Sunday, November 19, 2017
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Friday, November 17, 2017
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Friday, November 10, 2017
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Monday, November 6, 2017
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Friday, November 3, 2017
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Pennsy is the newest contributor to the FFOA News Network, FFOA and National Organization For All Races
October 30, 2017
By Pennsy Patriot, Contributor, FFOA News Network
Why take a stand, and not a knee? Despite the liberal rhetoric, there is no huge number of unarmed black men being shot by law officers. There is no systemic oppression of blacks in our country, and in fact, with our equal opportunity programs, and there is plenty of evidence that blacks who choose to succeed, do succeed. Here are some facts about these bogus protests, and why they matter.
By the Numbers, black homicides in the year 2016 totaled 7,881. That’s 900 hundred more dead black males than were killed in 2015, which was in fact, a 900 deaths increase from the previous year! However, these blacks weren’t unarmed blacks killed by police. Contrary to the assertions of Black Lives Matter (BLM), they were blacks killed by other blacks.
According to the Washington Post, the police fatally shot 233 blacks last year, the vast majority being armed and dangerous. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” However, that category doesn’t show if the shooting resulted from a physical assault on the police officer nor as a result of a violent resistance to arrest.
In reality, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. Over the last ten years, black males account for 42% of all cop-killers, even though they only account for 6% of the population. In addition, police officers were 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer in just 2015.
The result of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and their riots in Ferguson and other cities, have disrupted the policing of our neighborhoods. The anti-cop climate, according to a Pew Research poll released in January of this year, shows that 72% of the nation’s officers now say that they are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons. It begs the question, why would the BLM movement desire to drive that result? And, in turn, more and more blacks will die this year in those same communities.
In 2016, four different studies released rebutted the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it is the opposite of the false assertions of the BLM. It’s much more likely that white officers are killed by blacks than the other way around. These facts however, have not stopped the ongoing demonization of our police officers. Now, even our country’s ignorant professional athletes, in particular the NFL, have joined this false narrative.
The flag and the Anthem the NFL players protest during, flies with the last breath of every service person who has given their all in defense of it. All of that blood was red; no matter their race. When they disrespect our flag and anthem, they also disrespect other blacks who were patriots and heroes who fought for, and died for, their freedom to protest. Yes, they have the right to protest, but is protesting then right? If they aren’t protesting the deaths of almost 8,000 blacks killed by other blacks, but are instead protesting the 233 killed by police, or the 16 unarmed blacks killed by police, why would they protest that number, but not the other number?
The real issue isn’t the killing of unarmed blacks, or systemic oppression of blacks. Of course, admitting that means admitting that it isn’t racial oppression, but rather the dissolution of the black family. That doesn’t meet the liberal agenda of racial division.
The real issue lies in the heart of our black communities. There is failing within these communities to maintain intact families and raise responsible black men. Children grow up in poverty, generally the result of teenage pregnancies, single headed households, and primarily by single women. We know statistically, the likelihood of these angry, impoverished young males being involved in criminal or gang activity versus attending a trade school or college is greatly increased by those very circumstances.
There is more than ample evidence that there is not wide spread oppression of blacks. If that were true, none to very few blacks would succeed. However, we have black doctors, lawyers, writers, scientists, business owners, teachers, professional coaches, and more who have succeeded. Did they have some secret privilege others did not to facilitate their success? No, what they had was opportunity in the form of hard work. Success is not a given; it’s achieved, by finding and working hard to complete one opportunity at a time as greater and greater opportunities present themselves. This is the essence of the American dream.
If we look within the lives of the professional black athletes taking a knee, you’ll find that many have fathered multiple children by multiple women. The result is those women parenting their children alone. Crime statistics show that growing up in a single parent family increases the likelihood that that child will have contact with a police officer.
In fact, if you then look at the example these “professional athlete” males set for their children, you’ll find that many of them have criminal records for everything from assault to drug arrests, and murder.
Instead of taking a knee, these men need to stand up, man up, speak up, and be fathers, become big brothers, and make a difference in their communities. They can do that by mentoring young men and by making their communities different than the current norm of killing one another. They need to look no further for answers than in a mirror and they way they live their lives and the choices they make for their children.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Friday, October 27, 2017
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Monday, October 16, 2017
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Monday, October 9, 2017
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Saturday, October 7, 2017
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Sunday, September 24, 2017
September 24. 2017
By Lewis Shupe
The Roaring Twenties – the end
“What the hell has Hoover got to do with it (his salary being larger than that of the President). Besides, I had a better year than he did.” Babe Ruth 1930
Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor and on one occasion he remarked that “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice – all of it bad.” Coolidge had no desire, however, to split the party and did not intervene in the selection of Hoover as the candidate of the Republican Party, a decision that would have unfortunate consequences for the nation and prove Coolidge’s remark to be incredibly accurate.
Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) won the 1928 election in a landslide riding the wave of prosperity from the Roaring Twenties. The people were soon to understand that not all Republicans are alike. Hoover was a Republican progressive in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and had supported the “Bull Moose” Party in 1912. The “Progressive Movement” had been declared officially dead in 1924 with the defeat in the 1924 elections of Robert LaFollette, its founder. We all know of course that “Progressive” is just a term that socialists use to hide under and so, after 1924, they started hiding under the term “Liberal” – nonetheless it is all the same and their basic approach never wavers. Hoover was never tagged as a Progressive Republican, even though that was exactly his approach. Hoover was not a conservative and today would be labeled a RINO.
Hoover’s one term was bound up with the Stock Market Crash that occurred shortly after he took office and the subsequent Great Depression that rocked the nation economically. Unwittingly, Hoover’s reaction to these cataclysmic events formed the blueprint for the subsequent actions by the Roosevelt administration that extended and prolonged the misery. When the Depression struck Hoover responded with large scale government intervention, a policy that sealed his doom.
At the outset of the Depression Hoover rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon’s suggested “leave it alone” approach and called many business leaders to Washington to urge them not to lay off workers or cut wages – the beginning of many bad decisions Hoover was to make. Hoover adopted pro-labor policies after the stock market crash that accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation’s gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what should have been a recession to slip into the Great Depression. Hoover raised the top Income Tax Rate from 25% to 63% and made increases in the corporate income tax rate and the estate tax – all policies that as we have seen only make the situation worse. The Federal Reserve was not helpful at all, reducing the nation’s money supply when the opposite remedy was required. One can make a strong argument that this was intentional on the part of the Federal Reserve since the forces of liberalism dominated the Fed and they realized that this was necessary to counteract the success of Conservative Republican policies from the Harding/Coolidge administration.
In the election of 1932 Franklin Roosevelt cynically blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, blocking trade, and placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending and of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible.” The Democratic vice-presidential candidate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of “leading the country down the path of socialism.” All of these assertions were of course correct. The fact that Roosevelt subsequently did these same things in an even more drastic manner was later conveniently forgotten by anyone associated with his administration.
The charge that Hoover was responsible for the Depression stuck and Hoover suffered a large defeat in the 1932 election. After the election Hoover requested that Roosevelt retain the Gold Standard as the basis of the U.S. currency – Roosevelt refused.
Hoover lived until 1964 and his good works from the period 1933 until his death restored his image in the eyes of many. Hoover was rather the Lazaro Cardenas of the United States – a good man with a flawed vision. His intentions were good but his policies were to begin a period in American history that many people who lived through them were to remember with grief and anguish. The descent into socialism was once again on track and nothing would be able to stop this freight train now that it was moving at a fast clip.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Friday, September 22, 2017
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Friday, September 15, 2017
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Monday, September 11, 2017
Saturday, September 9, 2017
September 9, 2017
The Affordable Care Act (ACA)
As most of you enlistees in the USFA know, the repeal then replace motto for the ACA is faulty since whatever you replace it with is surely just as unconstitutional as what you just repealed. This now leaves several constitutional options that are available to the government.
----- Amend the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to pass a health care law. This would take a certain amount of time and does not occur to our government since they do not realize they cannot pass any law they so desire.
----- Repeal Obamacare and ask each state to pass their own health care law and block grant money to each state based upon population to support that effort. With this option you would get up to 50 different health care plans and you could see what works and what doesn’t work.
----- Defund Obamacare. The problem with this is that it leaves the law on the books and allows it to be reestablished with funding.
----- The nuclear option. This is the alternative no one talks about. The President could simply say the ACA is unconstitutional and I will not enforce it. In doing this the President would be correct constitutionally but it would necessitate both an explanation of why it is unconstitutional (easy to do if you know your Constitution) and some political courage (very hard to do).
The block grant option above (number two) is the one I personally favor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act featured block grants to states and was extremely successful when passed and implemented (Barack Obama has since gutted many of its features through Executive Orders).
It would also be a wonderful first step in taking control of healthcare away from the federal government and beginning the process of dismantling the federal government leviathan. It is clear from the U.S. Constitution that the federal government has no authority to control healthcare. Taking control of healthcare away from the federal government is a crushing blow to socialism since federal control of healthcare is a number one priority of all socialists. The decentralization of power required by the U.S. Constitution, when implemented, means the end of the stranglehold the socialists have on the U.S. government.
If you want to read more about some of the methods required to install the block grant strategy you may go to our web site and read the post entitled “The Federal Extortion Racket”.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
Friday, September 8, 2017
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Monday, September 4, 2017
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
Sunday, August 27, 2017
From our friend Susan Duclos at All News Pipeline
War: Antifa Plans Nationwide Terror Attacks For November
FFOA NEWS NETWORK
TRUTH IN MEDIA!
War: Antifa Plans Nationwide Terror Attacks For November
August 27, 2017
By Anna Morris, Co-Editor, FFOA News Network
In yet another hysterically draconian move to further the UN/WHO goal of controlling people through public-global health via tobacco restrictions, our FDA may have just given a big boost to the tobacco companies. Now you may not be interested in tobacco issues but the whole story presents a general picture of what happens when everything becomes a "public health" issue to be controlled by government.
On July 28, 2017 the FDA, using its Obama-given power over tobacco, decided that mandating low nicotine cigarettes will help "vulnerable populations". Please note this act is aimed at a least functioning level of society; millions will be affected in order to minister to special, downtrodden populations. Obama Care and its new healthtocracy works that way. Individual health no longer matters and has been replaced by "population health" which used to be called "public health." Public health used to be concerned with keeping roaches out of restaurants and sewage out of drinking water. Public health as population health allows government agencies to regulate...well...anything that MIGHT affect health and that means EVERYTHING.
There is some older research that shows smokers of lower nicotine, "light" cigarettes smoke more and inhale deeper to maintain desired nicotine levels. Nevertheless psychiatry professor Stephen Higgins of the Vermont Center of Behavior and Health (UCBH) at University of Vermont (UVM), is quoted thus in an article posted at Science Daily, "Evidence in relatively healthy and socially stable smokers indicates that reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes reduces their addictiveness." 
Note the word "evidence" at the beginning of Professor Higgins' statement. The FDA seems to have based its call to mandate low nicotine cigarettes on "evidence based" conclusions rather than proven fact. The Obama Care infestation of transformation uses that term a lot and near as I can tell it means circumstantial evidence is all that is needed to re-write medical books, form law and create public policies affecting millions. (Personally I would get laughed off a few true crime forums to which I belong if I presented conclusions based merely on evidence. Nevertheless, "evidence based" works fine for government when it holds all our lives in its wicked talons.)
Again, you may be thinking, who cares about the nasty cigarette habit and the tobacco companies the public has been taught to hate? The UN/WHO international War on Tobacco is just a starter. Sugar is next in their global cross-hairs. Have you noticed the itty-bitty soda can six packs at eye level in grocery stores? I call these miniscule cans the Michelle Obama size since her main project as First Lady seemed to be telling us what to eat. The two litre bottles are now usually found on top shelves, sometimes nearly out of a tall man's reach.
Have you listened to the sniveling, slurping, backside licking ads put out by major soda producers who practically apologize for ever using ANY sugar in their products, while pushing their bottled waters and tiny cans as the only reasonable choices? Maybe those whining soda companies expect government law suits such as happened to the tobacco industry. After all, evidence says sugar causes diabetes and more evidence says diabetes costs society at large. Other evidence shows that government has made medical care unaffordable for the average person, thus it becomes more true that most sick people are to some extent, burdens on society. Further evidence indicates government loves it when helpless people scream for more big government to fix the problems big government created in the first place. Sick people are cited as "burdens" whenever more restrictive public health laws are desired by big government.
Those same sick burdens, especially the "disadvantaged" ones, make wonderful human lab rats when big government needs the evidence based claptrap upon which to base those laws.
The FDA decision to lower nicotine in cigarettes is based on a study of, "169 daily smokers" from "three vulnerable populations of smokers--individuals with psychiatric disorders (i.e. affective disorders, opioid-use disorder), and socioeconomically disadvantaged women."  The study ran at various locations from March 2015 to April 2016. Of the 169 vulnerable participants, 120 were women, 49 male. 56 participants, "were diagnosed with affective disorders," 60 had opioid dependence and 53 were, "socioeconomically disadvantaged women." That's a short study with a very small sample of people but who's counting when government needs to restrict our freedoms? You can bet new drugs would never be approved with such limited research!
The study, described as, "multi-site, double blind," had three phases. In Phase 1 participants smoked their brand and/or low nicotine, "research cigarettes". While smoking the latter, "Participants were required to use a plastic cigarette holder...to measure smoking topography--number of puffs, length and speed of each puff," according to the Science Daily article. The research cigs had varying doses of nicotine. 
Each smoking session was followed by a Cigarette Purchase Task (CPR), "to measure the effects of cost on the participant's rate of smoking," states the article. 
Phase two had participants choosing what they wanted to smoke from six dose combinations. Data was fed into a computer and on to Phase 3 which was pretty much like Phase 2. (Gosh, don't we wonder who funded this thing and how many millions of dollars it cost?)
The findings were that smokers preferred the high nicotine cigs which are available commercially. BUT researcher also claim that low dose cigs might be chosen if they cost less! Or as is stated in the article low nicotine cigarettes, "could serve as economic substitutes for higher-dose commercial-level nicotine cigarettes when the cost of the latter was greater."  Well, duh! Poor people buy cheaper things. The authors of the research paper say field testing of this theory is underway to determine feasibility under "'naturalistic smoking conditions'".
What about that old research that said smokers smoked more and inhaled deeper when cigarettes contained less nicotine? Well, circumstantial evidence...uh...evidence based rewriting of past research now declares this to be untrue! Although that may depend on what source you check. Do we get the idea this evidence based stuff blows with the wind, or the political party, or in favor of furthering private goals? What if that old research is correct after all? Left-wing Progressives love the word "SAFE" and they plan to keep us safe through tyrannical legislation. Is it SAFE to throw out older research based on a new, one year study of 169 mental patients, addicts and poverty stricken women?
Lite and low-tar cigarettes of old had tiny vents in the filter that cut the amount of tar and thus nicotine, available per puff. There may be problems with the engineering of these smokes that make them more dangerous than regular but we need not explore that here.
What is of interest is the old research newly reported as late as July 6 of this year in a publication by Roswell Park Cancer Institute, "because vented cigarettes deliver less nicotine, smokers may take deeper or more frequent puffs to satisfy their nicotine cravings.  The same article goes on to say, "evidence strongly suggests" vented cigarettes which now include most cigarettes sold in the U.S., "may actually increase a smoker's risk," of developing a certain type of lung cancer. (Emphasis mine.)
A cancernetwork.com article from 2002 quotes David M. Burns, MD, professor of medicine, UC San Diego, citing "new" findings from the National Cancer Institute, "Smokers smoke for nicotine, and if a cigarette delivers less nicotine, smokers compensate by taking larger puffs, more puffs per cigarette and smoking more cigarettes per day to get the same nicotine." (Emphasis mine.) 
No less an expert than Harvard Medical School published a short article covering the same subject, from 2004 but updated January 23, 2017. Low-tar, vented, lite cigarettes did not reduce the risk of lung cancer because addicted smokers find ways to compensate to get the full nicotine fix. This article describes the original study as, "six years and involved 900,000 Americans over the age of 30." 
A scholarly paper from 2013, based on a number of small group, short term studies, claims that smokers do not smoke more if nicotine content of cigarettes is decreased!  Low nicotine from vented cigarettes is bad but big government mandates low nicotine tobacco is good? More recent news articles discussing the July 28 FDA proposal for requiring low nicotine cigarettes and other tobacco products, tout this idea and some refer to the small study first mentioned above. The basic idea is that if nicotine levels are low enough, cigarettes will no longer be addictive. Time will tell.
And so major government policy is based on newly manufactured "evidence" obtained from a small group of mentally ill or poverty wracked human lab rats who would agree to smoke low nicotine cigarettes if they cost less! Want to bet the low nicotine variety will cost less? It sounds like the FDA plans to lower nicotine content in all tobacco products to the point where they are not addictive, to save the children, other vulnerable populations as well as pander to the UN/WHO globalist hysteria on tobacco which, according to more evidence based claptrap, causes almost all illness and death in the world. (Never smoke and live forever, is that what they are saying?)
Heaven knows how those poor human lab rats were worked on psychologically! It is like the statistics that claim most smokers want to quit. Under pressure in a medical setting, of course smokers who are terrorized, shamed and belittled by their doctors and nurses, say they want to quit. Those doctors, nurses and researchers ought to listen to what dedicated smokers who have no desire to quit, say about the medical profession behind closed doors. The smart ones lie about tobacco use and avoid the intimidation!
Considering tossing the old evidence that was gathered from studying nearly a million smokers for many years, in favor of new evidence based on small samples of short duration, designed to further political goals, may not keep the population SAFE. Put into practice in the draconian ways of government, the unintended consequences may well be increased cigarette sales as smokers across the board and outside of the lab, double or triple their intake of smoke in search of the nicotine fix!
Should this crazy idea work for cigarettes, expect alcohol-less alcoholic drinks next, like near beer and mostly-water lite vodka. Alcoholics Anonymous has always claimed an alcoholic cannot have even one drink, watered down or otherwise. One drink is never enough for the alcoholic, so the saying goes. Apparently this principle does not apply to cigarette addiction? Perhaps with FDA regulation, one cigarette will never be enough, so smoke three or four!
Expect cigarette sales to go up as the public perceives the new, FDA approved cigarettes as safe and as smokers exponentially increase their intake to get the same effect. The anti-tobacco hysteria comes from the left and in their participation trophy world, they love to say WIN/WIN. It does appear that Big Brother plans to help out the tobacco companies but it is all a WIN/WIN thing. You can bet the low nicotine cigarettes would never be cheaper in the real world, as was suggested in the pitiful study cited above. In the tax hungry, government laden REAL WORLD, tobacco taxes will probably go up, low nicotine content will drive smokers to smoke more and buy more, and that's a WIN/WIN for tobacco companies AND government! Thank you, Big Brother!
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170823184400.htm "Cite this page: Larner college of medicine at the University of Vermont. 'Could nicotine reduction
help curb addiction? Study examines impact on vulnerable smokers.' Science Daily, 23 August, 2017
 https://www.roswellpark.org/cancertalk/201707/marketed-healthier-choice-light-cigarettes-now-linked-rise-lung-cancer ; Marketed as a "Healthier" Choice, "Light"
Cigarettes Now Linked to Rise in Lung Cancer; Richard O'Connor, PhD, July 6, 2017
 www.cancernetwork.com ; Switching to Low-Tar Cigarettes Fails to Reduce Risk of Tobacco-Related Diseases, January 1, 2002
 https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/low-tar-cigarettes-are-not-a-safer-choice ; Lower Tar Cigarettes Are Not a Safer Choice, Published 8/2004, Updated 1/23/2017.
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ; Reducing the nicotine content to make cigarettes less addictive, Neal L. Benowitz and Jack E. Henningfield, May, 2013.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
August 23, 2017
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, US Freedom Army
The Roaring Twenties
“I have no trouble with my enemies but my damn friends, they’re the ones that keep me walking the floor nights.” Warren G. Harding
“How can they tell?” Dorothy Parker upon being informed that Calvin Coolidge had died.
In 1920 the Republican from Ohio Warren G. Harding (1865-1923) was elected on the promise of a “return to normalcy.” After the whirlwind eight years of Woodrow Wilson apparently the nation was ready for his conservative, affable and “make no enemies” campaign. One of the reasons for his smashing electoral victory was his effective use of the new media, radio. Harding was at best a mediocre president who did little but he would sign laws put forth by the Republican controlled Congress and that made his term in office reasonably successful in reversing some of the actions of the Wilson administration.
Harding’s legacy was determined primarily by the people he appointed to positions of trust – the choices were either outstanding or horrible. Harding made some great choices including Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of State, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Andrew Mellon as Treasury Secretary and, most importantly, Calvin Coolidge as Vice-President. Coolidge was famous for his actions as Governor of Massachusetts in the Boston police strike and people were ready for someone with a no nonsense approach to problems. On the other side of the equation Harding appointed many of his political cronies to key positions and these people kept the Harding administration scandal filled. His worst appointments were Harry Daugherty, his campaign manager, as Attorney General and Albert Fall as Interior Secretary. The Justice Department was a constant source of scandal and Albert Fall was subsequently sent to prison for his role in the Teapot Dome scandal. There was no evidence that Harding was ever personally involved in anything improper but his political cronies, the “Ohio Gang”, made his administration a misery.
Harding assumed office while the nation was in the midst of a postwar economic decline, referred to as the Depression of 1920-21. Harding’s Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, ordered a study that demonstrated as income tax rates were increased, money was driven underground or abroad (USFA note: see “The Laffer Curve”) and concluded that lower rates would increase tax revenues. Tax rates were reduced annually in four stages from 1921 to 1925 and revenues to the treasury increased substantially and unemployment also continued to fall. The combined declines in unemployment and inflation were among the sharpest in U.S. history. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920s ushering in the period known as the Roaring Twenties.
On August 2, 1923 Harding died somewhat unexpectedly from a somewhat mysterious heart ailment. His death made his Vice-President, Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), the 30th President of the United States. While most of the nuts and bolts legislation revising the Wilson presidency came from Congress, Harding was at least an enthusiastic cheerleader and supporter for the changes and did sign the bills. This mini-reversal of the descent into socialism was continued and supported by his successor.
Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor’s administration and left office as an extremely popular president. Coolidge, elected in his own right in 1924, gained a reputation as a small-government conservative and a person who embodied the slogan “That government is best which governs least.” Coolidge was also known as a man who said very little in private but very much in public, holding 520 press conferences during his administration (that is about one every four days for you math majors).
Coolidge disdained regulation and proved it by appointing commissioners to the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission who did little to restrict the activities of businesses under their jurisdiction. The regulatory state under Coolidge was “thin to the point of invisibility.” While Coolidge supported many measures as Governor of Massachusetts he did not support these measures as President because he correctly realized that these measures were, under the United States Constitution, the function of state and local governments. Due to the reductions in Income Tax passed during the period 1921-1929, the federal debt was substantially reduced. Coolidge opposed the McNary-Haugen farm bill saying that agriculture must stand “on an independent business basis” and declaring it as unsound and likely to cause inflation (people actually worried about inflation once upon a time in America).
1921-1929 was the only time from 1901-2017 that the descent into socialism was somewhat reversed. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that these were the only two presidential terms when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during this entire eight-year period and there was a Republican President. This situation has never occurred again since that time. If the nation had retained such conservative leadership for eight more years the Great Depression would probably have not occurred and the socialist policies inaugurated by subsequent administrations would have been greatly muted. Alas, it was not to be. A good trivia question is: “Who was the last Conservative President whose party controlled both houses of Congress during his entire term in office?” The answer is Calvin Coolidge.
The Harding/Coolidge era showed what can be done when government reduces taxes, balances the budget, lowers regulations, and generally stops meddling in the private sector. The economy boomed, the deficits disappeared, the national debt was greatly reduced and almost paid off and people enjoyed a level of prosperity not seen in America for many years. The Roaring Twenties were a tribute to Conservative and Constitutional government.
Coolidge was eligible to run for reelection in 1928 but chose not to do so. This would prove to be a decision that would have disastrous effects for America since his successor, Herbert Hoover, proved himself to be what we would call today a RINO (not a Conservative) and acted in ways that caused the stock market crash to turn into a depression. We will talk more about Hoover in another post and why his decisions proved disastrous for the nation and subsequently for the Republican Party.
A few Coolidge quotes are in order here:
“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”
“Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”
“Civilization and profit go hand in hand.”
“If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called upon to repeat it.”