or taken from payments to current retirees to pay for Marco s largesse. But, he would say, it will be paid back by the recipients working an extra 12 weeks till retirement.

 Permit me to point out a few logical fallacies.

 Dick and Jane might not live till retirement age.

Dick and Jane might not work till retirement age. (They might start drawing Disability)

Dick and Jane, having no particular incentive to save up and pay for this time, wont.

 Human nature being what it is, freebies will encourage everyone to take the maximum available, so they don’t “get ripped off”. And, I’ll bet anyone reading this a 1000-dollar bill, that IF this were to pass, 12 weeks Gummint paid FMLA, taken out of SS, Progressives will figure out why that is not enough and come weeping to the mike and demand more. Any takers?

 Now. Here is a proposal.  Dick and Jane both work. Jane sees a sparkle in Dicks eyes, and Jane goes to a baby shower and gets the fever. Let’s have a baby, she says. Sure honey. How about next year?  Meantime, we will both work an extra 5 hours of Overtime a week for the next year, and that will give us enough to pay our salaries for up to 12 weeks when the baby is born while we take off and change diapers.

 There is one way to do it, involving personal responsibility.

 Here is another. Insurers can offer a rider to Health policies that will pay supplemental income for a period of time after a birth. Couples of children bearing age can elect to pay for this rider and use it when they have their children.

And here is an even better idea for it, one certain to make Progressive head explode. If you are a Progressive who accidentally began reading this column, please, please stop reading. I’m not responsible for what happens if you continue.

 Still here?

 Ok, then. What if we had an organization dedicated to family planning, funded by large infusions of government money, and anxious to show that 97% of their function is women’s health issues.  Wouldn’t that be an ideal organization to set up and offer family leave insurance and savings policies? Especially if they are large enough to have a multi-billion-dollar reserve, and a billion dollar a year budget? And doesn’t paid family leave sound better than “I want a Lamborghini?” 

Yes, Marco, here is a cause for you to champion. Let us have Planned Parenthood set up and run family leave policies for prospective parents. After all, Planned Parenthood is what they are all about, right? Who needs another progressive socialist big government program? The answer was staring us in the face all along.

Doug Smith: Free State Patriot is a conservative blog on a mission

23 Aug

.america

doug and mark 1

Doug Smith is a historian who proudly served our nation in the Navy aboard the submarine “USS Gato”.  He is also Free State Patriot associate editor

August 23, 2018


 

Mark Caserta began a blog in 2013 as an adjunct to the regular conservative commentary he was contributing in newspapers.  The idea was simple: to expose the Progressive Movement. This is more necessary than it sounds. 

The history of the Progressive Movement is that it cannot win in the public arena of ideas, or in a straight up battle of candidates in an election. To put it more personally, progressives, the folks who adhere to that movement, cannot win with the truth. They never run up the middle toward their goal: it is always an end run or a back-alley deal.  Why? Because their ideas and nutty, and anathema to most common-sense people. So, they lie, they deceive, the alter the meaning of words, the promise the moon, in order to get power, then they do whatever they wish.

 Make no mistake, the Progressive Movement is ALL about gaining power, then enforcing their ideas on the unwilling, who, in their eyes, must be unenlightened if they have the temerity to disagree with them. They (so their thinking goes,) are the best and the brightest, and everyone will be better off if we are in charge. In the Progressive mind, the Founders were wrong to restrict the power of the Government to protect the People (the purpose of the Bill of Rights), instead, they insist, the role of Government is to make people be, and act, like they think they should, and govern based on what “ought to be, “rather than what is.  They are not fans of individual liberty, and certainly not of this great experiment in, as President Lincoln noted, “Government of the people, for the people, and by the people. “

 But people are cantankerously self-interested, and a lot of the old saws of wisdom remain true, despite the most voluble protests of the Progressives:

 There really Aint no such thing as a free lunch

 If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. If you give him a fish, he will eat today. And then come back tomorrow to get another fish.

 And, in Progressiveland, vote Democrat.

 Their ideas are unpopular, not simply because, as they would have it, no one is quite as bright, or virtuous, or will intentioned, as they, but because their ideas are nutty, wrongheaded, ignoring basic truths of human existence, and more importantly, always, always, result in misery and destruction.

 Ronald Reagan quipped that the scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Given that Progressives are firm believers that all things good and worthwhile come from government, he might well have said, I m a Progressive, and I’m here to help YOU.

 Not convinced?  In 1916, Woodrow Wilson ran for re Election on the campaign of “He Kept Us out of the War (WW1)”, and “Too Proud to Fight”. Indeed, in early 1917, the war was winding down, with both sides weary of fighting and nearing a settlement. Wilson won, and was Inaugurated in January, 1917. In April 1917, he went to Congress to request to go to war with Germany. So much for his promises. And the results of Wilson s “best and brightest” leading?  Over 300,000 American casualties, Wilson largely responsible for the Treaty of Versailles, which set in motion a chain of events that led to WW2, and the deaths of 80 million people worldwide.

 The Great Society of LBJ and his War on Poverty has spent 20 Trillion dollars, and done little to reduce poverty. Back to the fish analogy, if we feed a man a fish, and reward his ability to breath and show up every day for a fish, we pass out a lot of fish, but we don’t get many fishermen. Nothing is more costly, less efficient, or longer lasting than a temporary government program.

 We believe, based on observation of our country and our world, that the greatest thing to raise people out of misery and poverty are the property rights and free market protected by our Founders. They understood that all rights have to do with property.

 Every man beneath his vine and fig tree, and none shall make him afraid. None shall prune his vine or pick his figs, either, he must do so for himself and sell them or eat them.  American, since its founding, has done more to raise the economic status and individual freedom of more people than any other nation in history. It is a nation, at its core, not of “immigrants”, as our Progressive friends would tell us, but of ideas. Our Founders formed this nation on the notion that any who came to embrace our ideas and build a strong country on that basis were welcome to roll up their sleeves and jump in.

 Our founding principles are good and sound. That is why we extoll their strength and virtue, as well as exposing the moral bankruptcy of the Progressives.

 Never before, or since, in history, has a nation fought a war to give rights to men who were enslaved. Never before has a nation gone to war to rescue and free other people from tyranny without keeping the land that they subdued.

 Never before has any nation so totally been a draw to outsiders to come and live in it, or to turn to it for help in times of trouble. No nation in the world worries that taking money or food or medicine from the United States will cause it to be subjugated.

 America is unique in history, unique among the nations of the world, unique in her peoples and her core ideals. This we believe.

 So our purpose here at FSP is to educate about the strengths and sound ideas of America, to expose the deceit and bad, dangerous ideas of the Progressives and the Left, and by shining light on both, encourage people to choose the good, sound, tried and true principles and ideas that have built, not a “ Perfect Day” , not a Utopia, but “ A more perfect union,” that is devoted to “ securing the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves and our posterity.”

Doug Smith: Further thoughts on Settled Law in view of Kavanaugh

26 Jul

kavanaugh

President Trump nominates the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court Justice

 

doug and mark 1

This is the second in a series on “settled law” by historian and Free State Patriot social editor, Doug Smith.

7.26.2018


 

Settled Law. I still find that an amusing concept, that only Leftists circling the wagons, (though why would they do that, since violence never settles anything?) about a favorite decision can espouse with a straight face. Historically, in fact, little law is “settled”. By settled, of course, they mean “I don’t wish to debate it.”

But let us look at the ways law is, in fact, settled.

By whim.

One of my favorite movie lines is Yul Brenner, as Pharaoh, pronouncing, “I have said it, and it is so. So, let it be written. So, let it be done.” Yes, when the (Pharaoh, King, Emperor) is appointed by or descended from God or gods, then his pronouncements are sacrosanct and may not be questioned. We depend upon his good nature to make good laws. Occasionally, as in the case of Bernadotte in Sweden, or Solomon, or James I in England, it turns out mostly good. Often, as under Henry VIII or King John of England (for those of you who are NOT fans of history, look up Runnymede or read Ivanhoe, or the Magna Carta.) it turns out rather badly. You could ask Anne Boleyn, but the settled law from Henry put her in an awkward position:

A tisket a tasket, a head in a basket, it cannot respond to the questions you ask it.

If the basis of settled law is by the whim or desire and a single or exalted few, then we must hope for the “better angels of their nature “to win out. History suggests that this is a rare, and brief, occurrence. We may observe in passing that the whim of a POTUS or 9 SCOTUS robes carry the same inherent difficulty.

By mob

This is an easy, but equally dangerous way to “settle” the law. Demagogues have whipped up crowds from the days when demagogue did not sound like Greek, because, well, they WERE Greek. It is a powerful weapon. Later, in Rome, the crowds demanded “more bread and circuses” from the Senate, until they were a hollow pipeline of the national treasury into the mob in the street, and little more. Settled law was to pay them off so they would not riot. It worked out, until it didn’t, one cold winter in 406 AD, when the Rhine froze and barbarian hordes swarmed into Rome. Within a few years, they sacked Rome itself, which did not work well for either the Senate, or the mobs. Turns out, there is always a bigger, badder mob, learning from the previous mob that violence does, indeed, solve anything. Rule by mob is rather like setting backfires to fight a brush fire. Make one mistake, and the mob, like the fire, is unforgiving and unstoppable. And, like fire, the more you feed it, the more it wants to eat, until there is nothing left. Including, as Robespierre found, just before the blade fell, the demagogue.

By Outlaw

This is a curious but occasional way of doing business. The pirates working the Caribbean with near impunity, Al Capone buying off Chicago and running his own soup kitchens, medieval bandits extorting tolls to pass a road, are all examples of law by outlaw. The problem, of course, being that they are making up their laws as they go, and that is going to go poorly for the guy who is not holding the gun.

Law

Then there is the law by agreed upon social compact, i.e. the Constitution. The progressives who prefer to rule by a combination of 1 and 2 (the whim of judges and do as we say, or we will shriek and break things) are fond of saying those who support the Constitution are simply “Old white guys who want to hold on to power.”  It is a shame to find them so woefully ignorant of their own history.

In fact, the basic legal framework was built by a group of folks who wrested control over their future away from England, and then spent over a decade arguing over what they would all agree to for governance. The Anti Federalists argued (and we can see the wisdom of their fears) that trading a tyranny in England for one in Philadelphia (Washington was not the capital then) was no bargain, and the Federal government ought to be kept too weak to oppress the people.  Nor were theseThe Federalists argued that it was the very fact of a weak central government that permitted Great  Britain to exert their will on the colonies without considering the consent of the people. (And we can see examples of the wisdom of their argument as well. Imagine South Carolina and Ohio debating whether to send troops to assist President Roosevelt with the invasion of Normandy)

2 opposite positions, but both valid to the health and survival of the fledgling nation, and to that of we, their descendants.

A few observations are in order about the social compact of law.

First is that power, political or legal, is ultimately backed up by violence. From something as mundane as running a stop sign or deciding if a Cuban boy whose mother died bringing him to Florida will stay with an Aunt or be forcibly returned to his father in Castro’s Cuba, there is always the prospect of a gun to the head forcing the question. Power is always backed by the threat of violently enforcing it.

Second is that, as noted by the Federalists, absent any concentrated power of government, power tends to devolve to those most willing to commit violence on their neighbors to enforce their will. When the Sheriffs under King John rode out to extract taxes they had armed men with them. On the other end of the spectrum, you may read at length of lawless, anarchic Missouri and the warring mobs in the run up to the Civil War. Neither alternative is pleasant.

Thirdly, a fluid, or, as leftists who are about to ignore the Constitution are wont to say, “living” legal compacts, are utterly meaningless. For the same reason that we build our homes from “dead” lumber, and not “living” trees, we need stability.  Suppose you and I enter into a contract in which I agree, for a certain sum, to sell you my house. We execute that contract, money changes hands, and we both move. Ten years, later, the value of the house has appreciated, and is now worth 20% more. So, I engage a good progressive lawyer, and inform you of the “living “nature of our contract, and insist that you pay me the difference, or vacate what has been, for 10 years, your home. (Side note: most of the money changing hands will, of course, go to the blood sucking lawyer, which explains a lot about why they have such creative notions about the law) You wouldn’t like that living document, would you? You would protest, this is what we agreed to, and you can’t change it now!

Or suppose that we had never met. But I’ve been looking at your house and decided that maybe I could build an office building where it stands. Of course, my office building would pay more in taxes than your house, and I make that point to the City Council. Now, instead of me having to come to you and offer you what you want to let me have it, the City forces you to accept the fair market price, as determined by them, for a house you don’t want to leave, vacate it, along with your neighbors, so they can offer it to me for development. Never mind that you and I are both private citizens, and never mind that I decide after all, not to build my office building, and the City is left with an empty lot, some angry and justifiably aggrieved citizens. If the Constitution is “living”, then the “Courts” can rule that the takings clause does, indeed, permit such an action, not just for schools, roads, and public buildings, but because the City Council likes My idea for using your house better than your idea of just, well, you know, living there. Now before you scoff and tell me that I’m being ridiculous, look up the case of Kelo vs City of New London, Ct and the SCOTUS decision in that case. For that is precisely what happened there.

Finally, the protections of the law, that is, the Constitution, are primarily designed to protect the people from excesses and corruption by those in power, exercising the awesome power of the Federal government.  As Madison put it,

First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

These protections are for the people, that is you, dear reader, if you are a citizen of these United States. Madison and the Anti Federalists no more intended that these should be a living document, subject to the whim of a lawyer or tyrant, than a locksmith would intend that the door to your house have a living lock, permitting access to whoever some judge decided could share it with you.

And while there is debate as to what laws we desire, Madison and the other Framers included a mechanism, and a right, to amend these laws, but made it tedious and difficult to do so. And there is genius in that. We can, and do, and have amended the Constitution, but only in those cases where it is clearly the will of the people, as demonstrated by their ability to vote their desires and for each state to weigh in on the question.  In the same way I can amend my house, by tearing out a wall and building a door, but do not wish for my studs and joists to amend my house by growing vines, we can amend our laws without being held captive to the tyranny of an aggrieved minority, however loud or vociferous. One judge, or a handful, ought not to be entrusted with the power to remake our laws. Nor, except when Congress abdicates its authority, and the Democrat party finds it is easier to shop for judges than to win in the court of public opinion and get the votes for their agenda, do they.

To our detriment, that has been the way of things for some time. But we ought not to let it continue. Whether you are on the left or the right politically, you ought to want the protections of the Constitution to be adamant. If you are on the Left, and you like the rulings various courts have made, consider this. Suppose Conservative judges adopted the same play book. Suppose, instead of revering the law, they chose to revere agenda above all else.

What liberal organizations might they outlaw overnight? What liberal rulings might they rule invalid. Suppose a 7-2 Conservative SCOTUS sat down with a newly elected POTUS and said, ok Mr. President, tell us what you want us to do this year.

Liberal reader, that makes you shudder, doesn’t it? As well it should. But while it makes Conservatives shudder that something very like the opposite has occurred all too often, especially in the Anthony Kennedy era, that is not what Conservative Justices will do, nor is it what Conservatives expect. Instead, both the people, and the judges, expect that a 9th grade Civics class should be able to figure out what is legal and protected under our Constitution, by simply reading it. And, more to the point, should they find something they dislike, understand the process by which we change our laws, and govern ourselves. If they understand that, they will properly exercise the franchise, and the power, which is, by law, entrusted to the people.

Sadly, far too many do not. And that is why we are increasingly governed by the 1st three options: whim of judges, deference to mobs, and fear of outlaws.

Our great experiment, self-government, has worked, not without fault, and not without growing pains, going into its 3rd century now. If we give it up, we will be ruled by the most ruthless men with guns.

It is not too late to reclaim it.

 

 

 

 

Doug Smith: Liberal “settled law” about to be shaken by a new era of SCOTUS.

2 Jul

supreme court

Current 2018 U.S. Supreme Court

 

doug 2

Doug Smith is a historian and social editor for Free State Patriot

July 2, 2018

 

The left is facing the possibility, after generations of relying on SCOTUS as a sort of rump Congress, of a court which will follow the very (for them) inconvenient Constitution.

Their reactions are nothing, if not predictable.

Like the toddler who thoughtfully redecorates your wall with shoe polish, the Left, mostly the Dems, (but we must include Susan Collins and the other Rinos in this category), they have no idea of the intended purpose of the Court and are destructive in their creative misapplications.

Because so many of them failed Civics, failed to take it, or took over the education system and replaced with social studies to create generations of Americans who had no earthly idea how their government functions, a brief recap.

We have 3 branches of government in our representative republic. Within the framework established by the Constitution, the covenant under which the citizens agreed to live, power is loaned, by the consent of the people, to these 3 branches. None of them holds all power, and that is for the safety of the citizens and the republic.

The President, and those Secretaries he appoints, are charged with executing the laws of the United States and keeping it safe through the judicious use of military might.

The Congress is charged with enacting laws, within the framework of the Constitution, for the functioning of the country, and has the sole power to raise, and spend money.

The Supreme Court is charged with ruling on lower court decisions as to the application of laws solely to determine if they are enacted within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The 3 branches are prohibited by the Constitution from usurping each other’s’ functions.  Thus, the President may not allocate money or raise taxes, Congress cannot wage war or enforce the laws they pass, and SCOTUS may not make laws or order the spending or allocation of moneys.

That is how things are done in the representative republic known as the United States of America. Not so in the Province of “Lefterville”.

The Left cannot honestly work within the system, run for election on what they truly believe and desire, get members of Congress elected, and enact their agenda as law. We want tax rates at 70%, 50 million abortions a year, lower wages, and everybody who is not one of us, and thus in charge, dependent on the government so they don’t dare oppose us is not a winning ticket.

So, they lie. But that is a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy is to ignore the Constitution, and the law, and instead rule from the bench as if the judges and justices were reigning over a ducal fief.

And this brings us to a favorite phrase of the Left: Settled Law. (Settled science or consensus is a similar favorite, with the same nefarious aim: to stifle dissent. When a Lefty says, “It is Settled Law, of course, what they mean is “It’s a law we like, some court has ruled our way, so precedent forbids you from EVER changing it.” Of course, they don’t really believe in settled law, because every one of them would overturn the 2nd Amendment tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

So “Settled Law” means, for them, (reminiscent of the Russians, who never give back land taken in conquest when the war is over), that anything they have won, they get to keep forever. If you try to take it back, they will respond with hysteria, shrieks, obscenities, death threats, and of course, always, and forever, some way to make it about (everyone stand and salute now) THE CHILDREN.

If any ruling by SCOTUS were Settled Law, and inviolable, then the Dred Scot decision of 1857 would be the precedent for keeping slavery alive to this day. Instead, the 13thAmendment, ratified in December 1865, forbade slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States.

Did you catch it? I just whizzed by you, plain as day. The Left misses it. How about you?

Ah, yes, there IS a settled law. It was settled because 13 colonies of the British Empire declared their independence, fought for it, and 6 years later, established and ordained the Constitution of the United States of America. Each subsequent territory, to become a state, agreed to adhere to those laws, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. If the people choose to change their laws, as with their experiment with prohibition of alcohol, they have a mechanism to amend the Constitution. And we have done so many times. But you see, to do so, you must persuade most of the folks that it is a good idea.

That is a hard proposition, especially if your ideas and goofy, or have been repeatedly tried and failed. Much easier to get people used to bowing to judges, issuing rulings that force people to DO something, or Congress or States to spend money, (see mini lesson above: Who gets to make laws and distribute money?) Then you merely must pack the courts with judges who will ignore the law and rule according to their politics. FDR applied that principle in trying to pack SCOTUS with 2 extra Leftist Justices in 1937. Thus, the Left does not worry about persuading people of their ideas, but in forcing them on people. Hence their hysterical panic at this nexus in history which offers an opportunity for a generation of a court which will rule according the Constitution, and not popular sentiment, or political correctness.

justice

Note their arguments: Roe v Wade, Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Immigration Reform, or pick your issue, will be tossed out, overturned, destroyed. Note, as well, what they do, NOT say: if the people want abortion, or gay marriage, or Obamacare, then let them petition their representatives to pass laws to enact it.

In short, they must do what Obama, the quintessential Lefty would not or could not do, persuade. Must easier to step on their necks with judges. And using this principle they have forced the will of a minority elite on most of the folks time and again.

The arrogance that has instilled in them is why Leftists will not debate issues and insist that Global Climate Change Warming Cooling Ice Age Armageddon is Settled Science. That way we don’t have to do research, cost/benefits analysis, or factual reporting. We just must insist that you do it our way, believe our way, or we will throw bad Karma your way.

In short, they don’t want to govern, they want to rule. The Knights of the Black Robe, and their Knight Commander Kennedy have ruled far too much and far too long. But a new day may be at hand. King John is riding toward Runnymede and is about to meet the barons. The Magna Carta is about to be signed. And for a season, or a generation, we may see a move back to the proper roles of government and a court which refuses to make new law. It is the form of government under which we live.

But those who prosper by usurping it will not cheer. Nor will they accept it quietly. We ought to win the fight but be ready for Lefties marching in the streets (since they have no jobs and exist on welfare or have government jobs and thus can get off to go protest the government for whom they work, which, by the way, may also change shortly), Lefties wearing hats resembling genitalia, pitiful, even if faked, pictures of crying children, and Borkian tales of Dystopia if the Left stops getting its way.

Buckle up.  But it is worth the E ride. A true 5-4 constructionist court will begin to force us to live under our Constitution again, and become a nation of laws, and not of lawyers.

And keep your heads up. SCOTUS has been a flail for a long time. But 2 of the Lefty justices left after Kennedy are 79 and 85 years old. Conservatives will look at some of the wacky positions of the Left, balance that against Trump s Twitter finger, and decide that a 7-2 SCOTUS for a generation sound pretty good and is worth dealing with Trumps eccentricity for another 6 years.

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: