Archive | DOUG SMITH RSS feed for this section

Doug Smith: To govern or to rule?

14 Dec
Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and associate editor for Free State Patriot

December 14, 2020

This is a distinction which many do not recognize, but is one of great importance. Most people, except for anarchists, accept that societies must be governed lest they fall into chaos. Many accept that premise, and consent to be governed (a supremely important condition: consent of the governed) in return for the stability of those around them being governed as well, and by the same laws.

Men will accept that they cannot break in and take their neighbors’ property because they desire it, with the implicit corollary that their neighbors, or the passing stranger, will be subject to the same restraint. The implied social contract is that we accept governance, and grant part of our authority to certain people to govern, enact, and enforce laws, under which we all agree to live. The express and written contract, the US Constitution, establishes clearly rules for conducting and governing ourselves, subject to those whom we will elect to exercise the authority under which we agree to live. In case you slept through or never attended 7th grade Civics, that is the Representative Republic under which we have lived since 1789.

We the people, constituted this republic in a written document of our laws and structure, and agreed that these were the laws under which our citizens would live. So then, our officials govern with the consent of the governed, as expressed in that constitution, establishing our form of government, the methods for selecting who would govern, and, vitally, establishing the limits to which we would accept said governance.

We accept a Congress which may levy taxes and declare war. We do not accept Prima Nocte.

Citizens who wish to stand for election to public office do so in order to govern, as accepted by that contract under which we, as citizens, agree to live, and by our choice. Elected officials are expected to, and should expect to, govern.

Then there are those who wish to rule. One who rules over others does so on a simple basis: because I said so. A ruler backs up such pronouncements with the threat of force. William the Conqueror ruled England because he raised and kept an army and used it to force his rule on the Saxons on England. “By right of conquest” is an ancient justification for ruling a people. The Saxons may not appreciate being ruled by the Normans, or the Chinese by the Mongols, or the Lithuanians by the Russians. Such people are often called subjects, because they are subject to the power, and whim, of their rulers. A ruler may also govern well, as in the case of Bernadotte in Sweden. The problem is that the supply of benevolent dictators is rather sparse. More often they govern poorly, placing their own needs and hungers above that of the people they rule. Hence common soldiers bleed to expand the demesnes of a Duke or Prince, and the rewards of their exertions are not their own. What they are given for their blood is out of noblesse oblige, their Lord granting what he chooses, in return for their forced service.

Henry’s “band of brothers” speech notwithstanding, it is usually not a very good bargain to be a subject. Just by the implication of the word, you are subject to power and a person who is greater than yourself. You worth is only what your ruler chooses to attach to you.

A citizen of a republic, on the other hand, is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and may develop worth based on his abilities and willingness to work and sacrifice. If he chooses to fight and defend his land, it is because of the value he places on it, and his place in it. It is not so his Prince can call himself the Duke of Aquitaine.

The United States was formed as a Republic of citizens who were subjects and determined that they would be free citizens, and subjects no more, regardless the cost. Citizens, as we know, are not always governed well. But they can “Throw the bums out” every few years, and not take down the King when things get really bad. It is a much better thing to be governed than to be ruled.  Rulers do so by their own whim, and are not obligated to abide by their orders to their subjects. Representatives of citizens who enact or enforce laws are subject to the same laws and the guy waiting tables or stacking shelves.

We eat at the same table, sit in the same boat, and walk on the same road. There is no royal road to geometry. In a Republic, there is no Royal road to anywhere. Governors and Senators, Presidents and Vice Presidents, are subject to the same laws and the rest of us. There is, or should be, no Royal road for the children of elected officials to establish them into a dynasty.

That was the heritage and legacy the founders left for this new nation, and new experiment in self-governance. We, the people, would elect our leaders. They in turn, would govern, not rule, in accordance with laws under which we agreed to be governed. They left us “a Republic, if we could keep it.

So, with that brief history synopsis, look around. Do we have leaders faithful to that vision and the laws to which we have consented? Do we have officials who wish to rule by fiat: Because I said so, you must do what I say but must not do? You may not do what I may do.

Do they wish to govern, or to rule? We live in a Republic which rejected the Divine Right of Kings, loudly. If we have petit kings who wish to rule free citizens, it’s time to throw the Bums out.

Reject Rulers. Elect leaders. Establish justice. Hold on to the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity.

Tags:

Doug Smith: Diogenes and the search for a perfect man.

16 Nov
Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and Associate editor for Free State Patriot

November 16, 2030

Diogenes and the search for a perfect man

Diogenes was an interesting Greek philosopher. Given the current state of public education, I despair that many know of him, but what some few may remember is the image of an old man carrying a lamp, looking for an honest man. It is worth noting that he did not carry a mirror.

He was among those who came to be known as cynics, (dog-like) for their philosophy. Curious that he went about with a lamp, so that when people asked why he could say “I am seeking an honest man”, then, looking at the questioner, sadly shaking his head, and walking away. Curious, because he was banished from his city of birth for debasing coins. He did it by reducing the silver content, rather than with a computer like our modern cynics, the Fed, but he was no more honest than they. (Reminds me of why I had to carry a coat hanger at my Chief’s initiation, but that is not suitable for a general audience. Other Chief Petty Officers will smile at the reference, and possibly remember. )

There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named.

First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads.

The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it.

The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy.

The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them.

(From: A History of Cynicism)

Diogenes, like many of our modern scolds, never worked, only begged, lived shamelessly, defecating in public and sleeping on the streets, and castigated those who did work, have money, and refused to give it to him. Blind or unconcerned with his own hypocrisy, he made a virtue of seeking in others what he did not find in himself. More likely unconcerned, for he was sure the Oracle at Delphi told him to debase the currency, and by extension, the values of the world in which he lived. Unconcerned that when he practiced business (coinage), he stole by deception, or that when he did not, he lived on the toils of others (begging).

But it is his supposed virtue of seeking and scolding in others for that which he lacked in his own right that makes him an object lesson for today. He, who was a cheat, justified his own dishonesty, while sneering at the failings of others, on whom he depended for his existence. He would be quite comfortable in some quarters today.

There is a closet industry or hobby of seeking perfection in leaders and innovators, both past and present. Perfection, that is, by the coffee house standards of people who haven’t a fraction of the accomplishments of those they feel qualified to castigate.

Dr James Watson was castigated and shunned by the professional community for asking, not stating, if there could be a genetic component to the history of African countries development. For asking the question, for suggesting it might be researched, he has been labelled a racist and a pariah.

But still, he and Dr Crick did discover DNA. Suppose we stripped out his accomplishments because by someone’s standards he falls short. Medicine takes a bit hit.

Magellan is roundly criticized for his character flaws and his treatment of primitive tribes he found. In fact, they did more than criticize him, they killed him. And he did not complete the journey he started.

But. He did find the way through the Straights that bear his name, and his surviving ships circumnavigated the world for the first time. Cut out those straights, and go back to Great Circle routes across the Atlantic, and the last 400 years of world history is very different.

I could go on, but you get the point. We have seen it over and over. People of little accomplishment criticize people of great accomplishment for not living up to the standards of an unemployed stand up philosopher.

It is part of the Utopian mindset from which Marx and the rest of the latter day socialists form their ideologies. And it is as old as man. Envy.

The socialist doesn’t want to work to improve his lot. He wants to share the wealth. And by that he means your wealth. Gaia forbid that he should work for it, save for it, and sacrifice for it. He is entitled to that $70,000 a year education. Nor should he have to pay for it! You should. Gladly, because now he is here to tell you how to think and act. And your society based on the work and sacrifice of you and many like you is evil. So give him his fair share of your evil money, and he will tell you how to live.

Envy and pride. It is a powerful combination.  And in history we see it play out back to Cain, the Tower of Babel, Agamemnon, and Robespierre.  It always brings misery, and poverty, and want. It never delivers its promises. It is always searching for that which it cannot find.

Like Diogenes, it misses the point. You want to find an honest man? Be an honest man.

Tags: ,

Doug Smith: Government, money, work and a wisdom deficit.

30 Jun

DOUG FOR FSP

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and associate editor for Free State Patriot.

June 30, 2020

Capitol-at-Dusk

Has the very entity instituted to protect our Republic become an obstacle to its efficacy?

Remember the big Government shutdown? And how you couldn’t find toilet paper or hamburger because Congress was not in session while several hundred people who had become millionaires in Congress argued about how much of your money they were going to take and how they were going to waste? uh… I mean spend it.

Of course, you don’t. When Government shuts down, little happens. Government produces nothing but more government. Government does not grow food, make cars, or toilet paper. It is rather refreshing at times when Government shuts down and Congress becomes more useless than usual, because they aren’t finding ways to put their hands in your pocket.

Government has no money. They have no food, medicine, PPE, vehicles, cell phones. They are broke. They only spend money or make pronouncements that force others to spend money.

Government is awfully expensive.

Indeed, one of our earliest meetings of congress voted for General Washington to raise an Army to fight for independence but provided little in the way of funding. It would be very illustrative for our current Congress to study the history of the 1st Continental Congress. Adams, Hancock, and Franklin could not pass bills into law and look to shopkeepers, farmers, and merchants to send them silver, at the threat of a gun, to pay for their desires. They must, of necessity, persuade a bunch of ornery, independent minded colonists, who were ready to break off from the rule of England, to pay a new Government to fight for that point of view. Franklin is credited, in the musical “1776” with asking “Why should I change one Tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants, one mile away?”. Whether he said it or not, it is an excellent point.

Those 56 men, met in congress, (We tend to capitalize that word and make it almost mystical, yet one of its meanings, and that most apropos to those 56 men, is “ met together in agreement”) pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to the Declaration they signed. They persuaded other men who believed in their cause to finance it, and in many cases, the 56 paid exactly what they had pledged.

Our Congress has evolved to men and women who arrive penniless, stay forever, leave as millionaires, and depend on our powerlessness to back up whatever enriches them. Far from plead their case to us, they often ignore our expressed desires and instead coerce us into paying for their desires.

I should note, at this point, that another meeting of congress is coitus, which considering how our current Congress behaves, may be exactly apropos.

So then, from whence cometh money?

Businesses and people who work and produce have money, and produce food, medicine, PPE, etc. Government gets these things by taking money from business and people who work and purchasing it.  When they print money for it, they are taking out a loan, with nothing to back it up except the promise that business and employees, taxpayers, in short, YOU, will pay it back.

Eventually.

Or not. They will be retired and wealthy by the time the bill comes due – for your grandchildren.

If Government spends 5 Trillion dollars that they don’t have to address a crisis, they are committing you to pay it back.

Implied is that you will work. If the economy is shut down, then we consume all we have stored or saved, and when no one is working to produce food and medicine, people begin to starve, and no one is treated for disease.

Picture a refugee camp, with people sitting with nothing, waiting, and hoping for help. That help must, ultimately, come from people working. So, it is simplistic and wrong to say we must choose work or life. There is a reason we refer to working as “Making a living “.

Ever since we left Eden, we must work to survive. Even in the face of danger, we adapt and keep as safe as possible, and we work.

During the Blitz, Londoners went to work. They crowded into shelters when the Germans flew over, but they worked.

Art, music, philosophy, writing; all are things that we enjoy and enrich our lives. But we live, and have shelter, and clothes, and food, and medicine because people work. Work is how we live. Work is life. We cannot huddle for fear of death and not work. For if we do not work, in large numbers, we will not live as a people or as a civilization.

In the Middle Ages, as economies failed, life was, for millions, (as Thomas Hobbes said) nasty, brutish, and short. It is true that plagues kill people. It is just as true that poverty does, as well.

During the New Deal, FDR s administration came up with the National Recovery Administration. Its stated goal was to “eliminate cutthroat competition.” In practice, the NRA was in the business of picking winners and losers by setting prices and issuing a few regulations. Ten Million pages of them. In 1935, 2 years after it was enacted, SCOTUS  ruled it unconstitutional, because it attempted to regulate commerce that was not interstate in character, that the  industrial “codes of fair competition” which the NIRA enabled the President to issue violated the separation of powers, as an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive branch, and that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

Some of our current Governors, who, in the name of safety, have determined that citizens may purchase whiskey, but not vegetable seeds, lottery tickets, but not towels, may shop at Lowes but not at Uncle Joe’s hardware, and who have already been taken to task by State Supreme Courts, might take a lesson.

Neither economies, nor people, nor civilizations, exist in a vacuum.

One choice affects another. Government may make choices for the defense of its citizens that you may not start a campfire in the lobby of a theater. (Remember those?) It may not determine what color shirt you must wear today. There are, quite intentionally, limits on what government may do. Our founders, in their wisdom, and having lived under tyranny, made it difficult to govern us, believing the maxim that a government governs best which governs least.

Walking that tightrope of good governance is a challenge, requiring wisdom, humility, common sense, and restraint.

Clearly, the Governors of Michigan, California, and New York have failed that test dismally. Let us pray they learn from wiser and more humble counterparts.  Hubris and pettiness are poor standards of leadership.

If the primary function of government, as noted above, is to spend money and forbid people to produce the very money it desires and must spend, it is on a path which cannot end well.

It is the current state of our representation that’s opened the door for socio-political malfeasants to re-employ the misstated value of socialism as the solution.

But such is the wisdom of government.  And such is the folly of our leaders.

The only way our Republic thrives is through an effectual, fervent prayer – and a vote.

In that order!

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Forgive our New York “arrogance”!

11 May

doug 2

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and Associate editor for Free State Patriot

May 11, 2020

 

new york

“Forgive our New York “arrogance”!

This was a line Governor Andrew Cuomo (D), NY used when minimizing the CV outbreak and urging, along with fellow Democrat Bill DeBlasio, Hizzoner the Mayor, people to continue doing what they do. Go to Chinatown and the New Year’s parades. Ride the Subways. See a show. Play Frank Sinatra. This, even as infections were showing up by the hundreds in New York city.

Early on, New York Nursing Homes asked urgently that CV positive patients not be returned to their facilities, but hospitalized, or sent to some temporary facility such as the Javits Center, geared to handle isolation and treatment. Cuomo refused, and ordered , Ordered, that hospitals send elderly infected patients to nursing homes and that the nursing homes take them, stating “ It is not the state’s job to provide nursing homes with PPE, and they do not have the right to object to the regulation ordering them to take the patients. It is their fiduciary responsibility. “

As a result, a large percentage of the deaths in NY were people who could not isolate or get away, because they were old people trapped in a nursing home. Thousands have died in NY nursing homes, a large percentage of the totals in the US. In his NY arrogance, Gov Cuomo stuck with an order that condemned thousands to preventable deaths in recent months.

As the New York Times now reports, in March, after hundreds of cases in NYC, Cuomo and DeBlasio were continuing to downplay the outbreak and urging people to come to New York. This follows the advice of NY Health officials urging people to congregate in huge crowds in Chinatown for Chinese New Year’s in February, as our way of “showing the Coronavirus” and refusing to stigmatize anyone. Tracing of the virus across the US, by the Times own reporting, shows that travel to and from NYC, far more than from China and Italy, was the primary vector spreading it across the US. With Cuomo s strong rhetoric about the hard steps he took, and how long he may keep his state locked down, he overlooks one vital piece of information, reports the Times. The horse was already out of the barn before the Governor slammed the door, put in his thumb, pulled out a plum, and said what a good boy am I. The missteps, and arrogance of the Governor and the NYC Mayor are largely responsible for the extent of the pandemic in the rest of the country, aside from the fact that in raw numbers, far and away most of the infections took place in New York. Even, as the Times notes, the large numbers in Louisiana, tied to Mardi Gras, are traceable back to NY.

Now that it is becoming apparent that even with Cuomo s rhetoric, things were never as dire, by orders of magnitude, as he tried to paint it, while shifting blame from himself. Ventilator need was off by orders of magnitude, as was the urgent need for hospital beds. As it becomes apparent, the NY arrogance is on display once again. Samaritans Purse, who set up field hospitals previously in Ebola hotspots and other crises, set up a hospital and treated CV patients in cooperation with Mt Sinai Hospital. Now that the need is winding down , NY city council has made it  clear that the ( free, I should note) Doctors and equipment provided by this ministry, is not welcome because they disagree in principle with the NY stance on LGBTXYZ issues. They have no place in New York. They did not, by the way, examine the beliefs or lifestyles of the patients they treated, they simply treated them. But now? The old New York arrogance: disagree with me, then get thee hence! That, of course, does not come from Cuomo himself, but neither does he use his considerable bully pulpit to say “New York thanks and welcomes all who have come to help us in our hour of need”

In Fact:

Cuomo has also stated that volunteers who come to New York, and were there at least 14 days, will have to pay NY State income tax (the highest in the nation). When asked if he would waive that for people who came to help, at great personal sacrifice and risk, he said “I cannot give them money when we have a $ 13 billion deficit. Give them money? Cuomo plans to extort money from volunteers who came at his call to help. I wonder, now, does that include the Navy crew of the USNS Comfort? As for the 13 billion deficit, that is not as a result of the last few months. We can detail it at another time, but who was the Governor of New York for the last 8 years as they grew that deficit? Here’s a hint: it was not the volunteers who came to help New York. It was, by some accounts, the most eligible bachelor in New York.

Now there is a part of me that is outraged and offended by Cuomo ‘s “New York Arrogance”. There is a part of me that say, No, Governor, I will Not forgive your arrogance. I will not forgive it because you don’t learn from it, and your arrogant choices and mistakes have cost your state and our nation greatly. Images of the movie Escape from New York come to mind, with the entire arrogant island turned into a maximum-security prison. (Call me Snake.)

But no, I suspect that for all your arrogance, humble men like Franklin Graham will still come at your hour of need, not because you are worthy. It is a common thing for Leftist and non-Christians to criticize the actions of Christians by sneering at them, Well, what would Jesus do? Jesus would heal the ear of a man who was there to arrest him and take him to his death. Franklin Graham and Samaritans Purse did what Jesus would do.

Jesus would even forgive your arrogance, more easily than I.

He would also say, now, Go and sin no more.

Work on that arrogance, Andrew.  You might try the humility of Franklin Graham. New York may not deserve better, but maybe we can give them better anyway.

 

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: “General principle” insufficient in impeachment probe

16 Nov

trump leaving for camp david

doug at wvhu

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and Associate editor for Free State Patriot

November 16, 2019

 

I learned the specific application of a general principle in the Navy. The specific application was “Anything which is everyone’s job is nobody’s job. The general principle is anything which is too widely, or universally applied becomes meaningless, since it does not specify any thing.

One example in practice is me and my fellow Republicans. Each time we disagree with Leftists, on anything, we are racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes. Now, I’m willing to accept the premise that among the universe of Republicans, there may be people who are one or some combination of those things. But the words are now meaningless, because they are thrown around as an indictment for anything the Left disagrees with, and not for the real meanings or actions behind the words. So, because it means anything, it means nothing when a “Leftist” calls us one of these names.

To bring the general principle to another specific case in point, let us consider the case for impeachment of Donald Trump. The Left, of course, made the point that he was not qualified to be President during the campaign. Fair enough. That is how politics is played. ( Note for a future article: the point may be made that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is not qualified to hold any position of public trust, including dog catcher in Little Rock) But, here we differ from the normal, because as soon as it became apparent that Trump would win, the argument became one of get him at any cost. For any reason. He must be impeached, the reasoning went, because we think he is unfit (and by extension, so are all of you who voted for him) and therefore, ought to be impeached. Not, mind you, because he committed high crimes and misdemeanors in office, but because we do not like him. Our opinion of his qualifications, his manners, his speech, his “pink monkey” outsider status, is enough that he “deserves” to be impeached. So now all we need is a reason, or an excuse.

So “deserves to be impeached”, or impeachable offense, has becomes so general as to be meaningless. Everything the Left, or the Never Trump Elitist so called Conservatives, disapproves of, disagrees with, or dislikes about Donald Trump becomes the latest smoking gun, bombshell, reason, excuse to remove him.  And they all become so universal as to become meaningless. Worthless. Impeachment itself, has become a meaningless political exercise, and excuse for soft coups to change governments. It has been used over and over, and we should remember, has never been successful. I suspect it never will.

But the greatest offense of the Left, (again, Never Trumpers on the Right? A whole different article.) is the assault on language, and ultimately, the Constitution. The protection of impeachment against a truly egregious POTUS is evaporated. No one takes it seriously as anything other than sour grapes. And no one takes seriously the latest avocado. Huh? Means as much as bombshell, and I like avocados. And no one who is not consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome misses the fact that without reason, or with excuse after excuse which has evaporated, the Democrats are into a political process, impeachment, which will fail, in the hopes of skewing the outcome of the next election, which they surmise they will also lose to Donald Trump.

And so, they should.

Tags: , , , ,

Doug Smith: Here’s some common sense perspective on all this “shouting” about President Trump!

30 Sep

trump in wv

doug at wvhu

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and associate editor for Free State Patriot

September 30, 2019

 

Let’s take them sequentially, shall we?   

Editor’s disclaimer: Those incapable of incorporating logic into your mental processing, are free to return to your Sunday comics, gum wrappers and The Springer Show.  This could be hazardous to your mental stability.

1.      I started out, before his nomination, criticizing Donald Trump as an ass. Nothing to date has altered my opinion. He is rude, crude, and I would not be his buddy. However, that also does not alter my view that he was far and away a better choice than Hillary Clinton, who is vicious and utterly amoral. And based on his performance, I conclude that while I would have liked a less abrasive POTUS, he has done more than any POTUS since Reagan to roll back the progressive’s corrosive effects on the nation. I still give him a solid B.

2.      Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton, needed to be investigated long ago, by someone who had not predetermined not to bring charges against a Democrat. He is dishonest, self-aggrandizing, and, apparently, utter lacking in a moral code. He committed plagiarism in law school, shamelessly stole speeches from better politicians. One must wonder how he ever managed to graduate. He has falsely, and wildly claimed that he went to law school on a full scholarship (false), graduated in the top of his class (also false), and had 3 undergraduate degrees (he had one, like most college graduates.) Like Hillary and Barack, he consistently tries to convince that he is the smartest guy in the room, without compelling evidence that this is even nearly true. He is also stupidly dishonest. How do we know about his shady and likely criminal dealings with Ukraine s government and a gas holding company, along with his son? Because he bragged about it, on tape. He could take advice in being Teflon from the Clintons.

3.      Impeachment is a political remedy for misbehavior in office. The Democrats have lived and breathed the idea of impeaching Donald Trump since late the night of November 8, 2016, when it became obvious that Hillary was extending her losing streak. Their perspective is not that we should impeach the President because of this act or that, but that we should impeach the President because we don’t like what he says and does, and we need to find a crime to match the punishment we are determined to meet out.

4.      The Democrats have a history of trying to destroy, rather than defeat, Republican Presidents. It is not too much of a stretch to note, that the Democrats’ resistance to the 1st Republican President led to Civil War, and that a Democrat, and actor, assassinated him. But in more modern history, since WW2, there have been 7 GOP POTUS. Of these, Eisenhower doesn’t really count, because he had to check his registration to say what his party was, and he was such a national hero after the war that he was untouchable. Ford doesn’t count, because he was in office only a short time, filling Nixon’s unexpired term. Of the remaining 5, who were elected and served at least one full term, the Democrats have sought to impeach every one of them. Check your history if you find this incredible. Democrats introduced bills to impeach Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and they are carefully impeaching without impeaching Trump, largely because the want him gone, their lunatic base wants him impeached, but they realize that voting articles of impeachment will be a political disaster.

5.      When your irritating little brother or cousin bugs you, you may smack him. When you see 4 bigger guys jump on him and shove him down, you leap to his defense. This should explain why Trump supporters, even those, like me, who consider him an ass, but an effective ass, and OUR ass, are loathed to criticize him and quick to defend him. Like the camel sticking its nose in the tent, we realize that since the Dems and the Left attack him constantly, for everything, much of it made up, and not with the purpose of convincing him to alter course, but with the sole purpose of destroying him, we feel that we cannot give an inch in defending him. He may blunder sometimes, and his mouth may lead a life of its own, and he may be an ass, but the calculus that made him the choice over Hillary still holds, as do his results. The Dems, particularly the ones who suffer badly from the mental illness that is Liberalism, somehow have the idea that if only they can remove Trump, they will get Hillary. Of course, they don’t understand that what they would get is a fired-up President Pence, a seething GOP electorate, and, in 2021, unmovable GOP control of both Houses of Congress, and the White House, and, sometime in the foreseeable future, and 7-2 Originalist SCOTUS. Nor do they care. They are simply consumed by hate and want to hurt their enemies.

6.      As a student of history, I would urge any Leftists who still have thinking abilities unhampered by political madness to study Robespierre and the Jacobins in France. His final thought, before the guillotines that he set in motion descended on his neck must have been that it is easier to release the Kraken than to control it.

 

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Our veterans have earned our memory – our honor – our gratitude.

29 Sep

veterans-heading-image

It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.

Gaius Julius Caesar

No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: Come back with your shield, or on it. Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome.

Robert Heinlein

doug 2

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.

September 29, 2019

 

All of us who wore the uniform have a place in our hearts, a quick tear, easily brought forth, by the memory of the guys who never made it home. We remember the guys trapped below decks on the Arizona, the 1st wave on Omaha Beach, the B-17 crews blown to bits high over a target, boys whose last sight was a dirty rice paddy in Vietnam. Yes, we remember our fallen.

doug smith

But on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, in the year of grace 1918, as the guns fell silent across the front in France, we began a tradition of remembrance of those who served, and suffered, and lived. We who lived to grow to silver hair and old age remember boys who did not, comrades, friends, youngsters, who served in some of the same places and ways that we did. Yet it is fitting that we remember those who came home now full of years, and full of memories of the things that they, and we, did.

Caesar was right: the things the veteran must endure are remarkable and much to ask. It is not easy to persuade people to endure them, even though Heinlein’s observation is equally correct: a society in which that small percentage refuses to stand to and endure will itself, not endure. We look around us and note that our numbers are small, indeed. In WW2, some 16 million served, about 12% of the population. Most numbers are far smaller, perhaps 7% at most serve. So vanishingly few know, from experience, what we know about the day to day realities that make a Veteran. Some have read, or seen movies, or heard Sea Stories, ( which of course, are never crippled by the constraints of truth or reality) but only a tiny handful know because we have seen and felt it.

But we know.

We know the loneliness. Ask any Vet, no matter where they served, and you will find nodding heads. Yes, we endured times of crushing loneliness. We spend Christmas Eve s surrounded by strangers, in places far from the familiar sounds and smells and sights that equal home. We often do mundane jobs far from parents, sweethearts, wives, husbands, and children. The jobs may demand much, or not, but they demand us; far from where we would rather be. So we trudge on and get the job done, get the mission accomplished, while feeling that aching emptiness from faces we can see, but not touch. All of us together, feeling that ache, sharing the place and the time, find that it is endurable, if just barely, because the people next to us know. They are there too. We may miss WV, while they miss Brooklyn, or Missouri, but together we form a new family: our brothers, and a new home town: the outfit, the company, the boat. The place where we endure loneliness together becomes our home, and the people, our brothers. That is how we survive. That is how we endure.

We know the fatigue. Sleep? What exactly is that? In the brief moments we try it, we perfect the art of sleeping anywhere, anytime, on anything. A torpedo skid, a gun mount, a tow motor, a stack of boxes, a hole, wet, cold, hard, hot, sandy, doesn’t matter. We get so tired that if 5 minutes comes our way to close our eyes, we sleep. Perhaps not well, or for long. From the 1st way too early morning we began our lifelong hatred of the word Reveille. This hatred was underscored by an entirely unreasonable Ape kicking a 30 gallon metal GI can and introducing us to our first bit of military poetry: grab your socks and drop your; well, you know the poem. You just finished it in your head. We began to get an inkling that an uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep was an entirely civilian phenomenon. We also began to understand that we were civilians no longer. We had no idea how poorly we would ever again fit that world. But sleep? Wake up, you got the watch. General Quarters, All Hands Man Your Battle Stations. All hand turn to, clean up ship. In the rack promptly at 2300. Up at 0200 for the dogwatch. Back in the rack at 0400. Back up at 0600 for cleanup. Chow at 0700. Muster for Quarters at 0800. Did I sleep? I can’t remember. 9 to 5 and a 40 hour week, again, were relics of that left behind world. We worked till it was done, or until we dropped. Sleep? That was a luxury, and there were few luxuries.

We should mention coffee. SSAM. Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine: we all learned about coffee. Hot, if possible. Strong? We left strong behind a long time ago. Military coffee, Navy Coffee, as I came to love it, ranged from suitable for cleaning valves, to paint thinner, to the really strong stuff. Too old? Too strong? These are, again, strictly civilian concepts. If it was vaguely brown, and had at some point been above body temperature, and could still be poured, or cut into pieces and placed into a cup, we would drink it. Lots of it. It was at first, a poor substitute for the sleep we could never get enough of, and later, our buddy, our pal, our mate, Ambrosia and Nectar, Breakfast of Champions, Food of the Gods, The Water of Life. In cups, tin cups, steel pots, mess kits, whatever would hold it for us, we moved from coffee to coffee, working, cleaning, and functioning in between on the familiar acid warmth in the guts that is our Coffee. All praise to the Coffee.

We know the boredom. The old saw is that military life is hour after endless hour of sheer, mind numbing tedium and boredom, interrupted now and then by seconds or minutes of sheer terror. We can nod our heads in knowing agreement, because we fought a constant battle with boredom. We would do anything to break up the tedium once the work was done. For we could not leave, but must just hurry with our work, then wait. And wait. Pinochle, Cribbage, Euchre, Poker, Backgammon, Acey Duecy, Chess, Checkers, these were all our little friends in the battle. Long watches at night on the Bridge, 20 questions, discussions about baseball, food from back home (a very popular subject), wives, sweethearts, girls, ( also a very popular subject.) And then there were the jokes.

How much time to we have? We have gone for a bucket of steam, 6 feet of waterline, a bag of exhaust from a jeep, a frame for the sight picture, the mail buoy watch, a jar of relative bearing grease. If we were feeling extra bored we might treat a boot to the sight of a Sea Bat, or send him to wake the CO to ask for permission to retrieve the Mail Buoy. If we were extra brutal, we could always send for a Machinists Punch. Military folks develop a truly unique and somewhat morbid sense of humor; another reason Veterans never “quite” fit in with the true civilians.

Veterans learned these hardships, and pain. Pain was a constant companion. Short hours of sleep on a hard and oddly shaped surface left sore backs, butts, and necks. Odd eating habits, working in dim light, breathing fumes or low O2 often left headaches. Aspirins or APC tablets (remember those? Aspirin, Phenylthaline, and Caffeine, an ancient and sovereign cure for what ails ye) were carried in bulk containers by Medics and Corpsman. Hands skinned on the job, knees from crawling or kneeling, ankles from walking or marching. Head, neck, back, arms, hands, butt, legs, knees, ankles, feet, stomach: something always hurt.

Food. We learned to eat what we had. We had some odd loves. And odd language. The typical civilian, offered a plate of “expletive” on a Shingle, will back away from you as if you were mad. We would gobble it up. Meals were sometimes hot and plentiful, but often interrupted, sometimes out of a can, put away for your grandfather, but still good enough for you to survive. Ice cream took on an almost mystical importance. We could sail the world, and charge the gates of hell on Spam, Peanut Butter, Ice Cream, and Coffee. Another of those things civilians never quite get about us is finishing our meal in 3 minutes. We are not here to socialize, we are here to eat. Get it down, while you can.

We come away with strange reflexes. Some of us jump at sharp noises. Some of us can’t stand anyone behind us. Some of us have to have a fan on to sleep, and wake instantly if the power goes off and that background hum ceases.

We tend to speak a common, almost English, but still very foreign language. When we speak of shit cans, bulkheads, making a head call, FUBAR, SNAFU, REMF, Short Timers, Salts, civilians stare at us, but Veterans smile and nod in recognition: Brother. We find the Anglo Saxon monosyllable beginning with F to be a most useful and versatile noun, verb, adjective, adverb, exclamation, pronoun, and gerund. It amazes us as much that civilians do NOT use it with regularity, as it shocks them that we do. It is simply the most useful and descriptive word we know.

Yes, Veterans are an odd lot. We endured a life like few ever know. By and large we chose that life. Most will never understand why we did, or, upon hearing our stories, how we stayed and endured. We were not all wounded, and unlike our honored dead, we all came home. Yet if we came home alive, and if not unwounded, at least functioning, we did not come home unchanged. We left something of ourselves behind. We may believe that we brought home a great deal, but we never fool ourselves that it was without cost.

Yet, we echo the question of President Lincoln: Can any nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the premise that all men are created equal long endure? And for the Veteran, regardless the reasons to put on the uniform, adventure, boredom, escape, opportunity, patriotism; the idea gels before long that we have , at least, our answer to President Lincoln’s question. It will endure, if I have anything to say about it. I will take my oath seriously, and through loneliness, boredom, pain, and hardship, and if necessary, placing my life between “my loved home and war’s desolation”.

So we take this moment, born when the guns of August fell silent that November morning, and remember at this time, not those who died, but those who answered the call. We remember those who said, whatever it takes, nobody will get through me, and get to you. Kids can play in the park with their folks because we will stop any evil trying to reach them. We remember the ones, who, on that November morning, looked around and said, We’ve made it. We remember those who did not know, perhaps till much later, just what they had paid, and what it had cost for them to stand to and hold the line. We remember those who determined that they would pay the cost, whatever it was, even if it were a cost that they would be paying the rest of their lives. We remember those who say, decades later, full of years, softer, greyer, thinning on top, thickening in the middle, older but still proud, knowing it all, I would still do it again. We remember what they did, what they were, what they are, and what they meant to the country we live in, and what they mean still.

It has become a more common thing these days for civilians to greet Veterans they see with the words, Thank you for your service. Many of us are not sure just how to respond to that. We are grateful that they are not showing the disrespect are brothers faced after Vietnam coming home. But we are just a bit embarrassed and not sure how to respond to the civilians thanking us.

But not so with other Veterans. We remember how it was. We remember our comrades in arms. Our brothers. We give you respect.

We remember you.

 

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Liz Warren’s 2nd Amendment gaffe betrays true liberal agenda.

24 Aug

eliz warren

A “wild-eyed” Warren address group of supporters

 

DOUG FOR FSP

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist and associate editor at Free State Patriot

August 24, 2019

 

Accidental Truth

An interesting moment in politics occurred the other day when Elizabeth Warren touted her latest violation of the 2nd Amendment by noting that her massive increase of taxes on gun manufacturing and sales of guns and ammo would have the effect of diminishing the production of guns.

Pause to let that sink in. (THIS article is NOT about the desire of Leftists to disarm the folks so they cannot resist the enlightened leadership of Elizabeth Warren, by the way.)

She accidentally told a basic economic truth: That which you tax more, you get less of. That which you pay for, you get more of. She didn’t mean to, but she did.
Because when, in another pronouncement, she proposes to “modestly” tax the existing wealth of very successful individuals. Just a couple of percentage points. On accumulated wealth, on which they have already paid taxes. Sort of like the “death tax”, making sure that the government gets part of what you worked your whole life for, but without waiting till you die. This might also be a good point at which to mention that the income tax was originally a “modest tax” of only 2%, only on the top 1% of earners. Most of you will be just fine, and those greedy wealthy can afford it. (Before you read on, pop quiz. Are you in the top 1%? No? Did you pay more than 2% in taxes last year? Yes? Hmm. Pause to let that sink in.)

But let s consider this in light of her swerving into the guard rails of truth beside the road. When corporate taxes were quite high during the Obama Regime, where did corporations park their money, in the Trillions? Answer: not here. It would cost them enormously to bring that money to the US, so they didn’t. Nor did they invest it here. It was one of many anti-business factors of the anemic Obama years of low employment, low business startups, and sub 2% GPD growth for the first time since, oh, FDR and Wilson.  Because what you tax more, you get less.

Now, let’s say I’m smart enough and driven enough to be Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, or Jeff Bezos. And I realize that a President Two Feathers Warren is going to go after my money. Where am I going to put my money? The Virgin Islands? Monaco? Someplace that will not tax it, confiscate it, or interfere with it, but let me spend it. I might build a nice estate and buy a bigger boat. But not in the United States. I won’t be spending my money there, because it will be worth less. So, who will Liz rob of their life savings? Anyone who has had enough thrift to accumulate something, but is not wealthy enough to escape.
You.

She didn’t mean to tell you this. It was an accident. She does mean to DO it. And to you, if you earn or have anything. But she doesn’t mean to TELL you so.
The other side of that coin is that what you pay for, you get more of. On that note, a few observations. For all you may hear about the end of welfare as we know it, the reality, if you look around, is that we have generations dependent on other people’s money to function. We have grandparents and great grandparents doing their best to raise children with money from the public dole.

And not that progressives are known for logic, but, try this one on. We have heard repeatedly how illegals do not receive public assistance, and how they are a net positive to the economy. Yet, as the Trump administration proposes to enforce rules that deny green cards or entry to anyone who cannot demonstrate self-sufficiency, and to anyone already hear currently receiving assistance from the public dole (SNAP, HUD, Medical Cards, etc.), the Left is outraged! (I note in passing that the Left is always outraged) That is cruel and heartless. But wait. If they cannot receive public assistance, as you tell us, and Trump proposes to enforce that law which you tell us governs, how it that heartless? Can it be that the Left is accidentally telling the truth once more?

If you have ever raised or cared for a child, here is a though experiment. Suppose you decide that you will never say no to a child. If they want a toy in the grocery store, they get it. If they want pudding for dinner at 10 pm, they get it. If they want to miss school, why they skip. You never deny them anything. What will you have? If you said a spoiled brat who screams and throws tantrums, you would be close to the mark.

There are limits and what we may get, and what we may do (many things may be worthwhile, but resources are finite. If you send money to every heartfelt appeal on TV, you will starve.) If there are no limits, and anything that seems worthy must be done, regardless of cost, you find generations of spoiled adults with no concept of the real world. Remember a young lady who did a video of herself after Trump was elected, in which she screamed and cried in hysterics at the thought that her side had lost an election? Her pull quote was “I am literally going to die”.

Had she been a child, raised when I was raised, some adult would have said “You stop that right now or I’ll give you something to cry about!” She is not a child. She is a ruined adult.

Truths. If you tax it, it will diminish. If you pay for it, it will grow. If you never make value judgements, you are incapable of deciding that a $ 50,000 car is less important than rent and food. And you expect “them” to give it to you. So, you get behind “them” when they promise it to you. And never realize the difference between what you earn, and what you are given, or between a privilege and a right.

And that what the government must give you, the government can deny you. You must trust both the intentions and the abilities of a person who says “I know what is best for 400,000,000 people, every day, and every moment. Trust me. “

Let that sink it. No one is that good, or benevolent, or smart. But 400,000,000 free citizens, left to pursue happiness in their own way, and to live in liberty, are that smart. They will choose for themselves better than any small cadre of progressives can. So our founders thought.
But not Elizabeth Warren. Except occasionally, by accident.

But trust her. Shell get over it.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: On Thievery and Philanthropy

14 Jul

DOUG FOR FSP

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and social editor for Free State Patriot

July 14, the 2019

 

Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?  What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms? A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention.

If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity.

For it was a witty and truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great.  The king asked the fellow, “What is your idea, in infesting the sea?”  And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, “The same as yours, in infesting the earth!  But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.”

 St Augustine of Hippo, The City of God

I have been reading Dan Jones’ The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens who made England. It led me to consider 2 millennia of thievery. First the Norsemen came to raid Normandy and the British Isles, then later the Normans, mixed in with Norsemen who had stayed, in the person of William the Conqueror conquered England in 1066. It was the grandson of William (also known as the Bastard, depending on the tome you read) Henry II, who established House Plantagenet, and, by all accounts, England.  (Watch The Lion in Winter), Richard the Lionheart, King John (of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame), his grandson Edward, (Longshanks, of Braveheart infamy), Edward, The Black Prince (you saw him in A Knights Tale). See, you know these guys. What you don’t know is that they were broke, and had expensive hobbies. Their hobbies were France, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. For while their main endeavor was conquering new lands to provide income to themselves and their sons, they had no source of income, no viable skills to trade, other than being very good at war, and, from time to time, at making laws. Laws, taxes, and the point of a sword were their stock in trade. No one who raised crops or shoed horses came to them and offered silver in exchange for a new set of laws, so they had to borrow and tax to finance their wars to obtain further lands from who to obtain further taxes. Et Cetera, ad nauseam.  These Wars included the aptly named Hundred Years War. Almost without exception, they amassed fortunes, spent them on wars to acquire other territories, to get the income from them, to get more territories, and died leaving the nation in debt. For purposes of this article, we won’t dwell on the bones bleaching at Agincourt, just the money. Henry says of himself, in James Goldman’s The Lion in Winter, “My life, when it is written, will read better than it lived. Henry Fitz-Empress, first Plantagenet, a king at twenty-one, the ablest soldier of an able time. He led men well, he cared for justice when he could and ruled, for thirty years, a state as great as Charlemagne’s.” He cared for justice when he could, but his skill, his raison d’etre, was fighting. So how did he get the money to “rule a state as great as Charlemagne’s? Institutionalized thievery, at the point of a sword. He gave laws, and molded the outline of England, but he took the money to do so at the point of a sword.

Does all this bear on our modern world?  Consider a politician who today makes $ 174,000, but a year ago made barely 26,000, has student loans to pay off, and can’t afford a place to stay, offering to give away free stuff that will cost 5 times as much as all the money produced by the entire United States economy in 2017. Who will pay for it?

Henry could tell you. The bankers who lent to his grandsons and were bankrupted could tell you. Henry might at least make the argument that for all he cost, he did leave behind a legacy of better laws and justice. Nor would he couch it in terms that he was only doing it for the people. No, he was straightforward about his ambitions to rule.

sanders

One can respect his attitude as true, even while resenting his taxes. But question with a jaded eye the one who is “only thinking of the folks”.

Free medicine. Who pays the Doctors? Or are they to be slaves?

Free housing? Who pays the builders? Or are they to be slaves?

Free Education? Oh this one is rich. Will they make slaves of the NEA and University Administrators?

Green New Deal. Now that is a good one. Who pays for that? The cost, by conservative estimates, is over $ 93 Trillion dollars. Who pays? Or who becomes a slave. These are, understand, the only options.

When Andrew Carnegie, who was, at the time, the wealthiest man in the world, began to put his money to use building libraries (including the one in Huntington, WV. Look at the cornerstone on the original building sometime. It reads, A gift of Andrew Carnegie to the people of Huntington. ) Universities, he was a philanthropist. He believed that money, wealth, was best spent helping people help themselves. And to that end, he gave away over $ 350,000,000 before his death in 1919, the equivalent of 5.3 Trillion today.

Franklin Roosevelt, with his original New Deal give-aways, never touched his own fortune. Instead, he spend, in 2019 dollars, 900 Trillion taxpayer dollars by 1940. The future obligations of those give-aways are over 50 Trillion. Who paid for that? Or who will pay for that? And who will pay for the free stuff encompassed by the GND?

Well, of course, the Left will tell us, we will simply tax the evil, greedy rich. But consider. The total net wealth of everyone in the United States, including the wealthiest, is hovering around 88 Trillion.  So, to take all the proposed free stuff Democrats politicians are bandying about, conservative estimates are a cost of 243 Trillion dollars. If we enact a 100 percent tax and confiscate everything owned by everyone, that still leaves us well over 100 Trillion short. And remember, estimates of the cost of government programs are always low, usually by huge margins. We have another problem as well. If we go to the 100% wealth tax, that is the last dollar the government ever brings in. Period. No one has a car to go to work. No one owns a factory to hire employees. No one can afford to make widgets, or buy them if they were made, or plant a crop. The economy comes to a halt, because no one has any money, except for the government. If history has taught us anything, it is that they will quickly consume their feed corn.

So, when a politician offers to give things away, unless they are offering to give away their own money, we have the answer to the question: Who becomes a slave? Everyone. Me. You. Your children. They own it all, and we get only what they bestow on us, only if we do exactly what they approve of. That is the definition of slavery.

Now, let us consider this.

Of the current crop of potential candidates for President in 2020, which is proposing to give away a great deal of money that they don’t have, by the simple expedient of stealing it from anyone who does have it, so that they can control it, and, regardless of their promises, dole out whatever they choose? Everyone running for the Democrat nomination.

And of this same crop, which has donated their entire salary to various causes for over 2 years?

If you are a Lefty, or a Never Trumper, you should stop reading now. No, really I mean it, I’m warning you. Really, don’t do it.

Ok, you asked for it.

That would be President Donald Trump.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: The truth about illegal immigration

24 Jun

After a sabbatical following the loss of his hero, his father, Doug has returned with absolute clarity on the crisis at our Southern Border.  The crisis is real.

illegals for doug's

The crisis at the border is real

___________________________________________________________________________________________

DOUG FOR FSP

Doug Smith is an opinion columnist, historian and social editor for Free State Patriot

June 24, 2019

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

During the time of the Barbary Pirates, there was an expression of the sentiment of the times. In various forms, it said “Millions for defense, not a sixpence for tribute.”  The Pirates, you see, would offer to stop attacking our ships if we would only pay them off. The sentiment was to reject the offer, and reject it we did. Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to fight them off and there was no more problem with the Barbary Pirates.

A similar principle is at work in the arguments regarding the costs and treatment of illegals detained in the US. Legal immigrants play by the rules. They must show that they are able to support themselves before being allowed to come in, and are expect, at once, to begin contributing to, not taking from, society. It is, therefore, manifestly unfair to permit others to push around those waiting to do it right, and sneer at our laws and borders, and reward such behavior by supporting them while they are here illegally, and meanwhile, the ones who respect our laws, and our country, wait.

In 1986, Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, made a deal with President Reagan. In exchange for amnesty for 3 million illegals, Democrats would agree to secure the border and fix laws so that legal immigration was streamlined and illegal immigration was much harder, and dealt with much more sternly. Unsurprisingly, looking back at deals with Democrats, he lied. The 3 million got amnesty. None of the promised actions took place. Not even now, 33 years later.

When our laws, our enforcement, and our benefits to illegal entries all combine to make it attractive to disobey our laws, and count on being rewarded for being illegal, and punished for doing the right thing, we get what you would expect: more illegals.

We must remove the incentives to break our laws.

Now, there is an argument being put forth that it is cheaper to release them and give them welfare than to detain them. (Have you noticed that the Left is never concerned about how to pay for something, or what it costs, unless it is for something of which they disapprove?)  This is particularly specious. For one thing, detainees will be held for a limited period of time. Then, after a hearing, if denied amnesty, they will be deported to their homes. Illegals released into the population, and given public moneys to live on, will be living on it, in most cases, for decades. Arguments by the catch and release crowd to the contrary, ICE testified before Congress in Dec 2018 that in fact, a scant 15 % ever show up for hearings. And with good reason, from their point of view, because less than 12% of amnesty claims turn out to be valid and approved. There is massive fraud in these claims, because lawyers and open borders advocates coach people before they arrive on what to say to trigger a claim for amnesty. Yet, once they are investigated, very few are found to be legitimate.

This is tantamount to saying it costs so much to hold a felon that it is cheaper to release him into the community. After all, what he would steal is probably less than what it costs to hold him. In one sense, it may be cheaper, with the single felon. But there is also the desire to deter crime and make it costly to the criminal. We want to discourage crime and live under the protection of a system of laws. If we always do that which is cheaper and easier, regardless of right or wrong, we soon find ourselves at the mercy of bullies and bandits.

The arguments to simply release everyone are just the open borders arguments in various guises. The United States of America is not going to have open borders, and permit anyone, anywhere, who wishes to come, to come on in, ignore our laws, and get paid for it. Because if we did, the United States would cease to exist. No sovereign nation has, or can, continue if it does not control its borders and its populations. Many countries require visitors to have a return ticket before they can roam around.

The current flood of people coming into Texas is no longer just people fleeing Honduras or Guatemala looking for the good life here. Citizens of 29 different countries have been flooding Texas in recent months. A small town of 17000 recently had over 300 Congolese illegals appear on their streets, and no one who can even speak their language. Proof, in case we still need it, that the word is out: drag a child with you and you can get in, and that these folks are getting help to get in. How else do 300 poor Congolese make the trek from Africa to Mexico and then walk up across the border.

It is unfair to legal immigrants, or those waiting to come in illegally, but it is also unfair to US citizens and taxpayers. Essentially the open border argument says “No matter what it costs you, no matter how much it taxes your resources, no matter that it may bankrupt your town, then your county, then your state, then the nation, you must accept as many of the worlds billions of poor who want to come and take from your purse.” I reject this argument, and say I, and my fellow citizen, get to set the limits on my charity. Often in response, I am called a bigot or xenophobe. These are not arguments, but simply attacks. They do not persuade. If anyone, government or fellow citizen, wishes to take my good and money from me, without persuading me that it is in my interest to give it, then it is simply robbery, whether the gun is visible or not. Ultimately, the threat of force is behind it.

I am an American. I advocate for the interests of my country, and my fellow citizens, first and foremost, and above and to the exclusion of any others. For those who want to come in, you may ask to do so. You must play by the rules, and there is a chance you will be permitted to come. Not everyone will. America may be a friend to other countries. We are the best friend other countries can have. We are the ones called when a tsunami wipes out hundreds, or an earthquake devastates an already backward country. Us. The United States. Not Cuba, or Venezuela, or China, us. And we respond over and over again with ships and people and money. The world looks to us as the big dog when trouble strikes. But we will not accept, en masse, their entire populations of poor, thereby relieving them of the obligation to care for them, and breaking our own system and economy.

It costs something to detain, care for, process, and deport illegals. It will cost Mexico something to slow down the mass movements on their southern border. But once the word filters out that it is no longer a cake walk, and that dragging a child along a dangerous 1200-mile journey is no longer an EZ Pass into the US, the flood of illegals will slow considerably, to levels we can manage. Until it does, these are steps we must take to preserve our country.

 

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries