Tag Archives: DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: MINIMUM WAGE ZERO

11 Jun

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

June 11, 2015

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, a Progressive President and Congress acted to try and mandate the minimum wage a worker could be paid. Their target wage was 25c an hour.

They failed. As has every subsequent Congress which tried over the years. For the minimum wage is, and always has been, Zero.

If I hire you to cut my grass for $15, and you do a lousy job, your wage will move from 15 to zero, because I won’t hire you again.  I will make a cost benefit analysis. It is not worth $15 to me to have you cut my grass. So I seek another alternative. I might buy a goat.

And so it has been, in 1938, and every time Congress has tried. Some keep working, and get the new mandated wage. Many others get fired, and get the eternal minimum wage: zero. Many more do not get hired at all, and continue to get the universal minimum wage: zero. When Congress, or the city of Los Angeles, moves to artificially raise the minimum wage, they accomplish two things; neither of which are their original intent.

The first is to make some workers happy, and their employers unhappy, because they are getting more money for the same effort, without contributing more to the company’s bottom line. They also make other workers unhappy, because the mandated raise will not apply to those who started at the bottom, worked their way up to making more, only to see the guy who just started and doesn’t know which end is up get the raise he worked for at the stroke of a pen.

min wage

The second is to make potential workers unhappy. For with each increase in the minimum wage, the number of entry level workers is decreased. Now in plain English that means companies cut back on the number of employees. Care to flip a coin with the guy next to you? One of us gets a raise, one of us gets the boot. Good luck. There is a cost beyond just salary to keeping an employee. If I must pay each bottom rung employee more than they are worth to my bottom line, it becomes for cost effective to fire 2, and pay a little overtime to 3 others. More to the point, the teenager looking for part time work, the young person seeking that all important 1st job, looks less appealing. I will hire fewer people now than I would have. If an additional $100,000 in business might have been the break point to add one full time employee before the $15 minimum, now it may be $150,000. Sorry, kid, but Congress says you will have to wait.

So, in the midst of the Depression, with economic activity stalled and sputtering, how much longer did it take for a business to reach the point to hire one more man? The guy inside the gate was now getting a bit more, but the guy outside the gate was still broke, cold, hungry, and out of work. He would have been thrilled to get some work at 20c an hour, but

Congress and FDR say “No, we can’t have you work for that pittance! How can you support a family on 20c an hour? “

“But, but, I’m supporting them on zero cents an hour now. I’ve got nothing coming in. The 20 cents would be great.”

“Sorry, but we are from the government and we are here to help. Blame it on the evil, greedy capitalists inside the gate. “

Meanwhile, the EGC s inside the gate are going over the books. The 25% increase in labor costs, mandated by the government, has cut their margin from 2% to ½%. And an increase in the cost of goods sold has cut that even further. Shaking their heads, they reach for a stack of pink slips and start filling them out.

And that is what a boost in the government mandated minimum wage accomplishes. Not lifting people up, but pushing more people to the true minimum wage, dictated by natural law: Zero.

As if to underscore the point, the labor unions of Los Angeles are petitioning to be exempted from the city wide mandated $15 minimum wage because “it might make them uncompetitive in seeking contracts.”

The irony is rich. Welcome to basic economics, boys.

Tags: , ,

Free State Patriot: Exposing the progressive movement in America…every day.

15 May

        DOUG SMITH                              mc

Doug Smith: Author, historian, and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.  Mark Caserta: Editor, Free State Patriot

About us:

flag

Free State Patriot is a conservative blog that’s working hard, sometimes behind the scenes, to expose the progressive movement in the United States. And we’re making a difference. We have thousands of followers in 14 different countries and so far in 2015, Free State Patriot has had hits from 74 nations around the globe!

And we’re looking to grow.

We stand for Christian conservative values, the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. And we won’t compromise an inch on any of the three.

You see, compromise to a progressive, is like blood to a shark. They advance their agenda slowly, but methodically. To the uninformed, it will most likely happen without them knowing it.

But that’s where …Free State Patriot is committed to stepping in and exposing their devious strategies. And we don’t like to lose.

And with God in our corner…we can’t possibly fail.

So what would you attempt in life if you KNEW it was impossible to fail?

Maybe it’s time to get involved and find out.

Visit us at:
https://freestatepatriot.com/

And learn more about what is happening to the greatest country on earth…progressively.

God Bless,

Mark

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: The Power to Tax

15 May

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

tax b

“The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy”

John Marshall

 

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”

Oscar Wilde

Today is May 12, 2015. Congratulations. You are working for yourself. What, you didn’t know? If you have a job, you worked till April 24th for the government’s share before you start to work for yourself. It took you that long to earn enough to pay your “fair share” of taxes.

Last year, it was April 21st, in 2013 April 18th. That date has steadily moved forward for 100 years. You will pay more for your share of taxes than you will spend for food, clothing, and housing. You will work 114 days out of 365 before you are working for your own money.

I’ve been thinking of taking 2 year old granddaughter shopping. I’m going to give my credit card and check book to the cashiers, and then let her grab anything shiny or sweet that grabs her fancy. We’ll go through toys, and clothes, and candy, TVs, DVDs, you name it. We’ll hit it all. Spare no expense! Don’t consider the cost. If it seems like something she wants, just buy it.

Crazy, you say? Well, perhaps you are right. The two year old knows the price of nothing, and has a value system based upon what she wants. So giving her a blank check is perhaps, not the wisest course of action.

We might say that a Congressman is a person who knows neither the price nor the value of anything, or, if not, has the same system of values as that 2 year old. If it seems good, why then do it. Never consider the cost. Now why, do you suppose, that a Congressman and a 2 year old reason in much the same way?

tax a

The two year old knows only that certain ways of persuasion get her what she wants. Pouting is less effective, but the sweet smile and eyes aimed at her Daddy or her Papaw will usually melt all resistance and get her what she wants at once. (Mommy, of course, is made of sterner stuff.) She does not know the value or the price of what she gets, for she has not yet had to pay for anything. Nor has she had to work for the valuta with which to pay. Is it worth it to spend the value of 8 hours labor for a cheaply made toy that will amuse her for an hour and then never be touched again? I can make the value judgement that it is not, (absent that smile and blue eyes pointed at me!) for I know what it is to work those 8 hours.

Now, we hope that before she is out on her own paying bills and balancing a check book, she will learn of value, and work, and reward. She will understand that to get something that costs 8 hours of her labor will, in fact, Cost her those 8 hours. A Congressman, however, will never learn that lesson. After all, it is my labor from January to June that pays for what Congress takes from me. Congress gets to spend on whatever is shiny and new, and give in the coercions of thousands of 2 year olds, albeit some of them chronologically much older.

How, in fact, can a Congressman ever hope to know of value when he spends the fruits of the labors of millions for the pleasure of thousands? If he worked a full year, instead of the handful of days he does, his labors would not earn what he spends in 5 minutes. If he worked his entire life, and gave all he earned, he still would not have paid the piper. How can he ever know the cost of what he is spending on my behalf? And if he does not know, and yet has the power to tax me as much as he wants, then we have a dangerous situation.

Somehow we need to have people in Congress who understand, and respect, both cost and value, before they undertake to spend and tax. Otherwise, they are as destructive as that 2 year old with a credit card, or a cannon.

Do you doubt that Congress can destroy using the tax? Consider this example.

The estate tax destroys many small family farms. When the owner dies, if the total of the farm land and equipment is worth over a million dollars, (not a lot for even a modest sized farm, and not enough to make the farmer a millionaire) the estate tax will reach as much as 40%. ( In 2012, Democrats in Congress cheerily proposed raising this to 55%) So his heirs, also not wealthy, are forced to pay taxes again on what he has worked for, and paid taxes for, all his life. Now, not having 400 grand lying about, his children have no choice but to sell off all or part of the farm to pay the taxes, or lose it all to the IRS and the State. In time, often in just one generation, a family farm ceases to exist.

At the same time we are wiping out small family farms by taking with the right hand, the left hand is spending like that proverbial 2 year old in the candy store in the form of “farm subsidies.” This is a brilliant program (designed by Progressives during the Depression to bolster farms) that pays someone who “might” farm, not to.

Farm subsidy payments are based on acreage, so the bigger the farm the bigger the subsidies. Commercial farmers, with an average income of $200,000 and net worth of nearly $2 million, get the majority of farm subsidies. From 1995 to 2005, farm subsidies went out to, among others,

John Hancock Life Insurance ($2,849,799)

Westvaco ($534,210),

David Rockefeller ($553,782)

Ted Turner ($206,948

Also to members of Congress, who get to vote on the subsidies, such as

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa, $225,041)

Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo., $161,084).

In one crazy instance, a farm was converted to homes, and the owners were sent farm subsidy checks for not growing soybeans in their back yards!

So in this instance we see Congress’ power to tax is destroying family farms while making payoffs to wealthy friends, and, themselves.

The power to destroy? At what point will people refuse to go to work and work for Congress to spend their money on others?  150 days? 182? At some point, if the trend of Progressive big spenders in Congress continues, working people reach the point where they cannot pay for essentials with what

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Winnie – The Enemy of the Left

10 May

“And once upon a time, the progressive movement began…”

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, Historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

eeyore1POOH 2

Thank you, Professor of Sociology Adam Swift, University of Warwick, England.

We have met the enemy, and he is Winnie the Pooh. Professor (not so) Swift has shown us the way, the way of the Left. For once it is so clear.

The good Prof thinks that parents who read to their children are unfairly disadvantaging the kids who do not have parents who read to them. “A Bear, however hard he tries, grows tubby without exercise.” Poor Winnie. All these years he has been guilty of disadvantaging the kids who did not hear his stories, and Treasure Island, Narnia, or the journey of a little fellow named Baggins.

Funny. I wish I had the advantage of a Leftist education. I never knew. I thought that reading to your kids was a good thing. That it made them better people, expanded their minds, helped them love to read, and made them feel loved.  Good stuff.

But no. It is not fair to do things to raise them up, because others are left behind by not being read to, and that is not fair. So, we should let all our children settle to the bottom level of the least among us.

Pooh is the enemy of fairness.

POOH 3

Inadvertently, perhaps, Swift has given us a capsule summary of the whole premise of the Left s thought process.  Never seek to raise anyone. Anyone who is raised up, in any way, must be torn down. Except for us. Note the Professor Swift does NOT maintain that it would be fair for him to give up his tenured position at the University, and go to McDonalds and make $ 15 bucks an hour. After all, we need the Prof and his ilk to tell the rest of us how we ought to live.  And no one can do that on minimum wage.

So we see the Left displayed for a moment, naked to the view.  Let us not say to the minimum wage worker, “ Read, stay off the drugs, don’t get your girlfriend pregnant, don’t have sex with your boyfriend and GET pregnant, get more education, show up for work on time, make yourself worth more, so you will get more.”  No, the Left says, enjoy your joint, it is unreasonable to expect you not to have sex, it is your right to have all the babies you want, starting at 16, and it is our ( but by that, they never mean “Their”, always someone else’s work, and money) duty to provide for the children, which we will not discourage.  If you show up and put on that McDonalds uniform (which they gave you) and wonder around behind the counter, we (again, not meaning Professor Swift, but Ray Kroc) ought to give you enough to raise a family.  But at the same time, we are not going to make you feel bad by insisting that you avoid the drugs, stay with one woman and help raise the family you helped create.  After all, if you begat 21 children by 10 women, SOMEBODY has to be responsible for taking care of them.

But not you. And not Professor Swift. And don’t you read to them and encourage them to stay in school. That would not be fair.

We (ready for that pay cut yet, Prof?) will take care of everything.  “We” will support your right to live a life of poverty, with a few frills, and extort your sustenance from others, as long as you support us staying in power.  Meanwhile. I’ll tell others what to do, make them feel guilty for what they have, and what they do, and breathing, and eating.  And I’ll continue to envision a Leftist Utopia, where everyone is equal, and on the bottom, and miserable, but grateful.

Except We, and this time I DO mean we, have to live better, eat better, because we are better, and think better, and know better, how to provide all this for you, who are forever incapable. No, no thanks necessary. My reward is knowing you are in paradise. And a quarter mill a year salary as Dean for Cultural Equality.

And it all starts with Winnie the Pooh. Sorry, silly old Bear.

POOH 4

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Character matters after all

25 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.

4.25.15

The phrase “character matters” was batted about some years ago.  It was also widely discounted by the Clintonphiles when it came to the Clintons.  Odd that a DUI 20 years previous to an election was a major character flaw for Bush, but peccadilloes in office, ( Literally, in office: The Oval Office) were excused as a private matter when it came to The Clinton ( Like The McGregor, but with less kilts and more charm.)

One of the most iconic pronouncements of the 20th century, and one that typifies the Clinton approach to ethics, truth, and behavior came from the lips of Bill, The Clinton.

I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

bh5

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/bill-clinton-responds-monica-lewsinsky-affair-allegations-28406403

And later,

I did, indeed have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, they were not correct.

Don’t these guys just make you love lawyers? As long as no one specifically asked if he engaged in the particular act, at a particular time, in a particular place, his lies and evasions were, to his way of thinking, ok – until they were not. Perhaps they should have had a divorce lawyer question him, or a psychiatrist.

But all the Clintonese parsing of words aside, when Bill Clinton answered under oath, the question “Did you have sexual relations with her?” with a flat “No.”, it was a lie.

When he famously uttered the Miss Lewinsky pronouncement to all of America, it was a lie – Period.

But Bill was charming (so was Charles Manson), handsome, and popular. The economy was good. No active wars were underway.

So, did the character of the Clintons (Hillary has the same relationship with the truth as Bill, her gravy train, but without the charm) matter? The Arkansas Supreme Court, to their credit, felt that a lawyer perjuring himself was a bad thing and disbarred him. The judgement of many supporters, and the Senate, at the time was, no, not so much.

So, does it matter, the character of those we entrust with power over our lives and our country?

Hillary  would have us believe at one time she  picked up the Wall Street Journal one day, said, Hmm, cattle is going up, and plopped down $ 1,000 bucks, and made a neat return of $100,000, good day’s work.

Except, the odds of that happening at millions to one.

Hillary’s investment was made by a trader tied to Tyson foods, not by her.

Her investment was 60,000 in the red at one point, and she was not required to put up more to cover the loss, as were other investors, who lost their shirts.

bh2

If Hillary, and he, had played by the rules, she would have lost the 1,000, and more.

Her investor was disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Board for the practice of “straddling”, i.e. waiting till the winners and losers are known then allocating the trades, in short picking the winners and losers after the trades are done. That is like making a bet in poker after the other guy shows his cards. It is fraudulent. (He lost his license to trade for a year over the practice.)

Gradually, bit by bit, the Clinton White House revealed the truth of the trades, that it was not Hillary, that it was in fact guided by the trader tied to Tyson Foods. But as is their wont, they released the truth only when caught, and bit by bit, so that no one notices.

Tyson Foods was in turn the beneficiary of millions in favors from the state of Arkansas, under Clinton.  Governor Clinton refused to enforce his own clean up rulings against them at a chicken plant, which caused many residents to sicken, and the Governor to declare it a disaster area, forcing (surprise!  ) the State, and not Tyson, to clean it up.  When allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash from Tyson arriving at the Governor’s mansion for the Clintons, a special prosecutor sought to investigate the apparent quid pro quo. But by now, it was 1994.  Attorney General Janet Reno, now President Clinton’s appointee, refused his request to investigate, and the allegations reported by Time were never pursued.

Chelsea Clinton (net worth 15 million) said, a few years ago, “I guess I got this from my parents. We have just never cared about money.”

bh1

But in fact, for the Clintons, it is all about money. Power, to be sure, but power as a means to get money. They like the Park Avenue lifestyle, the private jets, hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

And the record shows they will do anything, say anything, break any rule, to get it.

With a 20 year pattern of such behaviors, underscored in present revelations by the Clintons going back to amend their taxes to include millions in donations from foreigners that they just “ forgot” to report, and forgot to pay taxes on, it is increasingly the question must be asked “ Can we trust  Clinton?”

Even as allegations of impropriety surface with the Clintons receiving money from foreign interests with business before the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State, supporters are rushing to say

“There is no evidence that those millions had any impact on her decisions as Secretary.”  Huh? So in other words, someone gave her millions, and she made a ruling in their favor, but there is no proof she would not have ruled the same way even without the money.

Seriously? That is the story they are going with?

Now, just by way of perspective, let us consider this.  A week after President Obama was inaugurated, President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Energy Secretary Bodman, got to look at their holdings for the first time since taking office. In the case of President Bush, he placed all his wealth into a blind trust with Northern Trust in 1999, when he began running for President. None of these men, all millionaires, received any information, nor were able to see where their money was invested, by the terms of the blind trust, until it was removed from the trust, after they left office. In this way, they avoid the appearance of impropriety in their decisions. They don’t know if their money is in oil, or real estate, or Uranium.  So their decisions cannot be influenced by what will do those good financially, but on what they think is right. That is a sound approach.

So we might start out with this question.  Why didn’t the Clintons recuse themselves from the Clinton Foundation, and take no money, or salary, or free travel from them, and meet with no donors, and not be made aware of the donors, during the time when Hillary was Secretary of State.  Henry Paulson did, and he was worth far more than the Clinton Foundation.

And again now, why don’t the Clintons take that action now that Hillary is a candidate for President, so she can avoid the appearance of impropriety as she runs for the highest office in the land? After all, Bush did. And he lost money in the 2008 collapse.

bh3

After all, we don’t want the appearance that our leaders are for sale.  Except, of course, if they are.

Now, many people like Bill Clinton. He is a likable guy. A scoundrel, but a likable guy. I might enjoy grilling hamburgers with him, but would I trust him with my wallet?

But Hillary?  That one has me puzzled.  Some people seem to worship her as a political icon of the Left. But why? She is NOT likable, as is her husband. She is not accomplished.  Everything she has been involved in has been tainted with failure, disaster, and scandal.  She is, to say the least, ethically challenged. Somehow she has wrapped herself in the mantel of “First Woman President.”

But let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Support Hillary, because only she can be the 1st Woman President. Really? So, even discounting her failures and her questionable ethics, are the feminists seriously telling us that of all the women out there, of all the smart, accomplished, personable women who have been on the national scene, there is only one that might win the Presidency? If that is true, what an indictment on feminism and on women. Really? One? That is all you’ve got for 100 years since Susan B Anthony?

bh4

Character? Yes, it does matter.  Condi Rice would make a fine President. As would Nicki Halley. As would Carly Fiorina. As would, were she still living, the former Ambassador to Britain, Shirley Temple Black.  These are 3 fine choices from the conservative side of the spectrum.  Again, my liberal friends, are you really saying that among all the liberal women on the national scene, all you have is one? It is not, nor has it ever been, Hillary or no woman President.

Character matters. As the latest revelations, and Clinton scrambling to revise the lies toward truth as they are caught, to pay taxes they evaded to set the record straight, (any ideas what would have happened if Mitt Romney, or you, or me, had REALLY evaded our taxes for 5 years?) continue to unfold, we need to get past the tunnel vision of Hillary because….Hillary.

Ironically, Hillary Rodham was involved for a time in efforts to remove Richard Nixon for his dishonesty and deception.  Now, after a lifetime of showing herself to be so very much like him, she wants his old job.

It is time to take a hard look at the actions, words, deceits, and record of this person and ask seriously, Will having her as our President be a good thing?

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Hillary Clinton Conservative ‘Rules of engagement’ (Just don’t!)

15 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor

4.15.15

The Hillary Rules

So it seems the rules now (isn’t it funny that it is always the Progressive Left PC police who get to make these inane rules?) are that

  1. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s characteristics, lest we be misogynistic
  2. We should say yes! We want to see a woman President. But must not say, just not her.
  3. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s actions, or we are part of the vast right wing conspiracy ( mental note: I need to pay my dues, my VRWC card expires next month)
  4. We cannot focus on Hillary’s accomplishments, because that holds her to an unfair standard. Like having one.

clinton 3

(How much have you accomplished Madam Secretary?)

Now, these are rules designed to function only in Bedlam. They can serve only one purpose: to elect Hillary. So let us take a quick look at the logical fallacies behind these “rules”.

We cannot criticize Hillary?

The world of chivalry, in which a man might say “Step outside, you can’t say that about my wife.” precludes politics. Nor can Hilly and her supporters have it both ways:

I want to break the glass ceiling into the all men world of Presidents, and at the same time

I am woman, hear me whine, don’t be mean to me.

The Left still, to this day, delights in painting Ronald Reagan as a cheerful idiot.

Dan Rather used a made up story about GW Bush’s military service to smear his character as he ran for President.

Remember Willy Horton? He was a convicted murderer, let out for weekend furlough under Mike Dukakis, Governor of Mass, and committed a heinous crime while out. Dukakis was smeared as soft on crime and a weakling. (By Al Gore, it should be noted, not a prominent member of the VRWC.) But of course, these are all men.

Remember the Iron Lady? That would be Maggie Thatcher, British Conservative Prime Minister. Iron Lady was one of the milder epithets applied to her. Critics in England even cheered publicly her death at 87, decades after she left office, singing Ding Dong the witch is dead. (And SHE never said “I ll get you my pretty…..to Monica.)

clinton 2

A man cannot hide behind his wife, nor a woman behind her sex, and expect special treatment to permit her to win the right to lead. After all, her opponents and enemies should she be elected will not grant her that favor. Nor did Maggie’s. But then, Maggie didn’t need it.

We should WANT a woman President

It is foolish to WANT a “woman” President. Or a “black, Hispanic, Irish Catholic, gay, disabled, (am I missing any?) President. Identity politics is absurd. We want an American President, one who is committed to us as a people, to our system of laws, and who is capable of leading the most powerful nation in the world. If we want to tick off a box on a list saying we have picked one from each group, then let it be Miss America, or America’s Most Admired. They can be picked for their charming smile and winning personality, and go on speaking tours and be admired. Come to think of it, Hillary does that now, and completely without benefit of any discernible personality.

It should be noted that England had one powerful, dynamic woman Prime Minister. She served 11 years; the longest PM in 150 years. But, they had: One.

If we do want a woman President, surely, even the Dems can do better. Certainly the GOP can. How about Condi Rice, whose father was registered as a Republican in Jim Crow Alabama because the Democrats refused to do so.

clinton 4 clinton 1

(Oh my…What was I thinking?)

We cannot criticize her actions?

Really?

Sure we can. Many criticized Nixon’s illegal and unethical actions, despite some real accomplishments as President, and were ready to have him removed from office. In fact, Hillary was a young lawyer working for the House Managers preparing to do just that. Until she was fired. For unethical behavior. Makes sense: her boss was about to launch an impeachment of a President for ethical lapses, and had on his staff an aggressive (nana nana nana, yes I said It.) lawyer who trampled the rules of ethics. That would look bad if he got into a trial. Interesting that young lawyer went on to have a career marked by ethical lapses, and was prominently on the other side of the next impeachment. When you are applying for a job, a hiring manager will look at your strengths, but also your failings. If they find that you don’t have what it takes, they will not hire you and deal with the problems you bring to the table. Hillary is applying for a job with us. We are being asked to hire her, and put our future and our security in her hands. We absolutely can, and should, and must look to her failings and weaknesses. No one is without them, but we ought to know them and make an informed decision.

Hillary has led a life of unethical dealings in business, in government, and in politics. Her modus operandi has been to hide, deceive, and destroy. Nancy Reagan has some quirks and a temper, and has been castigated by the Left for decades. Hillary Rodham has skirted or crossed the ethical lines, clearly engaged in illegal business dealings, lied, tried to destroy the lives of women who were victims of her husband’s libido. (Could that be because the one thing she had going for her ambitions were his coattails?)

She was a viscous First Lady, who had long term employees fired and kicked to the curb to provide political patronage for her friends from Arkansas.

She shrouded her Hillarycare plans in secrecy, and brought it down in flames.

She was elected as Senator from a state in which she had never lived, turning in a lackluster performance, with poor attendance, and no notable legislation or accomplishments.

She was involved in getting pardons for terrorists tied to making contributions to her political war chest.

Her term as Secretary of State ended with conditions and relations worse in every part of the world she had touched, never mind Benghazi. Little wonder she once again flexed her secrecy muscle. (One would think she would learn. But, no.)

She was paid multimillion dollar advance on a book she “wrote”. Then her book tour and its sales were so poor that the publisher could not recoup the advance, and her book was quickly remaindered.

We can criticize her. We should criticize her. But we must remember that in the world of the Left, intention and supporting the right cause is everything. Results and accomplishments are nothing. That is a part of why Leftist sycophants still defend 6 years of Obama failures, and make a folk hero of a woman whose only notable accomplishment was to pick the right husband and hold on like a bulldog, regardless of his foibles.

hillary 1

How sad for the feminists who line up behind her. This? This is a hero of the feminist cause?

We cannot make it about her accomplishments.

No we cannot. But for the sake of completeness, let us list them.

  1. Married Bill Clinton
  2. Still waiting

Tags: , ,

DOUG SMITH: Candidates winning Iowa: Good or bad omen for becoming POTUS?

8 Apr

DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: Author, historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor

Today, Jim Geraghty notes in National Review Online that the GOP elite both hate and fear Iowa. Yet none of them seem to have the necessary body parts to criticize Iowa. Well, buckle up, Hawkeyes. I m a Republican, barely (yea, I criticize them too), I’m not running for President, and I “ain’t scared of no Hawkeyes.”

So, brrrrrt, Iowa. (That is a raspberry). By virtue of holding the first caucus in the primary season, and lots of chicken dinners, Iowa has become quite the state celebrity. Everybody goes there; hat in hand, tail between legs, checkbook in shirt pocket. They promise, and deliver, ridiculous amounts of everyone else’s money (never their own!)to Iowa for farm subsidies, and pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol, which drives up corn prices, and gasoline prices, produces a less efficient fuel, creates more pollution to make a gallon of ethanol laced fuel than burning the gallon of unleaded regular would produce, all for the hope that maybe the stiff necked dirt farmers will smile on them. Amazingly, those who end up getting elected actually fulfill their promises, and pour all that money into Iowa.

And the dirty little secret is, very few Presidents actually won Iowa. Statistically, the best thing a candidate could do is land in Iowa, tell them they stink, and that Professor Harold Hill had the right idea, and dare them to vote for him. Winning in Iowa is a death knell for a campaign. Yet every four years, off they trudge.

Oh for a candidate, who will lose Iowa, so that he may win the White House, and will pledge to end the ethanol subsidy? Perhaps Rand Paul could suggest to Iowans that if they want their corn in ethanol they should sell it to Kentucky Distilleries so it can end up in Kentucky Sour Mash.

Or, perhaps West Virginia should move to an early caucus system, and demand kickbacks to remove restrictions on coal, or mandates to use it, or, how about forcing Iowans to pay a Carbon Tax to turn coal into a food? After all, if we are going to use corn as a fuel, why not eat coal? We could trade coal for corn, and let the Iowans turn the coal into fuel oil, while we turn their corn into cornbread, or make moonshine out of it. Hey, with our mountains and our moonshine stills, we could fuel a rocket and sell tourist excursions into space for a million dollars a pop. Tourism, baby! Or, how about the other 49 states get together and sign a pledge that we will not vote for any candidate who campaigns in the rubber chicken circuit in Iowa. Perhaps a lottery system like a football pool, with each primary assigned randomly every four years by chance.

We have had an awful lot of weird tossed into the political process by those stiff necked Hawkeyes. Perhaps it is time for the rest of us to embrace the weird. Or perhaps it is time to let it go.

How about it, 2016 Presidential candidates? Common sense, anyone?

Tags: ,

Doug Smith: Harry Reid? Certainly no “Mr. Rogers”

2 Apr

And you wouldn’t want him as your “neighbor”…

DOUG SMITH

Author, Historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor – Doug Smith

4/2/2015

Harry Reid is simply an awful man. He is dishonest and disingenuous to the point that evil might truly be the best description of the man.  Now, this comes as no surprise to anyone who follows politics, and has for the past dozen or so years.  What is new is his willingness to be smugly honest about it.

harry 1

When he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes, it was hypocrisy so thick you could cut it with the exercise machine which recently beat the soon-to-be Ex-Senator bloody. Romney did indeed pay his taxes, while Harry decidedly did not pay taxes on a number of shady land deals and transfers of taxpayer money to his granddaughter.   These were deals which enriched him to the tune of $10,000,000, on nothing more than a public servant’s salary for his entire working life. Deals which really made the Clintons’ shady land deals look nearly palatable. Deals, which, it seems, brought him afoul of an exercise machine named Guido. But that is another story. Of course, since he was doing so on behalf of Barack Obama, it seems unlikely in the extreme he will be indicted for his crimes.  (Unless of course he moves to Texas, changes his name to Delay, obeys the law, but happens to be a Republican. Then he can fight a 3 year battle ending with a judge scolding the prosecutor. But, of course, Harry Reid is a Democrat.)

harry 4

Harry’s lies on the floor of the Senate about Mitt Romney were so transparent and egregious that even the New York Times and the Washington Post called them false.  To get those 2 bastions of liberal media to call out a liberal as a liar, it must be pretty far out indeed.

This week, the retiring (yes, Virginia, there is a God) Senator, who is preparing to spend quality time with his family and his lawyers, was confronted about this one of his lies by a CNN reporter. (CNN? Wow!)  His response was telling. “Well, he he, they can call it what they want, but Mitt Romney lost, didn’t he?”

In short, sure I lied. Sure we all knew it. But it helped us to win, so who cares?

Nancy Pelosi said of his lie, at the time, “If Harry Reid says it is so, it must be so. “

harry 3

These are the people the Democrats in Congress have chosen as their leaders for over a decade.  These are the Democrats who have backed and excused the lies and failures of Barack Obama for 6 years.  A liberal pundit was asked last night, “What about this? He lied, he admits he lied, and he is smirking about it. He doesn’t care! The end justifies the means, really?”

His response? Everybody lies in politics.  Wow. Just wow.  That is your reaction when you find one of your own lied so blatantly? No defense. No mea culpa. No, wow, that was wrong Harry, what were you thinking.

This is our current Democrat party. These are the people they choose to lead them. This is how they think. “I am Democrat. I am a liberal. I will do whatever I have to to you to win, and further my cause. Agree with me, or watch your back. “

Harry Reid.  Dishonest. Cheater. Liar. Crook. Shameless user of the Senate for his own ends.

Harry Reid: Democrat, Nevada.

Harry Reid: Democrat.

His is the face of the Democrat party. (Democrats are well into buyer’s remorse about BHO.  They are looking at their electoral losses and wondering if that was quite the right direction. )

But Harry? The Senate Democrats put him back in power over and over.

Now, one of the reasons that he is retiring is that the winds are blowing through Nevada that say the voters of Nevada are fed up with this, and he is likely to lose. Good for them.  But shame on every Democrat in the Senate.

harry 2

If this is what Democrats choose to lead them, then shame on them as well. Some are always going to vote for the one who offers them freebies, or advocacy for their pet causes, from abortion to snail darters.

Perhaps Democrats are waking up to realize that the party of JFK has been hijacked by some very wrong people. As Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat party. The party left me. “Perhaps some Democrats are there.

WV has its first GOP Legislature in 80 years. Harry is going. Hillary is fading in the polls, and no one is running against her yet. Barack Obama is going to hang on to Obamacare like a terrier with a rat, despite millions hurt by it, and an unwavering majority opposing it.

Perhaps the winds of change will continue to blow. We can only hope.

Tags: , ,

DOUG SMITH: THE WAR ON LANGUAGE

12 Mar

doug smith

DOUG SMITH: Author, Historian and a regular contributor to FSP

words 1a

Political language — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” The oldest political speech I can recall was from Cain: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Short, but all the elements. The Lie: I have no idea if his body is where I left it when I killed him. The respectability of the murder: I’m not responsible for him. He’s the one who put his head in the way of my fist. Unfortunately, his audience (God) was not easily swayed. But Cain showed the way. Politicians, in particular progressive ones, have been busily perfecting the art the political speech ever since.

words 1words 3

Language is important. That is how we communicate our ideas. If I tell my kid “You cannot have a cookie.”, and he counters with “I didn’t. I only took a baked confection.”, then we have a problem. Words have meaning, and those who twist and shade those meanings are not trying to tell the truth. In the Dark Ages in Britain, from the fall of Rome to the beginnings of the Renaissance, the art of writing was all but lost. Few outside Irish monasteries could either read, or write, and thus, be aware of their history and culture. Communication devolved to the bare minimums needed for survival and civilization to a mean and barbaric existence. (Thank God for the Irish, who preserved the core of written knowledge in monasteries to form the yeast from which the Renaissance rose.) Words have meanings. The written word lets us record those meanings for others besides those sitting near enough to hear us speak. Words, meanings, are the lubricant without which our social interactions cannot rise above barbarism. But, as with Cain, so with many today, there is an assault on language. When words have no meaning, or when they can mean anything, then scoundrels can hide their meanings and intentions from people. Take the word, Democrat, for example. A country that says it is Democratic is meant to be perceived as having a free and benevolent government. However, few people, even those on the progressive left, would describe Die Deutsche Demokratische Republik as anything but oppressive. Fidel Castro was elected over and over by voters with guns to their head, but elected he was. Yet “his” democracy remains one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in the world. He and his cohorts came to power with ruthless murders, and maintained it with a police state, political prisoners, and the theft of wealth of citizens. Just tossing the word democratic at a Gulag does not make it Coney Island.

words 2

But if people can hijack language, destroy meaning, than they can avoid calling evil or stupidity what it is. They can avoid making rational arguments for nonsensical goals. In short, they can be progressives. Hence, an Army deserter is said to have served with honor and distinction. Taxing and spending become investing and paying your fair share. One who is Rich has steady work and a paycheck that can be robbed. Anyone who opposes higher taxes and out of control spending is a right wing extremist. Conversely, Muslim terrorists who murder children with an electric drill are NOT Muslim terrorists, but just extremists. (I guess they REALLY hate taxes.) A backward, corrupt, poor country with tribal warfare and warlords who confiscate any foreign aid becomes a developing country. (One might ask, in fairness, into what they are developing.) A self-serving shakedown artist becomes a civil rights leader. (Again, one might ask, whose rights, other than his own rights to a fat bank account, has Al Sharpton led?) Patriotism becomes a joke, a synonym for a bumpkin, or in the opposite extreme it becomes a blind following of a party or person, rather than a nation. Affordable housing and Affordable Health care provide neither, but put control of both in government hands, where both are ravaged.

words 4

Words become so imprecise that they mean nothing, or everything, or whatever a dishonest speaker or writer wishes them to mean. Thus, they can never be held to account for what they say, or promise, or swear. Reporters cannot even manage to write a simple paragraph or sentence, and readers become accepting of sloppy writing, and reporting, and outright lies. Imprecise and meaningless language makes people vulnerable to nonsense phrases that say nothing but sound good. Hence, “I feel your pain” makes us feel you are one of us. “Hope and Change”, uttered with Greek Columns and fireworks, sounds profound. In reality,both phrases are semantically null: they mean absolutely nothing. So the hearer can project into them whatever he or she wishes to believe, and the slick politician can never be held to account for his promises, because he has promised precisely nothing. But it sounded like something! To quote Orwell again: “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” Foolish thoughts lead to foolish actions, foolish decisions, and foolish leaders, leading foolish people off a foolish cliff. We need to take back our language. We can start with simple words. Halt. About face.

Tags: , , ,

DOUG SMITH: MAKERS AND MARAUDERS

9 Mar

THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN…

doug smith

FSP regular contributor, author and historian, Doug Smith.

—————————————————————————–

March, 9, 2015

In Barack Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build it” speech, he said that we no longer have to worry about roving bands of marauders.   Webster defines a marauder as one who “roves and wanders in search of plunder”.

We have had marauders throughout much of history. In the dark ages of Europe, ship loads of marauders came southwest from the cold, challenging lands of Scandinavia to go “a Viking” for plunder in Britain and France. It was easier, and more rewarding for them to raid the goods of farmers and fishermen, merchants and tradesmen, and petty lords of England than to do the hard, never ending work of producing their own goods. Just wait for them to build up their goods, raid villages, kill any who resist, and take as much as you can pile into your ships. Then sail back home to wait till time for the next raid.

MARAUDERS 1

Someone in England devised a plan to simply meet the Vikings at the shore, and offer them gold to go away without murdering anybody. This appeasement was known as the Dane geld, or Danish Gold. Unfortunately, what they soon realized was that “Once you pay the Dane geld, you’ll never be rid of the Dane.

Now, one enterprising Viking, William II, also known as the Bastard, and the Conqueror, had a better idea. In 1066, he defeated English forces from his lands in Normandy, and established Norman rule of England. William’s line was notable in history: Henry II and 2 of his sons, Richard the Lionhearted, and after his death the younger brother John, villain of the Robin Hood tales. It was from John the “Nobles” (a group of successful marauders) exacted the Magna Carta. Winston Churchill wrote of John “his vices may have contributed more to civilization than the virtues of his predecessors.” This enterprising band of marauders gave their family a new name, based on a common plant used as a broom, symbolizing how they swept any resistance away before their conquests. The plant was the Genets, or Planta Genets, and the family? The Plantagenet.

MARAUDERS 3

Thus this family, founded by Vikings, notable for producing nothing except the death of their opponents, (at which they were very good: William, Henry, and Richard were all excellent soldiers and generals) became the first royal family of Britain. They amassed wealth in gold and arms, but most particularly, in land. They ate food which they had never grown, but coerced from the peasant class at the point of a sword. The swords of their knights assured that the lions share would go to the king ( note the family coat of arms: 3 Lions) , and a smaller, but significant share would go to the lesser nobility and knights, who were the armed enforcers of the taxes to the king, dukes, earls, barons and knights. They granted, Noblesse Oblige, a meager living to the peasants, who were bound to the land, as long as they worked, produced, and handed over most of what they produced to the tax collectors. Marauding was very good business.

(The current Queen of England is the wealthiest welfare recipient in the world. She has a net worth of 10 Billion, including palaces and stately homes, and still receives an income from the taxpayers of $50 million annually. )

marauders 5

The primary product of the class of nobility (marauders who have granted themselves titles) is government, whose primary function is to extract taxes from the people who actually produce the goods.

Now, an interesting phenomenon occurred around the end of the 19th century. The bulk of the income of the English nobility was derived from the agricultural products of the lands which they owned, but permitted farmers to work. An economic depression caused prices to plummet, and the income for many of the nobles was cut in half. Having little business understanding (they were nobles: they hired managers to deal with the vulgar task of managing their estates) and living with huge staffs in their Stately Old Homes, many aristocrats were suddenly teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. They may have the title of Earl or Marquees, inherited from generations of marauders, but no income, and no standing army to send out to raid France. But there was a source of wealth, impressed with the sound of the British titles of nobility, and quite willing to make a trade. The wealthy daughters of Americans who had become wealthy in the Industrial Revolution, but were cut out of the “ old money society” in America, could marry a poor English lord and become a title Lady overnight, thus solving his insolvency and getting her shot at nobility. So the daughters of successful makers were reluctantly accepted into English society on the basis of their money which propped up many failing estates. Most notable among these was the mother of future PM Winston Churchill. It is estimated that these “Dollar Princesses” brought with them in the first decade of the 20th century, some 1 Billion £.

MARAUDERS 2

So, the descendants of the marauders were, after all, dependent on the descendants of the makers. They must either marry them, or force them to pay with the threat of violence. Since they are not enough to force them alone, they must employ lesser marauders, who will take up arms and enforce the collections for them, in return for their own lesser share of the plunder. Marauders never make things, or grow things, except for laws and rules that make them seem entitled to the produce of someone else’s labor. And, like their Viking ancestors, marauders are very, very good at coercion, force, and justification of taking what they want, simply because they want it.

America is unique in its founding on a premise that the farmer, in his fields, or the worker in his blacksmith shop will be a free and armed citizen, not a helpless, dependent serf. For much of history, the history of the marauder, the serf was strictly forbidden to hold arms, or speak up about how he was ruled. His betters would protect him from other marauders, and rule with wisdom. They would have titles, letters, and degrees to demonstrate how superior they were. Any resistance, whether with arms or with words, was suppressed violently as their Viking ancestors had taught them through the ages.

dems turn 3

In the American experiment, each man could protest, and take up arms and fight, against the lesser marauders of the “Nobility”. That was, and is, new in history, but marauders? They are as old as history itself.

So, Barack Obama was not comforting anyone who is a maker with his assurance that we need not worry about marauders, because whether he realizes it or not, he and his ilk are the marauders.

obama-file-ap-copy_s160x108

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →