The original 13 colonies

Can you name the original 13 colonies?  They are as follows:

New England Colonies:

1. Rhode Island
2. Connecticut
3. Massachusetts
4. New Hampshire

Middle Colonies:

1. Delaware
2. Pennsylvania
3. New York
4. New Jersey

Southern Colonies:

1. Maryland
2. Virginia
3. North Carolina
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia

Click here for more.

The Constitution should be etched in stone

The founding fathers new, and preached often, that in order for a society to last the rules must be etched in stone and not left to the whims and wishes of the people.  These rules should be binding on everyone in that nation from one generation to the next. 

The reason is to create stability.  A stable basic set of laws will allow people to make plans for the future.  They won't have to worry that laws will change from day to day or generation to generation.  This is why the founders made it so the Constitution was very difficult to change.

Yet, at the same time, the founders knew that mistakes would be made, and changes that would need to be dealt with, and this is why they made it so it was possible to change the Constitution, yet not easy.  They wanted the Constitution to create a set of laws that would last the test of time -- like a stone.

This stone, in turn, would create stability for all the people of all generations.  This was the essential groundwork that lead to the United States becoming the leader of the free world, and the inventor of the modern world as we know it today.  This was all the result of stability.

W. Cleon Skousen, in his book "The 5,000 year Leap" (1981 pages 243-244), writes that "under established law every person's rights and duties are defined... This is the security which is designed to provide a high degree of freedom from fear and therefore freedom to act.  Such a society gives its people a sense of liberty -- liberty under law.  The American founders believed that without the protection of law there can be no liberty."

Cleon was right.  Consider that in the 1930s the whims of man was toward a progressive/ socialist movement that created a larger federal government that would take from those who have to help those who have little.  This resulted in a long recession, and has culminated to a nation pent on spending more than it earns.

This has resulted in an unstable economy where people are unsure of what to do, and are unwilling to invest time to study new inventions, or the money to invest in expanding business that would create new jobs.  This was the result of the liberal movement in America.

Most of the problems that ail America today are the result of some people over the past 100 years viewing the Constitution as an evolving document that changes with the times, as opposed to one etched in stone. 

By ignoring the Constitution, or by finding a way around it, many laws and pseudo laws have been created that have resulted in instability in the United States.  It has resulted in an unstable economy, the falling value of the dollar, declining values, and a great partisan divide.

Examples are many:

• Rowe-V-Wade bypassing the Constitution to make abortion legal (this was a decision that should have been left to the states to decide)
• Obamacare (the 10th ammendment was ignored)
• The 13th ammendment (made it possible to tax Americans unequally, and punishes achievers)
• 17th ammendment (took away the state's rights to check the federal government)

Now, when I say liberals, I don't mean just democrats. This could not have happened without the help of both parties.  In order to protect and defend our Constitution, we need the help of all Americans and all political factions.  We need to be united as a nation to keep our nation.

What sounds like a good idea today may not end up being a good idea for the future, and if liberalism/ socialism has taught us anything this is it.  The cost of making decisons based on a whim and a new idea have affected our nation greatly.

The true meaning of the Statue of Liberty

It seems that many people misinterpret the true meaning of the Statue of Liberty. They believe it means that the U.S. wants the impoverished, the poorly educated, and the unfortunate of other nations because of the slogan that is implanted on the base of the statue: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses."

Yet that saying was not what the original purpose of the statue was all about. In fact, the original intent of the statue was to give us your folks who are fleeing oppression and we will provide them with an opportunity at a free and successful life. We will give them the opportunity to provide a good life for themselves.

It appears that the "huddled masses" quote was misinterpreted a while back to mean that we want your down trodden, your poor, your unfortunate, your disadvantaged, your uneducated, and we will provide you with a free education, free health care, and allow you to become democrats.

Actually, Emma Lazarus wrote the "huddled masses" poem as part of a campaign to build the pedestal of the statue. The poem was called The New Colossus, and it was written in 1883, and not even inserted onto the pedestal of the statue until 1903 when it was engraved onto the base.

The poem was forgotten and not even a part of the celebration of the opening of the statue in 1883, and it was not until 1903 that it gained much attention outside the original contest to raise money.

In fact, the original intent of the statue had nothing to do with immigration, it had to do with freedom and liberty. France was thanking us for being the first nation ever to make the rulers of their country aware that freedom and liberty was possible. This is ultimately what lead to the French Revolution.

Of course the French Revolution failed because they fought for the rights of man (man as a single entity) while the founders of the U.S. fought for the rights of individual men (we all have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by anything other than the government).

The reason the statue was build had nothing to do with the Lazarus poem, and yet once again history was twisted so that one group of people who wanted to convince the children of the world the Statue of Liberty was all about immigration. This was all one big lie that was taught in schools since 1903. This was a distortion by the progressives to make you think America was willing to take anyone, from any place in the world or universe.

The truth is, the statue was a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, we don't call it the statue of immigration, we call it the statue of liberty. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world.

And in the proceeding years, that is exactly what she did. And she offered her freedom to France and the rest of Europe, and those countries came up with their own form of freedom, and their own interpretation. That's what other countries do. We have a right to choose our own forms of freedom.

And yet none compare to that of the United States. None. We were the first to establish freedom, we were the first to signs anything like the Declaration of Independence, and we were the first to form a U.S. Constitution that was meant to protect the natural rights of men.

And yet, all these years later, the only country to understand the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence, of the U.S. Constitution, and the Statue of Liberty are those who would consider themselves classical liberals and now conservative or libertarian. The rest of the world has their own skewered interpretation of the true meaning of what kind of freedom we have here in the United States.

Those who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret the meaning of these great documents, or this great statue, are those who mean to change the United States to be something other than what the founders had intended.

The American Adjustment Act (AAA)

In thew 1930s there was a problem in the agriculture industry. There was too much produced. With supply greater than demand, this resulted in lower prices. And the result of that was that farmers were unable to afford to stay in business, let alone feed their families, and were forced to close shop and move out of town.


This resulted in FDR pushing through Congress his Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). On May 12, 1933, was signed by the President, and became law. The Act ultimately restricted agricultural production during the New Deal era by the Federal government paying farmers NOT to farm a certain portion of their farm, and failure to comply meant the government could punish by fine or imprisonment.

It actually created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to oversee the distribution of the subsidies, and was the first U.S. farm bill.

In 1790 farming represented the method 80% of Americans made their living. In 1930 this rate was down to 20%. Thus, 20% of the population could actually produce more food than the population in 1930 could eat.

Yet, while farmers were closing shop, overproduction still occurred. Yet considering the Great Depression, there were no jobs available for these ex-farmers. Plus, due to the Smoot Hawly Tariff Act, few Europeans were purchasing American products. Traditionally when overproduction occurred products were exported. In the 1930s, this outlet was unavailable.

This created greater unemployment. To solve this "naturally" occurring problem -- to help farmers, FDR pushed through Congress the AAA.

The AAA was basically a socialist program that did the following:

1. Set up secretary of Agriculture where an expert decided where to set processing, taxes, prices, and tell farmers how much land to not farm.
2. Farmers were paid not to produce on part of that land.
3. Farm prices would be pegged to purchasing power of farm prices in 1910 instead of 1930, which meant higher prices. Due to higher prices, farmers made more for products sold. However, this made products more expensive for consumers.
4. Millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program.

The program was unconstitutional because the constitution did not grant the Government right to regulate agriculture, and the 10th amendment notes that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states or people to decide. Yet FDR did not care. He wanted control of the markets.

Hoover attempted a similar program and called it the Farm Board. It set prices for wheat and cotton and set price floors so competition couldn't cause prices to fall and the farmer would make more money.

This sounded like a noble idea, but it didn't work, especially since prices of wheat and cotton were guaranteed, wheat and cotton farmers increased acreage and overproduced. Farmers of other crops shifted to wheat and corn. There was so much cotton and wheat Hoover had to pay farmers over $500 million just to store the extra food.

The program was ultimately stopped, and the government had to sell all teh overproduced wheat and cotton at a loss.

By all means, the Farm Board should have been a sign of what happens when the government tinkers with supply and demand.

Lacking competitive prices, the farm board resulted in overproduction. Lacking competitive prices, the cost of farmer products were not allowed to fall due to FDRs AAA. Because there was no competition, there was no need to invest in new methods of farming. Innovations that would have made farming more productive, improved quality of farming, and decreased prices never occurred during the Great Depression due to the AAA.

The same thing occurred as a result of FDRs National Recovery Act.

"For example," Burton Folsom notes in New Deal or Raw Deal, "with no competition and no price controls, GM invented ignition starters, adjustable front seats, automatic engine, temperature controls and hydraulic shock absorbers which helped them sell more cars than Henry Ford."

Since they didn't receive fixed prices, and a fixed market share, there was an incentive to do research and improve their product. They ultimately sold more, demand increased, production increased (supply increased) and more profits were made. This is what the free market does.

While farmers made more money, consumers had to pay more for food, which results in them having less money for purchasing other goods and services, which meant that other people weren't able to make a profit off of them. The cycle continued. Everybody got hurt.

Burton writes that "fewer shirts, steaks and loaves of bread were being sold, that meant textile companies, meat packers and millers had to lay off workers -- which lead to more unemployment."

Actually, fewer shirts sold meant less cotton sold also, and this led to even more unemployment.

Since no one was purchasing these goods, in 1937 there was cotton to supply the nation even if no one grew any. So FDR ordered cotton crops to be cut. With the U.S. not selling cotton and other agricultural crops, this led to an increase in sales of foreign crops, and the U.S. share of cotton industry went from 60%. This was greatly diminished thanks to the unintended consequences of government meddling.

An unintended consequence of the AAA is represented by food imports into the U.S. increasing as follows:

1. Beef and Veal increased from 138, 283 pounds in 1934 to 7,684,637 in 1935
2. Ham and bacon increased from 626,148 pounds in 1934 to 2,846, 005 in 1935
3. Butter increased from 535,144 pounds in 1934 to 212,048,458 in 1935
4. Corn increased from 816,000 pounds in 1934 to 34,809,120 in 1935
5. Wheat increased from 3,330,188 pounds in 1934 to 13,446,009 in 1935
6. Raw cotton increased from 7,328,084 in 1934 to 36,353,324 in 1935

Unemployment soared. Many people went hungry even though there was a food surplus because of FDRs New Deal.

Senator Albert J. Beveridge

Senator Albert J. Beveridge is a name all school children should become aware of, because he was one of the leading Senate progressives responsible for helping Roosevelt champion and pass much of his progressive agenda.

He was the main ally of Teddy Roosevelt against his own party, mainly the classical liberals, or the conservative wing. By today's standards, Teddy Roosevelt was the John McCain, while William Howard Taft was the traditionalist like Sarah Palin (although it's not actually to compare Taft with Palin, I will for this example).

The following are some of the things Beveridge helped make possible for the progressives:

1. Reform of the meat packing industry (with the help of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle) by the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906
2. Child labor laws
3. 8 hour work day

He was the friend of the following:

1. The special interests
2. Conservationists
3. reformers
4. railroad magnates
5. trusts

He once noted, ""The opposition tells us we ought not to rule a people without their consent. I answer, the rule of liberty, that all just governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government."

It's should also be noted he was a Republican from Indiana, a historian, and the keynote speaker for the progressive party when Roosevelt ran for President in 1912.

He served as Senator from 1899 to 1911. He ran for the senate one more time in 1922 and lost, and dedicated the rest of his life to writing literature. He actually won the Pulitzer prize for his book, "The Life of John Marshal."

The comparison of the elections of 1912 and 2008

If you want to change laws so that things in the United States are the way you want them to be, yet the people don't want, or are actually un-Constitutional, you have to lie.

Obama lied that he was an ardent supporter of change, that he was for a more open government, that he was a moderate democrat and a champion of the people. Yet when he became president we saw that he was actually a progressive/liberal.

This type of lying by Presidential candidates is nothing new. When Woodrow Wilson was running against then non-progressive republican William Howard Taft, and the progressive republican (progressive party) Teddy Roosevelt, he ran as a conservative.

Like what happened in the run up to the Obama election, conservatives said things like, "look at his books. Look at his associations. They all tell us that he is a progressive. He has no respect for the constitution."

The people didn't listen, and Obama, like Wilson before him, became president. Wilson became president by telling the people what they wanted to hear, and then doing what he wanted to do once he became President.

In fact, on the campaign trail Wilson said, "The history of liberty is the history of the limitations of government power." Yet this went against everything he had written to that point, and everything he did as president.

Once he became President, he said, "While we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson's which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible... But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise."

Wilson, as history reveals, governed as a New Nationalist, just as Roosevelt would have if he had won the presidential election of 1912.

As Jonah Goldberg notes in "Liberal Fascism," "America was going to get a progressive president no matter what in 1912. And while those of us with soft spots for Teddy might like to think things would have turned out differently had he won, we are probably deluding ourselves."
I like to wonder if progressive John McCain had won in 2008 if we would have ended up with a progressive president anyway, even though McCain lied and said he was a conservative republican. It's neat how history repeats itself isn't it.

The Bill Clinton Years: the 1990s

George H. W. Bush was elected in 1988 despite many people predicting it was time for the democrats to take over. He won mainly by riding the economic high tide created by Ronald Reagan. He won because of statements, promises, like "Read my lips: No new taxes."

Well, he did something that no politician should ever do, yet most do, and that is renege on a promise. Following 12 years of unfettered conservatism and republicanism, there was bound to be a slip of the pen caused by either bad advice or poor decision making. Of course the progressive democrats were in control of Congress and they were insisting that tax hikes were needed to pay for government services and to balance the budget. And, so he could gain favor with the opposition party in Congress to perhaps pass some of his bills later, Bush agreed to renege on his earlier promise to not raise taxes. This, coupled with the fact Americans don't like to have one party in the White House for too long, meant the end of republicans in the White House. But not the end of the Reagan tide.

By the end of Bush's four years the economy was in what turned out to be one of the mildest recessions ever. Although it was enough to sway the public into voting for the Governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton. Yep, that slight slip of the pen by Bush due to bad advice took more dollars out of the pockets of people who already had less, causing them to spend less, resulting in a loss of profits by businesses, causing them to lay off workers, hire less, and thus the economy slipped ever so slightly but enough to land Clinton in the White House.

Now we have to note here that Clinton was not elected by a majority and he was helped along by Ross Perot who took away the votes needed Bush needed to win. Although there were many Conservatives -- Reagan Conservatives -- who were unhappy with the not so conservative decision by Bush, that they did not back him and put their efforts behind the more conservative Perot (who actually taught us that independent parties can generate support, but cannot win).

The result was Bill Clinton became President in 1992. The economy quickly recovered and continued to soar. Bill Clinton's popularity soared as he rode the economic tide created by Reagan. The economy created by Reaganomics was so strong the Bush recession turned out to be but a minor blip in the road.

In 1993 Bill Clinton did something that every liberal (progressive) and Keynesian lover loves to do, and that is to continue dropping the seeds of progressivism, and signed into law one of the largest tax increases in American history. As you and I know, liberals, and progressives, falsely believe that raising taxes will make more money for the federal government. Yet, we also know this has never happened. Well, it may short term, but in the long run it causes government profits to decrease as those who are taxed find ways to get out of paying those taxes. Plus, the progressives believe that a slight dip in the economy is fine so long as we have the long-term goal of creating a socialist America, an ideal America, at the forefront of our vision.

The dip in the economy created by the tax increase created an uneasiness among the voters, and they ultimately voted the democrats out of power in the House, and for the first time in over 40 years Republicans controlled Congress. And, thus, this started the Newt Gingrich revolution.

Gingrich's House, capped by the Contract with America, powered Conservatives, and united republicans. The most important thing on that Contract with America called for tax cuts -- particularly capital gains tax cuts. Due to his desire to get along with Congress to pass his agenda later, Clinton (perhaps due to bad advice from his staffers), signed the Gingrich tax cuts into law. The result was the economy began to soar again. It was so strong it overlapped whatever economic woes were created by the Bush and Clinton tax increases.

Of course Clinton was also helped out by something else that needs mention, and that is the Internet Bubble. The economy was soaring so well by 1994 that Clinton was re-elected. Of course the liberal media and historians credit Clinton's economic policies for the boom, however, we here in the real history know Gingrich's tax cuts and the Internet Bubble are the real reasons Clinton was re-elected. Plus the fact that Bob Dole was a moderate republican who didn't really have much unique from Clinton to offer, so voters opted to go with Clinton again. Although he still did not receive a majority of votes.

So, there are four reasons why Clinton was re-elected:

• Gingrich tax cuts
• Reagan tide
• Poor opponent
• Internet bubble

However, his economic policies, his BIG tax hike of 1993, came back to bit him. By 2000 the Internet Bubble burst and the economy tanked. That, coupled with taxes that were too high, caused people to stop spending, businesses to stop expanding and creating new jobs, and cutting jobs, and thus the Clinton recession of 2000 was the result.

This, my friends, resulted in George W. Bush taking over a big lead in the polls until a few days before the election when the liberal-progressive media conveniently published a story that was not news at all, but old news, that GWB was pulled over for drunk driving many years ago. Some voters were irked by this, and switched their votes. This is what resulted in the Closely contested election of 2000.

Progressivism (part 4)

In principle, progressivism was (is) a "total rejection... of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier," according to Thomas G. West.

Progressives sought a larger government was necessary to protect the working class and the poor, to improve conditions in the workplace and protect consumers. And, to pay for this, progressive taxes are necessary. They justified this by the theory that the well off must pay for progressive programs to help the poor. We must all do our fair share.

One of the key views of progressivism is that a central government is key. As noted by West:

"(Some) argue that once government gets involved in providing extensive services for the public, politicians see that growth in government programs enables them to win elections. The more government does, the easier it is for Congressmen to do favors for voters or donors."

This explains why so many politicians over the years, both republican and democrat, have accepted the progressive movement. Recent politicians are McCain and Obama.

In creating programs, in increasing regulations, in a progressive tax, in targeted tax increases and cuts, the progressives are intentionally rejecting and ignoring the Constitution, and the principles "of the American founding."

As West writes, "Although few outside of the academy openly attack the Founders, I know of no prominent politician, and only the tiniest minority of scholars, who altogether support the Founder's principles."

West notes the founders believed all men are created equal and that they have certain unalienable rights that they are born with. The progressives reject that claim as "naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not 'something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.' It is 'something to be achieved.' In this view, freedom is not a gift from God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state."

In other words, progressives believe the Constitution, or better, the government gives us our freedoms. "Since human beings are not naturally free," West says, "there can be no natural rights or natural law."

The founders believed government must be limited, and yet efficiently run. It must do a few things and do them well. They believed the main purpose of government is to protect our freedom. It did this by "enforcement of criminal and civil law, abroad through a strong national defense. The protection of life and liberty is achieved through vigorous prosecutions of crime against person and property or through civil suits for recovery of damages, these cases being decided by a jury of one's peers." The founders, like conservatives, want tough criminal laws, and tough enforcement of laws, to protect against evil people, such as rapists, murderers, thiefs, and so forth.

West describes the progressives view of "politics is freedom, now understood as freedom from the limits imposed by nature and necessity. They rejected the Founders' conception of freedom as useful for self preservation for the sake of the individual pursuit of happiness. For progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state."

This explains why it is okay for Bill Clinton to have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, because he was just practicing the rights and freedoms he is given by the Constitution. And that explains why his wife stood by him. Conservatives believe our freedoms are limited by our God, not the Constitution, and are held to a higher standard.

Conservatives believe in local government run by common folks, while Progressives believe in a large central government, and a large bureaucracy run by well educated people. They would create "neutral" experts to tell local people and industries how to go about their work most fairly (as we see today by the Czars).

The Progressives believe in an ideal world, and that by making sacrifices today, we will have our ideal world in the future. That some day we will have world peace. Conservatives are realists, who understand that there will never be world peace because there will always be evil people, and the closest way we will get to world peace is to have a strong national defense, by being proactive when it comes to catching or killing those pent on destroying individual rights, and strong punishments for those who do wrong

Ideal Progressives believe there will some day be a world without poverty, and the way to do this is by Americans who succeed doing their part in helping the poor. Realist Conservatives understand that the best way to help the poor is to get government out of the way of the people who create jobs, and to provide opportunities for all to succeed via personal accountability and responsibility.

Progressives believe that the way to progress is via the government. They believed a private sector left to it's own devices is the key to selfishness, greed and oppression. They believe the government's purpose is to protect the poor through redistribution of wealth, anti-trust laws, regulation, and government control. That a corporation unregulated left people at the mercy, as Woodrow Wilson said, of predatory corporations. Wilson believed businesses needed to be regulated to prevent victimization of the poor by the wealthy and powerful.

According to West, Wilson believed "previous limits on government must be abolished.

Conservatives believe in an ideal world, and that only through a limited government can progress be made, and only government can take away the freedoms we have. Government was not supposed to provide for the highest things in life, those things were supposed to be achieved through personal effort and responsibility.

Progressives want to change history. Conservatives want us to remember history so we do not repeat the failures and do repeat the successes.

Progressives govern by the future. They have an ideal view of the future that they think is achievable govern today with the goal of obtaining those ideals, such as social justice, world peace, and equal justice for all. Conservatives govern based on the past. This is what worked in the past, so let's repeat it. This didn't, so let's not repeat it.

The goal of progressivism is to change the world through government edict. The goal of conservatives is to not do anything too hasty, and to use common sense.

To end the progressive movement, West notes Conservatives champion the Founder's Constitution. He writes, "I would argue that linking the conservative resurgence to a recovery of the Constitution was in fact a critical part of its ability to flourish in a way that conservatism had not otherwise managed earlier in the 20th century."

Thus, he notes that the restraint of a moral justice, belief in the same God mentioned by the Founders, is the key to success of the conservative movement. He notes this restraint is what prevents the movement from moving too far to the left, and from catering too far over into the realm of libertarianism.

Progressivism (part 3)

So, how to we put a halt to the flourishing progressive movement? How to we restore core American values? How do we restore respect for the Constitution as it was written by the founding fathers? How do we kill the movement that has been growing, lurking insiduously, for over 100 years?

The answer is through the Conservative movement. The answer is for normal U.S. citezens like you and I to stand up and take action. And that's exactly what happened with the advent of the tea party movement.

The tea party movement is not a part of republican, democrat, conservative or democrat. It's a movement of grassroots America, of citizens like you and me who are fed up with the growing beast that is the federal government. People fed up with our leaders spending money like there is no tomorrow, bailing out failed businesses, raising taxes, and not respecting traditional American values and the Constitution that made us so great.

This movement will try to take over the republican party, yet if that is not possible, I believe it could easily create it's own party -- the tea party party. However, Lord knows it's better to strenthen one of the existing parties than to start from scratch.

So, to end the progressive movement, or to halt it considering some of the seeds they have planted have become golden rails that are impossible to fix, or get rid of all together. Once poeple get a taste of the golden apple, they don't want to give it back, no matter how bad it is for them.

The only way to slow down the movement is for leaders to take over Washington who are accountable for their actions, respect the Constitution, believe in the economic policies that were proven to work in the past, and are socially responsible.

What these leaders need to do is not necessarily get rid of taxes, for some taxes are needed to pay for roads, to help those who really need it, and pay for schools (although, according to the Constitution, even school funding should be left to the states).

We must continue to educate. We must teach our children how wonderful America is. We must teach an accurate American history so our children know how much hardships were created by a government that is too powerful, or a king with too much power. That while we are born with freedoms, a government that is too powerful can take those freedoms away.

We must teach what greatness can come from personal accountability and hard work. We must teach people to read, to analyze and to think.

We must teach that freedom is not free. It does not come easy. That we must sacrifice in order to keep our freedom. We must fight. We must remeber the past, and we must not repeat the failures of the past. And we must always remember those who sacrificed their lives in the name of freedom.

Our leaders need to teach personal responsibility and accountability. They need to support and champion sound economic policies to create an economic environment that encourages innovation, that encourages people to invent things that improve American posterity.

Like Coolidge did in the roaring 20s when the automobile, film and telephone markets boomed, and this trickled down from those who invented and created to thos who worked for those who invented and created.

We must stop creating irresponsible programs like that created by Washington where people who could not afford homes could get loans that they otherwise would not recieve. Sure this sounds like a noble idea -- to provide housing for the poor, but it sets up a false boom, a bubble, that is doomed to burst when the bills people cannot afford to pay pile up.

Most important, this new party, the anti-progressive movement, tea party movement, or conservative movement, whatever you want to call it, must not be afraid to say no. We must not be afraid to say no to progressive tax and spend policies. We must not be afraid to vote no on 2,000 page bills that go against every grain of the U.S. Constitution.

We must have leaders that appoint legal counsels and judges that will make rulings based on the laws that exist, and not on laws of other nations, or ideal laws they want to exist. Our supreme court justices must hold and support the constitution, followed by state laws, and local laws, and personal rights.

The Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Johnson progressive policies were supported by the media that was itself progressive, and school teachers who were also progressive. Yet, thanks to the new media, and the Internet, average every day opinions like yours and mine are free to disagree with the media, and to show through facts that the progressive movement does exist, and that it is bad for America. It is bad in every way. It is very much so Unconstitutional. It is, as I've written before, even pro New World Order.

What is bringing about the end of Progressivism is the Internet and the new media. These outlets are making people aware of the "swarmy politicians." And it's for this reason progressives, like Obama, say things like, "We need to boycott Fox News." It's because they don't want you and me to know the truth about what they are up to.

Thankfully, we aren't listening. By learning about the facts, we are becoming aware of what these swarmy politicians are up to. And it's for this reason Congress gets a 30% approval rating, if that. It's why Obama's ratinga are going down. It's why Bush's approval ratings were in the 40s when he left office. It's because the people of America are catching on to the "swarmy politicians."

People in Washington are no longer getting away with it.

Thanks Internet, thanks New Media, for making us smart.

Progressivism (part 2)

Click here for Progressivism (part 1)

Woodrow Wilson became the first progressive president. He convinced Congress, and Americans, that a progressive income tax would be okay to pay for government programs. Besides, he noted, the tax would only be 1%.

So, he convinced the people, and Congress, to support the passage of the 16th ammendment. Yet, in true fashion of progressives, soon after the ammendment was passed, the taxes on the upper class was 73%. Then, by 1920, the United States was mired in a depression with an unemployment rate of near 14%.

Warren G. Harding Became President, he cut taxes, and the economy soared. Harding passed away, Calvin Coolidge became president, and he created an environment where the unemployment rate dipped from 14% to 1.5 %. This is the lowest the unemployment has ever been in peacetime.

Progressives hated this. They belived that people were getting rich at the expense of the poor. so, in 1926, they elected progressive Herbert Hoover. Herbert increased the scope of government, and raised taxes and regulations on businesses. This lead to a stock market crash in 1929, and a major recession.

You see, the progressives saw how conditions could improve for everybody under "evil capitalism." The middle class was catching up on the upper class. Yet progressives still saw a gap between the rich and the poor. There were, in fact, a few Americans (1.5%) who were still poor. That could not be.

Under capitalism, progressive's believe, the goal of equality for all is not possible. So, they waited for an opportunity to create change -- gradually.

The progressives saw the stock market crash of 1929 as an opportunity to dive right in. They did. Yet, they wouldn't let Woodrow Wilson be dragged down with the progressive movement. In fact, they didn't blame the progressive movement at all for the drag down on the economy. They blamed republicans. After all, Hoover was a republican.

And ever since they have worked hard to convince people that the Roaring 20s were bad. Progressives don't want you and I to know how well people had it in the 1920. They lied and told us, and are now teaching our children, that the crash of 1929 occurred not because of progressivism itself, but because there weren't enough regulations, not enough taxes and not enough equality.

Like progressives of today, they saw big banks failing, and decided they were to big to fail, so the fed bailed them out. They saw the unemployed as needing help, and a program was created to provide unemployment benefits for them. Programs were created to feed the poor, to provide health products for the sick, needy and elderly, to fund the retirements of the elderly.

Yet, the progressives had these programs passed by telling people what they wanted to hear. FDR told us the social security program would be self reliant, and would make it so that no American would ever have to worry about retiremente. Yet, when the program came to be, the money alloted for it was used for other programs, and now the program is paid for by the working class, and is soon to be underfunded because the baby boomers will out number the working class as of 2020.

Yet, progressivism is all about baby steps. Once they get a program passed by convincing the people it's for our better good, like Healthcare, they change it so that we, as Americans, have less and less freedom, and are forced to provide more and more to pay for these programs, that cost more and more.

But that doesn't matter, becasue the goal of progressivism is to plant seeds that grow, and flourish. FDR got off pretty good, although Americans like Joseph McCarthy tried to warn America that his administration was full of socialists. Yes, McCarthy was ridiculed to his grave. Yet, as we learned in 1991 when the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union fell, and the Vinona Accords were released proving there were not only 50 socialists in the FDR and Truman admins, but over 300.

And the economy did not improve with FDRs programs as he said they would, instead the recession and the depression dragged on and on for over a decade. Yet this was all in the name of "progress."

Slowly seeds were planted. In the 1960s Johnson started the "War on Poverty," which aimed at taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor via federal programs. Yet, while there are more poor today than there when this program was started, our children are taught the "War on Poverty" was a success, and is still needed.

In the 1970s republican Richard Nixon signed into law the welfare program, which has since trapped millions of Americans on the government dole. Jimmy Carter sacrificed his popularity and any chances of a second term by spreading the populist movement.

Oh, and I almost forgot how the progressive movement made legal abortion by ignoring the Constitution altogether. Yes, they did it by convincing Supreme Court Justices to ignore the Constitution, ignore the balance of powers, over-ride the legislature, and make abortion legal by creating a victory for Rowe-v-Wade.

Yes, the seeds they were planted. A broken and nearly bankrupt medicare program cannot be fixed because to fix it would mean to risk getting re-elected. The social security program failures were brought to the attention to the public by George W. Bush, but the people did not want to risk losing something as valueable as their social security -- even though it may not exist for future generations, and is barely enough for the elderly of today to survive, and provides false hope for those still working.

That doesn't matter, becasue progressivism is all about making sacrifices for the better good. That's why you always say progressives saying things like, "We all need to pay our fair share." That's why they think it is "fair" to tax the wealthy, even though taxing the wealthy results in fewer jobs, and increased unemployment, and a faltering economy, and less money to the government.

Yet, ironically, the progressives tell us taxes make more money for the federal government, because that's what we want to hear. They lie in this way. They lie because they know what happened in the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, and 2000s. They lie for the "better good" of society.

Yet the upper class grew too much during these periods of economic prosperity, and the progressives hated that. They believed that every added dollor the rich make is one less dollar available for the poor man. That the rich gain at the expense of the poor. However, through economics 101, we learned this is not true. That there is plenty of money for everyone to be rich, so long as the government doesn't get in the way.

George W. Bush was conservative, and a defender of the Constitution when it served his own good, yet when his popularity started to tank, he supported a populist (liberal) prescription drug program. Yes, he gave the people what he thought they wanted for the general good so his popularity would improve. But his popularity did not improve.

Ah, yes, even George W. Bush couldn't resist the constant urging of the progressives. He was convinced that for the better of the country, through his "compassionate conservatism", some government programs were needed for the betterment of the whole. And, therefore, he never vetoes one spending bill. Yes, tax and spend policies are to progressivism as apple pie is to Americanism.

He sank himself further into the progressive movement by agreeing with democrats in Congress that some banks were too big to fail. He bailed them out with taxpayer money.

John McCain is a progressive too. He disapproved of the Bush tax cuts, but worse of all, he was a champion for the McCain/Feingold bill that would make it so that some companies and individuals could not make campaign contributions, or pay for campaign adds, during certain periods of the election cycle.

Yet, since this goes against the Constitution, goes against the 10th ammendment which states that anything not mentioned in this here Constitution is not up to the federal government but the states to decide, they ignored the Constitution. George Bush signs this unconstitutional bill.

Thankfully the Supreme Court of 2010 ruled in favor of the Constitution in this case, and this was a minor set back for the progressive movement. Yet, no matter, as Obama still plans on trying to get his 2,000 page healthcare bill passed into law, a bill that ignores the Constitution because, as the 10th amendment states, Congress cannot make a law regarding anything not mentioned in the Constitution. Well, abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution either, yet it is still legal.

Now Obama blames the current recession all on Bush, yet even if you give Bush credit for the first three years of the Obama administration, and according to Obama's own budget estimations, Obama's national debt is still twice what Bush's was.

Obama continued Bush's attempt to bail out failing banks, instead of letting them fail and allowing new and innovative and better run businesses to take over. By telling us it was an economic stimulus package, Obama created trillions of dollars in new government programs that, as people like you and I know, are the antethesis of good economic policies.

You and I knew all along raising taxes during a recession, spending more money, and creating more government programs stalls economies even more. Progressivism prolonged the Great Depression. It delayed the recession of the Nixon and Carter years. And, as we are again seeing today, it is delaying the present recession, all in the name of, "we promise it will work."

That's what Obama did with his original economic stimulus package. Remember, he said if this passed the unemployment rate would never get above 8%. Then, when it passed, the unemployment rate increased to 10%.

Now, because that "stimulus packaage," or "port package" as it should be called, failed. And conservatives say it failed because it was all pork projects. All it did was create more government jobs that are mostly temporary, and therefore any boom created would only be temporary. Yet, according to the progressives, these conservatives are lying. They say, "We need more time."

Now Obama wants to pass a second stimulus package, and to make it look good, he is calling it a jobs bill. What it really is is more pork, more wasteful government programs that will trap more people in poverty and further delay the recession. Yet, if you say that, you are a liar. If you state the facts, you are a liar.

They claim that when conservatives cut taxes, that this takes away funding for programs such as education and other programs that would benifit the masses. Yet, the truth is, tax cuts generally result in an increase in funds to the government. They don't want you to know that though, because they generally support higher taxes. In this way, they lie.

If you see the truth, and teach the truth like Rush Limbaugh does when he says, "I hope he fails," and later, "I'm glad he failed. American is better off having him failed. Although, he didn't fail completely. He got some of his progressive programs passed." As Glenn Beck would say, "He planted seeds." Yet, Rush and Beck are anti-capitalist according to the progressives. They are evil capitalilsts.

Now, you might love your doctor. You might love healthcare the way it is today. You might love choosing your own doctor. Yet, that may all come to an end if progressives get their way. They know what's better for you, believe it or not.

There going to tell you it's for your own good. They are going to make healthcare look good. And, while they may not get it in one lump 2,000 page bill, they will keep trying to pass it in small baby steps. Progressives take baby steps. The goal, though, in the end, is to have yet another program to tinker with. And, once they get a small part past, they change it from what they originally told you, and they make it more progressive. That's what progressivism does.

And, anyone who tried to tell you that progressivism is socialism, they tell you you are a liar. They make you look like the bad guy. They tell kids in school you are trying to take away their God given right to healthcare, even though you were not born with the right to health. If you were, nobody would ever get sick or die.

If you go against their goals, if you stand in the way, they will create wild accusations against you to convince poeple you are a fraud, or you are an "evil conservative." That you are a liar. When, the truth be known, they are the liars. They are the one's pent on destroying America. Yet, they do so surruptitiously. They don't want people to know they are progressives.

They rewrite history. They change the history books. They don't want you to know the truth about Joseph McCarthy, nor the truth about what happened in to cause the roaring 20s, or the booming 1980s. They rewrite history, and paint conservatives as dumb, mean and evil. They don't like people like you and me, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, telling the truth. They paint us as stupid, as liars, as ignorant, as preaching hate.

Conservatives say, "If you love your doctor, you better not support Obama's healthcare plan." They say, "Crazy Conservatives. All they are trying to do is scare you." That's what progressives do. That's what communists do. That's what Stalin did. That's what Castro did. That's what Hugo Chavez does. And, yet, those leaders didn't have the Constitution to conttend with. Progressives like McCain and Obama, they idnore or try to change the Constitution

Again, it's not just democrats and liberals, it's republicans like George Bush and McCain too. People who want to get re-elected, to become popular, more than they want Americans to prosper. Some, however, are more progressive than others. Obama is far worse than McCain, who is far worse than Bush ever was.

Hmmmm, scary hey.

Yes, the same things that caused the stock market crash of 1929 are occuring today. The Federal government, instead of getting out of the way, is getting in the way. Yes, most politicians have good intentions, yet often good intentions impede the better good, instead of generating good.

Yes, the seeds have been planted. We have been tricked for over 100 years by the progressive movement, which is insiduously ingrained in our nation, in our minds, and in the minds of our children. We have been tricked, and are slowly losing our Constitutional freedoms as a result.

The founding fathers are restless in their graves as they see what is happening. Yet, it's up to good folks like you and me to undo the damage created by the progressives, both of the republican, independent, and democratic variety.

So, while tax cuts for the wealthy caused the roaring 20s, progressives don't want us to know about that. That type of progress goes against the ultimate goal of the progressive movement -- euphoria.

Joseph McCarthy was right after all

Joseph McCarthy said in the early 1950s that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ communist sympathisers in the FDR and Truman White House. He was laughed at and scorned to an early death.

The media still talks about McCarthy in a nagative way.

In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinona Accords.

The Vinona Accords showed -- proved -- that not only was McCarthy right about there being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there was over 300 spies.

Still, you don't hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. This is just more proof of how powerful the liberal media was before the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

One can only wonder how many communist sympathizers are working in Washington in 2009. The way our government is headed, it appears there may be lot more than 300.

Presidential candidates used to be humble

A trivia question: What would happen if a person who would have been one of the most qualified presidents hated the idea of campaigning?

Answer: he would not become president.

I good example of this came in 1996, when Colon Powel decided he did not want his humble throat slashed by the media. Another example is Fred Thompson's lackadaisical 2008 bid for the presidency.

When asked about his paltry campaign, Thompson said, "If people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking for years about how they could achieve the presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning -- I aint that guy."

The charge against Thompson, according to Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard, was that "he didn't get out enough on the campaign trail, and, when he did, he didn't hold enough events."

So, did you know, that presidential presidential presidents did not campaign until very recently.

George Washington did not campaign. He was nominated because he was a superior General. The same can be said of every other General who ran for president up to Dwight David Eisenhower.

Despite the history books portraying Teddy Roosevelt as kissing baby's at train stations, Teddy hardly left the train station of his home town. In fact, up until the recent run of presidential candidates, presidential candidates did not leave their home towns.

How is that for a cool fact. Historically speaking, the first candidate to get off the couch and spread the word of his "paper thin" record of William Henry Harrison when he showed up in Columbus, Ohio, to give a speech in 1840.

Of course we all know his presidency lasted way less than a year as he died of pneumonia.

For the most part, according to Ferguson, until the late 1970s, presidential "candidates stayed home, receiving visitors and maintaining a quiet dignity while occasionally uncorking a speech in the neighborhood so the newspapers had something to report. Meanwhile, surrogates scattered around the country, leading parades, holding rallies, and telling lies for which the candidates themselves couldn't be held responsible."

There were a few exceptions to this rule, like in 1948 when Harry S. Truman was so far behind in the polls that "he could risk looking desperate and undignified." In that year, he left his home town on a major barnstorming mission. He beat Dewey in a very tight race.

Why were traditional candidates so restrained? Well, there was no way to travel for one thing. But even after cars were invented, candidates still maintained "restraint." Ferguson writes that the reason for this campaigning restraint "wasn't arrogance and sanctimoniousness."

In fact, there was a basic theme of presidential candidates going all the way back to George Washington, who not only did not seek public office, he stepped down voluntarily. The theme was this:

By not seeming overeager -- no matter how eager they were -- candidates paid tribute to the democratic idea that political power is best sought, taken on, and used reluctantly."

Al Gore spent his entire life pursuing the presidency. So too did John F. Kerry. I'm certain that George W. Bush started dreaming of it the day he quit drinking. And John McCain decided to run the moment he became Senator, as becoming president is probably the long term dream of most Senators.

Obama decided he was not going to run for president before he decided to run. Actually, I think Obama was the grassroots leader of a movement, as he was chosen by this movement to run for president, as opposed to deciding on his own. I remember two years ago a friend of mine saying he'd vote for Obama, when Obama was just elected to the Senate.

I would never make a good candidate. I might make a good one (yeah right), but I certainly wouldn't want to poke my head out every door smiling brightly when it would just be a superficial smile indeed. I hate the idea of being fake.

Sure I have a sense of humor and I smile on occasion, but nobody smiles all day long like Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and John McCain. I'm tired of seeing them smile. I'd rather see a leader on the campaign trail. Where's our version of Abraham Lincoln. He was a tall, skinny, ugly man who became the first republican president. He was a true, great president.

Yet, Abraham Lincoln would not qualify as president by 2008 standards, where it's more important to be fake than real.

Okay, so I better stop there. Did you know, that Abraham Lincoln was traveling by train to make some speeches to which his "surrogates" were to listen and travel the state for him. And of which the media was going to listen to and write articles of in the media to spread the word of this candidate.

As he stopped at one of the train stations, a little girl was there. Lincoln stopped to talk with this little girl. The little girl said, "Mr. Lincoln, I think you should grow a beard. If you grow a beard, I think you will win the election."

Yep, Mr. Lincoln, cover up that ugly face. Of course we all know that not only did Lincoln get elected, he became the 2nd best president ever, according to most polls. But who cares about the polls: Abraham Lincoln was the 2nd best president ever, second only to the first president ever.

I have written about this before (click here) that we may never have a great General as president ever again because of the head chopping by the media, the constant demand for fake smiles, and the never ending traveling.

So, there you have it. Before the trash talking, enemy stomping, negative ads, head chopping, name calling, world traveling, baby kissing, lying, word twisting, flip-flopping, denying, great looking, fake smiling of today's political candidates, there were humble people running for president.

And if the candidate wasn't humble, then he portrayed himself as a log cabin candidate, as even William Henry Harrison did, even though he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

That, my political friends, is the political history of the day.

The 1930s and 40s: The growing beast

In 1932 Franklin Deleno Roosevelt was elected in a Landslide. While he was never able to end the Great Depression, he, via his great speaking ability, managed to restore confidence in the American people.

A theory by a great economist and thinker by the name of Maynard Keynes was growing in popularity at this time, and it was termed Keynesian Economics. He believed an economy becomes depressed because people stop spending money. Thus, there is no demand for the goods and services.

Since people stop spending, businesses and industries don’t make a profit. Many of them will lay off workers, many others will close their doors altogether.

To solve this problem, Keynes proposed that it was the role of government to increase demand for these goods and services.

FDR, desperate to end the Great Depression, adapted Keynes economic policy. Thus, with the New Deal, he proposed several government programs that would increase government spending. In essence, FDR created Big Government. (He did not, however, intend on it becoming the beast it is today.)

The Great Depression dragged on for years until it ran out its course by the end of WWII. Experts will continue to argue whether it was something FDR did that ended the Great Depression, whether it was WWII, or whether it was just inevitable that it would end.

Most history books note that increased spending by the government during WWII was what brought the nation out of the depression. Others experts contend that the fact the government forced people to use rations, and ultimately forced Americans to sell all their gold to Uncle Sam, are proof that the economy was still depressed through the war.

However the depression ended, many modern historians and economists will argue that the depression dragged on because the government compounded the problem by tinkering with it. Prior to the Great Depression, the role of government regarding recessions and depressions was relegated to fixing the banking or money problem that resulted in the depression, and that was it.

During the Panic and Depression of 1893-95, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at a Senate Committee in 1883, said, “I believe in general that the government is best which governs least, and that interference with trade or manufactures is very undesirable. Yet I recognize the fact that evils may and do exist which require correction by the force of law.”

That depression was caused because the government fed the economy with silver notes, and, thus, artificially inflated the money supply. Of course this created a short- term boom, but a crash was inevitable. To solve the problem, Grover Cleveland proposed an end to the government dollars backed by silver.

Other than that, Cleveland did nothing. He didn’t even do anything about unemployment, as Joy Hakiim in her series, “A History of Us,” writes, “President Cleveland didn’t believe it his job to do anything about the unemployed. Most leaders agreed with him. Employment and working conditions were thought to be the responsibility of business.”

Likewise, during the depression of 1896, Grover Cleveland said, “The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government, Government should not support the people.

Because the government did did very little to end a depression prior to the Great Depression that started in 1929, all the depressions up to that point lasted only one or two years.

That all changed when FDR was elected, and we can debate whether it was for the better or for the worse. However, most economists and history books do contend that it was not Roosevelt’s New Deal that ended the Great Depression. In fact, some even contend the New Deal actually lengthened it.

We can debate that later.

As the economy soared to record highs, and as the quality of American life soared to near euphoric levels during the roaring 20s, Americans were so soaked in their glory that they were blinded to a few holes in the system. While the “Happy Day’s are Here Again” crowd enjoyed the day, a few insidious crooks were poking their greedy heads through the holes, causing the material to tear until the small holes were now gaping holes in the huge umbrella protecting Uncle Sam.

On Black Tuesday, that umbrella collapsed, and the “Happy Days” came to a screeching halt, sending America deep into its darkest and longest depression ever:

FDR, as part of his New Deal, decided that the days of the president sitting aside during such hard times was over, and he proposed a bandage for filling in those gaps. This, in my opinion, was the greatest achievement of FDR, and , perhaps, the single most important reason there has never been another depression.
Here’s what was good about the new deal: it instituted regulations on industries to protect common people from greedy crooks trying to take advantage of a booming economy, a naïve public, and very few laws protecting the people.

Yes, some such laws did exist prior to FDR, but most presidents believed it was not the role of government to enforce them.

Now, with the New Deal, banks are insured by the FDIC up to $100,000, the SEC regulates the stock market, elderly are guaranteed social security, there are codes for fair competition, minimum wages. We have the FCC to regulate radio and TV, FHA (now with HUD) to regulate interest rates and terms of mortgages to assure that even the poorest people can afford a mortgage on a house.

FDR also created the welfare state. And, to pay for all these New Deal programs, he increased taxes. This, as many believe, caused America to spiral into an even deeper depression. By FDR’s sixth term, the people seemed to have lost faith in him, and voted the democrats out of the House and the Senate. The prospects were looking grim for him, or any other democrat, winning the presidency in 1940.

Yet, with a war raging in Europe, and the people not wanting to jump ship with a war looming, Roosevelt was elected by a large margin again in 1940.

The 1920s: Reaching Euphoria and coming back

In 1920 Warren G. Harding was elected President amid a small recession. To fire up the economy, he signed into law a big tax cut, and became almost instantly popular.

Thus, he was the first President ever to consider the benefits of cutting taxes. The benefits of his doing so were HUGE, and ultimately lead to the Roaring 20s.

The economy during the 1920s grew faster than any time in American history up to that time, and America became the richest country in the world. The stock market and land values soared, and there were more rich people than ever before.

This booming economy benefited most Americans, and they were very happy. They loved President Harding. Up to the day he died they loved him.

Unfortunately for Harding, he had hired some of his best friends to posts in his administration, and, as it turned out, they were wheeling and dealing behind his back. One of the great scandals that brought down the Harding Administration was the Teapot Dome Scandal, where his “friends” got rich selling oil that was supposed to be set aside for public use.

Half way through his second year in office he died of a heart attack. There are two stories I’ve read about this. One is that he was so stressed that his friends let him down, that he had a heart attack and died. The other, and this one is merely suspicion, is that he killed himself. He couldn't’t bare face his public and tell them that he let them down.

Either way, while he died a popular president, people were angered when they learned about the scandals after his death. Historians, therefore, judge Harding as one of the worst Presidents because he failed to hire good enough people to posts in his administration.

Overlooked by historians in their view of him as a failure are his tax cuts. Not only were people happy during the 1920s, they had superfluous money to spend. They obtained this money as a bi-product of the soaring economy secondary to the Industrial Revolution secondary to tax cuts. It was because the upper classes were not burdened with high taxes that they had excess cash to invest into the economy.

The excellent free market conditions that resulted from this lead to the Industrial Revolution. Here investors, lead by the great Henry Ford, found ways to mass produce goods and services and make them abundantly available to the public at a cheaper price. Factories were becoming a common site, and were hiring unskilled workers at a record pace.

The rich got richer, and the middle class got richer too.

As a result, the radio and telephone became common household objects, and a Ford Model T became a must have for most Americans. In essence, it was the first time in American history where average Americans, and not just the rich people, could purchase material items for selfish reasons.

People were having fun. No! They were having a blast in the Roaring 20s.

Most Americans were so indulged in their own happiness at this time that they failed to notice inflation was increasing, and so was unemployment, and there were few rules and regulations to monitor businesses, nobody monitoring to assure workers were getting fair pay and treatment, and there was little insurance on invested monies to assure this money would not become lost in case of an economic collapse.

While the economy was booming during the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge’s popularity continued to soar, as he too cut taxes so people would have more money to spend and invest. Then, after Herbert Hoover became President, the stock market crashed on Thursday, October 24, 1929. A recession ensued.

You have to realize that Woodrow Wilson had proclaimed that WWI was the War to end all wars. Then, as alcohol was believed to be the cause of all crime, Prohibition was passed. With the Roaring 20s in full bloom, people believed they had created a euphoric nation. They figured it would last forever.

They were wrong. Americans were completely caught off guard, and that is one of the main reasons people were so gloomy as the roaring 20s came to a screeching halt. People simply stopped investing in the American economy because they figured it could not be trusted, and instead placed all their money in safe places within their homes, like under their pillows. This made the economy worse.

Newspapers used for blankets in the parks of New York by people who had no jobs were thus dubbed Hoover blankets. Since he was the one in charge, he was blamed. While history still views Hoover as the reason for the Great Depression, it should also point the finger at Calvin Coolidge, who failed to see a need to monitor the greedy people who were eager to milk more money out of the cow, and didn’t always use fair tactics.

Hoover, however, did have a chance to stop the downward spiral, he just didn’t know about it. After all, this was the first recession of a new kind of economy in a modern, global world. He figured that since taxes were cut many times during the Roaring 20s, that this was to blame for the stock market crash. So, instead of cutting taxes, he raised taxes from 24 to 63 percent by signing the 1932 Revenue Act.

This was coupled with a rise in tariffs.  Thus, he took more money out of the pockets of people who already didn’t have any, and the recession turned into the Great Depression.

We poked our heads into the land of Euphoria just briefly during the 1920s, and, unfortunately, we had to come back. It was too good to be true.