The Statist solution plays on fear

I have learned through the course of time that liberals tend to be more progressive than republicans, and the progressive tends to want to move away from the individual rights of man the founders believed in and more toward a state controlled government. Since this is true, progressives tend to be statists.

The problem with creating a statist government in the United States are two fold:

1. The U.S. Constitution makes it hard to create change
2. American Tradition

Due to these two reasons, it has been impossible for the progressives to make rapid change in the U.S. as they have in other nations such as over in Europe. Europe's history is of kings and queens and dictatorship, and that is not far removed from a statist society.

Plus in Europe many dictators of the past, such as Hitler and Stalin succeeded to some degree at getting rid of religion in Europe, and religion is the key for individualists because it preaches capitalism. And religion is the antithesis of the statist government, because the goal of the statist is to create an "equal" society where their is justice and equality for all.

In other words, the statist wants social justice, which is another word for one of the isms of society: socialism, marxism, leninism, liberalism, progressivism and the like.

So, since it is very difficult to make change in America, progressives have absolved themselves to taking baby steps, where they get what they can get and then try to make it bigger as time goes by. You can see the evolution take place starting with Teddy Roosevelt, growing quite well under Woodrow Wilson and FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Actually, even George W. Bush had a role in the evolution of progressivism with his unwillingness to veto any programs, and his advancing the welfare state by creating a prescription drug program for the elderly.

Yet I digress. One of the main ways to implement change is to get people to ask for it. And the way to do that is to make people not confident with what they have. The best way in the U.S. to make people not happy is to make them poor. The best way to make people poor is in one of two ways:

1. To make it hard to get a job
2. To make them dependent on the government

Keynesian economics is the key here. While conservatives will tell you over and over again that Keynesian economics has never worked and never will. Liberals who use it will tell you it is working. These same liberals will portray a picture of themselves as "feeling for the needs of people." Yet at the same time they are happy because a dissolute people will come crawling to them -- the statist -- for change.

Obamacare is a good example. Progressives knew they weren't going to be able to make the change to a universal and perfect healthcare system in one swell swoop. So they got what they could get with a democrat controlled Washington, and they made it so the healthcare system would fall apart.

They made it so that insurance companies would have to pay for dependents until they are 28, and they made it so insurance companies had to pay for people with pre-existing conditions, and this resulted in increased health insurance premiums. So some businesses and individuals are already dropping health insurance because they can't pay for it.

Likewise, progressives are driving up the cost of healthcare by giving it away for free. Supply and demand will have it as demand increases and supply stays the same price will go up. Scared to live without health insurance in todays high priced health care market, many people will come begging for the statist healthcare program, which is universal healthcare.

Another good example is Keynesian economics itself. Herbert Hoover used Keynesian economics when he raised taxes during a recession, and this resulted in people who create jobs hoarding money and not investing in new business ventures and not hiring new workers. This resulted in a worsening of the recession into a depression.

FDR put Keynesian economics on steroids, and he made it so the unemployment rate was in the high 20s for most of his term in office. To give the appearance that this was not intentional, FDR created state jobs. State jobs make the unemployment numbers decrease, that is until the state jobs expire. So that's why when Keynesian economics is used, you'll see spikes where unemployment goes down. Usually these are right before an election.

Yet with an intentionally prolonged depression, FDR used this "fear" as a means of passing his progressive agenda. The same as Obama. He used the recession as a means of passing HIS progressive agenda. It's baby steps. And it's feeding on the fears of the people.

Progressives know that the best way to get their programs passed is to create a problem. Then when the system collapses and the people are desperate for a solution, progressives know they have the progressive statist solution in the waiting.

Progressives do care for the people. FDR was and Obama is concerned for the citizens. That is why the fear and dissolution they are creating in society is for their own good, because in the end the goal is a Utopian society where the government is everything to everyone.

Why punish the rich to fund failed government???

Here's a question posed to me at work yesterday: Why is it that the rich have to pay for government programs that don't even benefit them? Where in the Constitution does it say that some of us have to take on a greater burden of the government debt?

Or, worded a better way, why is it that the rich have to pay a greater share of wasteful government programs? What did the rich do to be forced to pay for out of control government spending?

All the evidence shows that people in the upper middle class and the rich create 75% of the jobs in this country. They are the same who keep the economy rolling (when it is rolling) by investing in new equipment and expanding their businesses and creating new jobs. Yet we have certain people in Washington who force them to pay for bad debt they did not create.

The rich people who own and mange businesses do what needs to be done to keep their businesses afloat. They move their businesses to areas of lower taxes, such as what happened to many industries in Michigan. Taxes and regulations are so high here that business leaders decided to go across the boarder to Indiana or Ohio.

Likewise, some businesses are sending jobs overseas because the cost of running shop in other countries is less than, say, in Michigan. That's what Rick Snyder did to keep his business alive. Democrats criticize him for sending jobs overseas. Yet others hail him for doing what was necessary to keep his business open.

There's this old saying that government does not create wealth, all it does is destroy it. And by taxing the rich and creating programs that make more people dependent on the government is a perfect example of destroying wealth.

If you tax the rich, or threaten to tax them more (which is what is happening with the Bush tax cuts) all this results in is ticking off the job creators. And that is exactly why this recession we are in is not going to go away until those running Washington get with the program and realize what I'm writing about in this post.

Those in Washington should not be discussing who should get tax cuts and who should not (and usually it's the rich they say should not). The Constitution does not say we can take away the freedoms of some and not others. And when we take money from the people and decide how that money is going to be spent instead of the person who earned it, this is taking away freedom.

And it used to be that we would die before we gave up our freedom, or the freedom of others. Now we intentionally take it. That's what it's come down to now here in the U.S.

Where is the economic theory that proclaims that the best way to improve an economy is to punish those who achieve and who create jobs and create opportunities for wages to increase? Where is that theory? Is it Keynesian economics? Is that the theory?

Well, progressives like Obama and FDR follow Keynesian economics. So it's progressives who have created their own theory to improve the economy, yet it doesn't improve the economy: it destroys the economy.

And why would they do that? Why would a President of the U.S. intentionally destroy the economy and lie to us and say he is trying to fix it? Hmmmm. Perhaps he wants to destroy it so he can come to us and say: I have the solution, and it's called a New World Order.

Is Obama pent to destroy America?

Here's a good quote by Rush Limbaugh from his program on Thursday November 4, 2010, about Obama's vision for the future of America. This is a perfect example of why Rush sticks by his quote: "I hope he fails."

"Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any Democrat, I don't care, any Democrat, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay? Who made them the deciders on what we should eat? Who made them the decider of what kind of lightbulbs we have in our homes? Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive? Who made them the deciders on what kinda house we live in? Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can't turn our lights on? Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom? Who gave them that power? It doesn't come from the Constitution. The Constitution does not say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which lightbulb they have, what foods they can and can't eat, and what lights they can't turn off or on at what time of year. The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this.

The Constitution does not envision this kind of usurpation of freedom. The Constitution does not envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights or overall liberty or freedom. It has to have been a political party looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says, ignoring it in order to implement their policy.

How did this happen? It happens because people for whatever reason are willing to sacrifice, and maybe not even know it's happening, little bits of their freedom and liberty now and then, under the auspices of it's a good cause, or it's in the name of compassion, fairness. Well, I want somebody to tell me what is fair about one incompetent having the right to systematically destroy my country. I want to know where the fairness is in that. I want to know why in hell anybody is even thinking about much less talking about compromising with this man. I want to know why anybody who believes in the Constitution wants to discuss compromising individual freedom or liberty with this man. Because that's what the compromise is. When people say that we must compromise with Obama, we are saying we must compromise on our freedom.

Let me tell you something, President Obama. You can reject it all you want. But you've done it. And we know you're happyyou've done it. You might want people to think you're not happy about the direction the country is going, but if you really were unhappy about it you'd do something to stop it. Instead, you're doubling down on it. You reject the idea your policies have taken the country in reverse? Where the hell have your policies taken us? You happily preside over a nation in decline. You have told the world no longer will the US population lead the world economy. Ain't gonna happen anymore.

If we want to keep our country the way it is,then we ought to hope Obama fails too.

Totalitarian leaders in the U.S.

Franklin Deleno Roosevelt may have been the closest of any one President to being a totalitarian ruler of the United States -- and he wasn't the only one. This may sound far fetched, yet when you consider the facts, you can see for yourself, and decide for yourself, if I'm right.

Consider for a moment the definition of totolitarian from Dictionary.com:

Of or pertaining to a central government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life; exercising control over freedom, will, thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic

As we review the history of the progressive movement, we can see that these philosophies call for experts in Washington (preferably liberal experts) to make decisions for the people in a variety of areas. A good example are elected, or non-elected, officials in Washington deciding what all kids will learn. Another example is Obamacare, which forces everyone to buy healthcare for their own good. 

Liberals often can't stand to hear the voices of opposing parties, and therefore are always trying to come up with ways to shut up voices they don't agree with, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the entire Fox News Network. While Conservatives want to hear more of the voices of opposition, liberals want to shut them up (they will deny this, of course).

Progressives also made it so everyone has to go to a public school (unless they can afford the alternative, and most people can't). They made it so no one can pray in a public school, we must all pitch into social security for our own good, when we earn money the government must take some and decide for you how to spend it.
So you can see, progressivism and totolitarianism go hand in hand. And while Woodrow Wilson became a totolitarian ruler during WWI, and Obama has made a gallant effort to become one recently, FDR is a quentisential example of a U.S. President who had obtained totalitarian control.
FDR, in a sense, was a kinder version of the fascist dictators of Europe: Hitler, Stalin and Mousolini. He took over teh office and became Amercas totalitarian dictator. Yet while Europe's fascit dictators had complete totolitarian control, a U.S. President has the U.S. Constitution in his way.
Like Hitler, he was charismatic and a great speaker (So is Obama), and even while he was harming America, and even though most Americans were stunned and surprised at the direction he was taking this country, he convinced Americans to vote for him.
Rather, one might say he started government programs for the "betterment of the people," and he used these programs at his will to buy voters and to punish those who opposed him. Lest, if you didn't support his agenda, you didn't get government money.
He, like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin, was a totalitarian dictator. Allow me to provide proof. You decide for yourself.

1. Father McLaughlin supported FDR ardently during his initial campaign in 1932. Although he thought FDR was not liberal enough, and started to talk bad about FDR on his radio program. Because FDR disagreed with what Father was saying, he called him a fascist and forced his radio program off the air. this was unconstitutional, but FDR did it anyway. This is similar to what progressives want to do with Conservative radio and Fox News today.
2. Huey Long was another ardent supporter of FDR, but then he spoke out against FDRs Agricultural Adjustment Act and his National Recovery Act as being too socialist. FDR used the IRS to destroy Huey Long. Long was also a threat to run as a third party, which would have split the democratic vote and allowed a republican to win. So FDR had no choice but to ruin Huey Long.
3. Joseph McCarthy was correct in noting FDR had over 30 Soviet supporters on his staff. FDR knew McCarthy was close to the truth, and so he used his popularity to discredid McCarthy. The Venona accords released in 1992 proved McCarthy was right all along, but it was too late. McCarthy was ridiculed so much he died an early death.
4. FDR raised the highest tax rate to 90% so he could have access to all the profits, and he could decide what to do with the people's money. He basically took from the haves and gave to the poor, and thus redistributed wealth just as Stalin, Hitler and Mousolini did.
5. On April 27, 1942, he signed an executive order taxing all personal income over $25,000 at 100%. Congress balked at this and made it 90% at the top level, and started taxing those who made $500 at 20% rate. Clearly he had forgotten the benefits of the 1920s tax cuts and capitalism. All excess income should go to win the war.
6. On July 1941 he proposed a 99.5% tax rate on all income over $100,000. He defended it by saying, "Why now? None of us is ever going to make $100,000 a year."
7. Via the 1933 Emergency Banking Act FDR forced all people with gold to turn their gold over to the government in exchange for paper money. Those who refused to do so were fined and or imprisoned. Likewise, all previous contracts with Gold were null and void.
8. He forced Japanese Americans to live in Concentration camps during WWII. Sure they weren't treated as poorly as the Jewish in Germany, but he still used one of Hitlers mothods.
9. He forced Americans to ration for food during WWII.
10. Many of his own economic advisors advised him to cut taxes to stimulate the economy by encouraging people to invest, and he refused because he blamed Andrew Mellon, and Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding's capitalistic tax cuts for the depression.
11. The Reciprical Trade Agreement of 1934 gave FDR unprecidented power to determine Tariffs on a country by country basis. He used this to coerce businessmen and industries to cooperate with him or risk increased tariffs on their goods and services which would increase prices and decrease demand. This is also one of his methods for buying votes.
12. Pilot Eddie Richenbacher predicted FDRs new Air Mail Act would result in the deaths of Army Corp men now forced to deliver air mail, and when he planned to criticize FDR on NBC, orders came from Washington to take him off the air.
13. William Randolf Hearst, a newspaper tycoon, found himself under investigation by the IRS when he opposed FDR. FDR longed for a World Court (a first step in obtaining a New World Order), adn Long, Hearst and Father McLaughlin opposed it.
14. Boake Carter was another radio commentator who opposed FDRs attempt to pack Supreme Court and he was duly investigated by the IRS. FDR also had his men try to see if Carter was an illegal alien so they could have him deported.
15. FDR pushed up his opposition and therefore the people wer eunable to learn about the fact FDRs policies were contrary to improving the economy. He created his programs to buy votes, and used his programs to shut up those who spoke out against him. By doing this, he won re-election three times.
16. He also had the FBI and the IRS after Hamilton Fish, the republican Congressman from FDR's home district who kept winning re-election.
17. Local political opponents of FDR had to keep quiet lest FDR hunt them down with the IRS or FBI or cut other programs to their liking.
18. Like Obama now, his actions were dedicated toward unpopular causes.
19. He jailed those who disobeyed the NRA
20. He tried to pack the Supreme Court
21. He purged democrats who tried to oppose his centralization of political power (an essential ingredient to obtaining totalitarian control and his progressive agenda and similar to Obama's quest to transform America).
22. FDR often castigated businessmen and threatened to raise tax rates further if they opposed him.
23. U.S. had a whopping 325% increase in excise revenue from 1929 to 1938. These taxes fell mainly on the lower incomes, and may have contributed to the poorer rate of recovery from teh Great Depression
24. Corporate taxes increased to a top rate of 7 0% and the U.S. alone passed an undistributed profits tax.
25. Businessmen watched the top rate of the Federal Income Tax increase from 24-63% in 1932 under Hoover, and then to 79% in 1935 under FDR.
26. He used the IRS to prosecute wealthy Americans, especially republicans (as noted above)
27. He created incentives for businessmen to shift their investments into areas of lesser taxation
28. In 1929 the U.S. had the lowest unemployment of all nations who would have joined the League of Nations, and dropped to 8th place in 1932, 11th in 1937, and then 13th by 1938. So u nder FDR unemployment got worse and worse and not better.
29. He used subsidies and political capital, money and tools to get re-elected. He was first to buy votes with the very programs he created. So, however, unpopular he programs were, he kept getting re-elected.
30. He also used political subsidies to punish enemies and reward friends.
31. In this way, he controlled taxpayer subsidies.
32. Special Interests who lobbied in favor of FDR got special subsidies and were favored for government loans.
33. FDR used government expenditures to persuade voters. He was the best at doing this. He caused America to be trapped in the debt spiral of special interest spending
34. Spending created fanatic lobying and a never ending cycle of more spending (still going on to this day, as Obama has upped the national debt over the trillion dollar mark).
35. In 1936 before the Presidential election, FDR added 300,000 to the work relief program (WPA). In the months following the election, 300,000 were removed from the WPA.
36. Work Relief expenditures increased sharply -- 268% increase from fall of 1935 to the fall of 1936 -- the biggest increase of 3,663% was in Pensylvania, a swing state that Hoover had carried in 1932, and FDR specially targed in 1936.
37. A plan was in place to make sure the Soil conservation Service checks arrived in Farm households before the election of 1936 to ensure votes for FDR -- 4 farm states were in the balance.
38. Alf Landon said "If he (FDR) did not have $5 billion (of WPA money to dole out) his election would be very much in doubt.
39. FDR ran on this issue with signs saying, "Relief for Votes," subtitled "will the American people accept the imputation tht their votes can be bought with reief money." Another leaflet said, "If we don't stop the New Deal the nation will go bankrupt.
40. Funny thing, Landon tried to win votes by denouncing government programs, but he had to do it without alienating the increasingly large number of voters who had Federal jobs, or hoped to have them. In this sense, republicans couldn't get re-elected even though FDRs programs were unpopular.

We must note that the Constitution was written with power widely dispersed to prevent a strong president or legislature from increasing it's authority adn gradually turning the U.S. into a tyrany.
As noted by Burton Fulsom Jr in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, "In crafting the Constitution, the founders emphasized process, not results. If we follow the Constitution, we won't have a perfect society, which is unattainable by imperfect humans. But we will provide opportunity for people to use their natural rights to pursue the acquisition of property and their natural rights to pursue their own personal happiness."
All progressive policies were created by ignoring the Constitution, and this resulted in less power to the people, less ability to make decisions how to spend money, less individualism, less freedom of speech, less freedom overal, and an overal worsening of the American dream. Totolitarianism was the result.
All of this totalitarianism created uncertainty, and caused the Great Depresion to extend through the 1930s to the 1940s.
Material for the above posts came from the following sources:
1. New Deal or Raw Deal: How FDRs economic policyhas damaged America, by Burton Fulsom Jr.
2. The Forgotten man: The new history of the Great Depression, by Amity Shlaes

November 2, 2010, was rejeciton of progressivism

The November 2 election was not a rejection of Obama. That's what we need to understand as a nation. It was a rejection of American Progressivism. Americans believe in personal accountability and capitalism.

The election was Americans saying: STOP! Stop the spending! Stop the building up of our debt! Stop the bailouts! Stop! Just Stop!

Americans rejected our tax and spend policies redolent of socialism. Most of us don't have a problem helping out those in need, but we don't want people taking advantage of and living off the government. And we don't want any more debt.

That is what this election cycle was all about. It's not a rejection of democratic ideas any more than it's a rejection of republicans who are associated with tax and spend progressive ideals.

We want a responsible and limited republic. We want government to create a good economic environment that allows all people the same opportunity to better their lives, but does not simply give people that of which they have not earned.

The government should help the needy and the elderly, should encourage each of us to make good decisions and to be held accountable for our actions, should protect us from each other not from ourselves, should provide good roads for safe travel and basic infrastructure needs.

That is what this election cycle was all about. We have to wait and see if those in Washington and at the state level got the message. Otherwise, the public will make more changes come the 2012 election.

Stop! That is the message sent to Washington. Whether they get it or not that's another story.

If nothing else, this should force us all to have the discussion of what the real problems are in this nation, and how to solve them.

Progressives loved Stalin, Mousolini

Yes, it is true. Progressives loved Stalin and Mussolini. At least that was the case until it turned out those progressives, fascists, were actually doing some really bad things over there. In fact, some progressives actually "loved what Hitler was doing over there," before it came out what his ulterior goal was.

Some progressives actually noted that they were jealous of Stalin because he made his country more progressive and faster than what was going on here in the United States. Of course such talk ceased once word got out that Hitter, Stalin and Mussolini were bad people.

I'm not joking here either. And, ironically, this is the part of the progressive history that progressive leaders don't want us to remember, and so they have left this part out of the history books our kids learn from in school.

As Jonah Goldberg notes in his book, "Liberal Fascism," "There were of course significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America, and between national cultures in general.

Progressivism in America, and fascism in Europe, were basically one and the same, and a trend of the times between 1900 and the 1930s. The goal, as Goldberg writes, and several other experts have noted, was to obtain "the great utopia." If we could take from the rich and give to the poor, we can make a world where there is no poor.

Although, as history later proves, there is no evidence a government can achieve such goals. Yet that wasn't evident in the early 20th century. Progressivism, fascism, was a "worldwide movement."

Jane Adams, at the 1912 progressive convention, noted that progressivism is like a science, and in science there is experimentation. Although, what she didn't realize, as none of the other progressives did at the time, was that if you "experiment" with something and you don't know what you're doing, you might create a bigger mess than you might expect.

Hence is the case with the progressive movement, and is why Europe is enveloped today in an economic disaster, and why America (still lagging behind Europe in the progressive movement) under Obama (and to some extend George W. Bush) is headed in the same direction if an opposing force doesn't stop it.

Goldberg mentions many members of the FDR administration who were "awed" by what was going on in Europe. He writes, "For countless liberals, Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin were all doing the same thing (as we progressives here in America): transforming corrupt, outdated societies.

In his own way, Goldberg writes, Woodrow Wilson was as much a part of modernizing the world, creating a more "evolved" world, organizing society so it was a better, more euphoric place, ideal place, as was Mussolini.

Hence note that, like Mussolini and Stalin and perhaps to some extend Hitler, Woodrow Wilson dictated his agenda through rationing, price fixing, telling Americans they needed to make "great sacrifices such as "meatless" and "wheatless" days. In this way, he was a totalitarian, controlling his people.

Benito Mussoline made the same claims that American progressives made, that he wanted to create a perfect society with perfect citizens who put society ahead of their individual needs. He was actually influenced by many of the same minds who influenced American progressives, including Karl Marx. He actually wanted to fight on the American side, but he ended up supporting Hitler, and was therefore called a right winger, even though he still had the same values as American Progressives.

FDR, like Wilson, became known for forcing rationalizing, placing American Japanese in concentration camps around the country, forcing Americans to turn in their gold, and the like. He, in this way like Hitler and Stalin, was a dictator. He was a socialist in the mould of Karl Marx. He was for social reform, just as the Europeans were for social reform.

Another thing Wilson and FDR did that was Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini-like, was to silence dissent. They often imprisoned people who spoke out about the war, or criticized. They both were known to even shut down newspapers that spoke out against the war. Can you imagine if that happened in 2003 during the Iraq War?

Wilson had the sedition act that banned "uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or the military."

Goldberg notes, "The government was given the authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication he saw fit -- effectively shutting it down. At least 75 periodicals were banned. Foreign publications were not allowed unless their content was first translated and approved by censors. Journalists also faced the very real threat of being jailed or having their supply of newsprint terminated by the War Industries Board. 'Unacceptable' articles included any discussion -- no matter how high minded or patriotic -- that disparaged the draft."

Sauerkraut was called "liberty cabbage." German measles were often called, "liberty measles."

Goldberg notes, "Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but it has been estimated that some 175,000 Americans were arrested for failing to demonstrate their patriotism in one way or another. All were punished, many went to jail."

Totalitarian. Marxist. Whatever you want to call it.

Benito Mussolini was doing many similar things. In fact, Goldberg notes, he was influenced by many of the same people progressives in America were influenced by: Marx, Nietzshe, Hegel, James, etc.

Yet, although what he was doing was eerily similar to what FDR was doing in America, when he decided to side with Hitler, he was deemed by American scholars as "right wing" even though he was actually quite "left wing."

Similar things occur today, as many liberals have threatened a return of the Fairness Doctrine because they don't like people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity talking bad about liberalism, or revealing the truth about the Progressive movement. If they can't shut them up, they at least want equal time for liberal talk show hosts, who otherwise cannot get their shows on the air because nobody wants to listen to them.

When Conservatives speak on popular TV shows like the Today Show they are introduced as "controversial," while when a progressive like Al Gore goes on the same show in the same day, he is introduced as, "Vice President Al Gore," with no mention of the liberal tag.

Goldberg notes, "In the liberal telling of America's story, there are only two perpetrators of official misdeeds: conservatives" and right wingers. So, even when someone is a progressive, fascist, socialist just as they are, they are called "right wingers," or "controversial."

Just as Mussolini was called a right winger, Newt Gingrich today is called a right winger, and even the progressive John McCain is referred to as a right winger by the media when their is a more progressive Obama running for President.

They also rewrite history. Did I mention that before. For instance, as Goldberg notes, you hardly hear tale that many progressives were supporters of Eugenics. You hardly hear tale that many with mental disabilities were castrated so they couldn't procreate. This was all their attempt to create an "ideal" people.

Yet, this was quickly set aside when it was realized Americans didn't like what was going on in Europe, especially Germany. And, later it was realized Stalin was killing his people too if he didn't like them, and castrating those he didn't want reproducing in order to create a more idealistic Russia.

Goldberg notes that "conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself."

The goal of both progressives in America and Fascists in Europe (of course neither is called such anymore, but is still the same), is to assure that there is no dividing line between the rich and the poor."

Hitler had a similar goal, when he preached, "What a difference compared with a certain other (Spain). There it is class against class, brother against brother. We have chosen the other route: rather than wrench you apart, we have brought you together."

However evil this sounds, that is the goal here in America for progressives too. That is why Woodrow Wilson and his progressive administration sought for and got passage of the progressive tax. They did so by "lying" to Americans that it would only generate a 3% tax on the upper class. Once it was passed the tax was ultimately increased to 75%.

The goal is to create "social programs" that benefit the poor. To pay for them, money must be taken from those who work. "You must do your fair share," is a common chant back then and now by progressives. "You must do your fair share for the state."

"Of course," Goldberg is smart to note, "such Utopian dreams would have to come at the price of personal liberty. But progressives and fascist alike were glad to pay it."

Note Volksgemeinschaft: a Nazi slogan about placing the common good before the private good.

Again, Goldberg notes, "This is the elephant in the corner that the American left has never been able to admit, explain or comprehend. Their inability and/or refusal to deal squarely with this fact has distorted our understanding of our politics, and ourselves. Liberals keep saying 'it can't happen here' with a clever wink or an ironic smile to insinuate that the right is constantly plotting fascist schemes. Meanwhile, hiding in plain sight is this simple fact: it did happen here, and it might very well happen again. To see the threat, however, you must look over your left shoulder, not your right."

Now we have Obama. Oh, how we did see it coming, yet nobody listened.

Liberals pro big business? The facts say it is so

Many liberals (aka progressives) like to say that the democratic party is the party of the people, and the republicans are the party of big corporations. This is what they want people to think, yet the opposite is true.

In fact, liberals are pro big business. They want fewer private businesses, because with few large corporations it's easier for liberals to tell these business owners what they want to hear, and then make laws that favor them, so that these progressives can slowly move forward their progressive agenda.

Of course we know that the progressive agenda is to create "social reform" by creating more state control and regulations. Thus, by the democrats creating more regulations, they are in turn driving out small businesses who cannot afford to pay the overhead. Big businesses, however the corporate bosses like to complain, can afford the new overhead, and are more likely to stay in business and live on.

The first perfect example I can think of is one of the first progressive actions way back in 1906 when Upton Sinclair wrote his book about the poor cases in the meat packing industry. He painted such a bad picture that President Theodor Roosevelt moved to pass regulations that would benefit the people, and force corporations to produce cleaner, healthier foods.

The problem with this picture is that not all meat packers were corrupt this way. In fact, a majority were small businesses that were honest with their work, and sold a healthy product. Yet the few bad big businesses that were out to make money at the expense of a good product were the few rotten apples that spoiled the batch.

So, in the end, most of the the small and (mostly) honest businesses were driven out of business because they couldn't afford to pay the new regulations, and pay to purchase all the new technology to make the product the way the "state" now regulated. So, in the end, the same big businesses that were "corrupt" were the same businesses that stayed in businesses.

Over the years I can think of many examples. The Federal government has created an environment, via high corporate taxes and high cost of regulations, where nearly all small businesses are gone.

As one example, during the hey day of the movie industry, 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theaters were independently owned. Due to regulations, and codes, and taxes, all in the name of making a better product for the consumer, has driven out most of the independent owners. I can drive down downtown Manistee, Michigan and see five buildings that used to house independently owned movie theaters., and down Ludington avenue and see the same, and Shoreline and see the same, and Grand Rapids, and Detroit.

Instead, what you see is one Star theater, or one GKC theater, or another large movie chain. The same is true of grocery stores. Only the big chains are around: Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Prevo's, Plumbs. You don't see many small grocery stores anymore. These are the little people who hire workers, and they were driven out of the market by the big businesses that can afford the high overhead of regulations, taxes, etc.

This is exactly what democrats say they are against, yet they are really for. They want a few big businesses that are easily controlled by the state (the Federal Government). You see, the owners of many of these businesses (see Goldman Sacs) give big contributions to the democratic party to make sure the Federal Government doesn't allow for any more competition for them.

It's the same big business/government collusion democrats hail against. Yet, they are guilty as the fascist government in Germany and Italy back in the 1930s. In fact, back before WWII, both Woodrow Wilson and FDR hailed in favor of what was going on in Europe, and vice versa.

You see, progressives are all about state control. They want to control you, the businesses you buy goods and services from, and the state. They know what's good for you. Yet, one obstacle in their way is the Constitution, which is why progressivism has been slower in the U.S. than in Europe.

Yet, in Europe and in the U.S., to pass the progressive agenda the leaders have to lie. They have to tell you what you want to hear to get their way. A perfect example, "We're going to clean up the meat packing industry for the good of society." Sure they cleaned up the meat packing industry, but at what price?

New Nationalism

Teddy Roosevelt believed in New Nationalism. Basically, in his own words, you might think of it as socialism, as he noted, "Th New Nationalism rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

Now do you think this is the kind of stuff they teach in schools. This sounds down right scary. Can you believe progressive presidents actually walked around saying things like this? I believe Barack Obama and many liberals today believe in the same type of New Nationalism as Roosevelt did, although they wouldn't dare say so out loud, hence Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would be all over their tails.

Actually, as Jonah Goldberg wrote in Libaral Fascism, "This sort of rhetoric conjured fears among classical liberals (again increasingly called conservatives) that Teddy would ride roughshod over American liberties."

It's scary to note this type of thing still occurs to this day. It kind of gives progressive Presidents the same power totolitarian rulers have. Actually, this is the kind of power FDR had, and how he ended up being president for four terms.

Actually, this is the very reason an amendment to the Constitution was added to make sure no more president could be President for more than 2 terms. A person in power too long gains totoliltarian powers, and abuses it, as we can see by the likes of FDR and his attempt to change the Supreme Court, and his concentration camps for American Japanese citizens, and his forcing Americans to turn in their gold, and rationing.

All of these are Unconstitutional, yet the totolitarian FDR didn't care so long as he thought he was doing it for the general good fo the state.

I think Obama believes in the same principles, as he has made attempts to delegate to big banks, and businesses as to how much money their CEOs can make, and in his attempts at making regulations that tell businesses that are "too big to fail" what they can and cannot do.

It's, as I've noted before, socialism and fascism in disguise.

More regulations not the answer

On "The view" right now the girls are discussing BP and what can be done to prevent such an oil spill as that of which is occurring the the Gulf Coast from occurring again. Whoopie said more regulations are needed, and that conservative girl said regulations are fine but not so many that the government is running the company.

So, who is right? Actually, I think Whoopie is way off. You have to think of regulations as rules. The more rules you have the harder they are to enforce. Likewise, as you have too many rules, it's impossible to follow some of them. And big businesses like BP know this, and therefore they find ways to skirt them.

I can use myself as a perfect example. I have a bunch of rules I have for my children to abide by. One of the rules is wearing a helmet while riding a bike, and another is to look both ways before crossing the road, and another is to not talk back, and another is...

Well, you get the picture. For their safety, we parents come up with lots of rules. Yet, there comes a time when you are working so hard to get your child to obey one rule that it becomes necessary to forgo another. For example, my daughter threw a fit the other day at the park, and she was refusing to get back on her bike if she had to wear a helmet.

She said, "I never fall off my bike anyway. So why do I have to wear this stupid thing?"

To get her to cooperate, I decided to let her not wear the helmet. My point here is not to make myself look like a bad parent, but to make the point that sometimes you have to let one rule slide in order to get people to cooperate. And you can't tell me inspectors do the same thing, or say something like, "Oh, there hasn't been a leak in 20 years, so we'll just let this go by."

Too many rules to enforce makes this a lot more likely to happen. Too many rules to enforce make it a lot harder to abide by them.

Likewise, history has proven that the more regulations on a particular industry the greater the likelihood that smaller corporations and businesses cannot afford the regulations, and go out of business.

So then you have only large corporations left, like B.P. With little competition left, corporations like B.P. have to spend less money on competition, so they have more money left over to fund lobbyists, and to make campaign contributions, all in an attempt to control Washington and to make sure no laws are made to increase competition.

Thus, the irony of "more regulations" as Whoopie would have it is the more regulations you have on an industry, the more control that industry has on Washington. In this way, Washington and that Industry become one. Which, ultimately, is the goal of Progressivism, to control industry.

Also, consider that it's because of regulations that we can't drill in the Florida Tundra; regulations that say we can't dig new coal mines; regulations that we can't build new oil refineries; regulations we can't build new nucular power plants; and therefore regulations that force oil to drill off the gulf coast so deep we can't get to the spill to plug it up.

Plus BP had plans to use chemicals to get rid of oil, and to burn it, before it got out of reach of the well, but environmental regulations prevented this action too. There's so many regulations you can't prevent and you can't treat.

I thought it was ironic today that Obama said the following: America deserves an answer. What happened in Gulf may be the result of human error, and it may be the result of error on the part of BP. Either way, America deserves an answer.

Obama is right, except for one thing: he failed to mention the government as a possible cause.

So this is exactly the problem as I see it. I could be wrong. I might be completely wrong, yet I don't see how more regulations are going to work. What we need to do is have few regulations -- few rules -- and enforce then wholeheartedly.

The same in the home. While there are a lot of rules to run a home, I tend to just have a few that I consider nuclear laws, and I enforce them tooth and nail. You can have a lot of freedom in my home, yet if you break these nuclear laws you will be punished wholeheartedly and appropriately.

The same needs to be done in Washington.

You know, the irony of this is that when it comes to Immigration progressives are the exact opposite: they want fewer regulations. They want poor immigrants to come into this country, and to take advantage of U.S. welfare programs because then they'll tend to vote democrat.

So, when something works in the favor of progressives, they don't want more regulations. As we know, the U.S. government immigration policy is much tougher than the recent Arizona policy. Yet the Arizona policy encourages enforcement of current immigration laws, while the federal government enforces little.

Why is that? Because there are too many rules. It comes full circle. Too many regulations make industries worse, not better. Worded another way: regulations are meant to control industry, yet history has shown regulations on industry encourage industry to control Washington.

Ironic isn't it. Your thoughts?

Democrat is the party of big business

Most big business owners, and Wall Street moguls do not support republicans, which goes contrary to what some might think. Instead they support democrats.

The why is rather interesting. It has to do with competition. Progressives are all for state control of businesses. Progressives talk a lot about how they hate big business, yet at the same time they are statists, in that they believe the state should have control of business.

Businessmen thrive in a capitalistic system. Or, at least, capitalism provides an environment for which they can thrive. Yet, once a company becomes large enough, it wants to do whatever possible to reduce risk, and capitalism is all about risk. The best way to reduce risk is to eliminate, or at least limit, competition.

So, by creating regulations on industries and corporations, the small businesses that are barely hanging on will be driven out of business, while the large corporations will be able to pay the new regulations and taxes and stay in business.

Thus, more regulations actually benefits corporations because they will have less competition. The progressives benefit because with less competition, they find it's easier to control given markets. And since they have less competition, they have more money to pay Washington Lobbyists, and therefore have a greater impact on politicians.

Actually, history has proven that as the state obtains more control over a particular business, regulations go up. Yet, as regulations have gone up the number of lobbyists has gone up as well. The large corporations need lobbyists to petition government to keep the regulations so as to prevent competition.

This actually has resulted in corporatism in America, which the government drives out small corporations so that the larger ones will thrive, and in return the government has control of the corporations. In this way, the government drives the market.

In this way, the progressives have used big business to obtain their personal agenda of gaining state control of business. In a way, this was the whole goal of Obamacare: to gain control of health insurance companies. It's easier to control a few large companies as compared to many small ones.

This is actually the hidden history from the "big stick" Teddy Roosevelt used to break up monopolies in the early 19th century all the way to Obamacare. This is how big business becomes "to big to fail." If they fail, smaller companies will creep in to fill the void, meaning progressives lose control of that market.

The irony of this is that you'll hear often liberals saying that republicans are the party of big business and that they don't care about the little people, while the truth is the opposite holds closer to the truth.

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."

From Roosevelt to William Howard Taft

At the end of the 19th Century the GOP sought to prevent the loud speaking Teddy Roosevelt from becoming President of the U.S. by providing him with a seat next to William McKinley as the Vice President.

I learned this when I was in high school and again in college, although I never understood the why. The "why" was Roosevelt feared so much by the GOP was because they knew he was a progressive, and they aimed to stop him from ruining the country and the party.

Of course giving him the Vice Presidency turned out to be a mistake on their part, as on September 6, 1901, McKinley was assassinated, thus handing the Presidency over to a young rough riding Teddy Roosevelt -- a progressive Roosevelt.

Not all of what Teddy did for the country was bad. He, after all, helped the progressives clean up factories, protect some land in the U.S. for all future generations to enjoy, and he also worked to end monopolies that threatened the economy.

Back then progressivism may have seemed like a good thing. Perhaps it would have been, had the movement halted when the American people got tired of it and the progressives had to change their name to liberal. Yet, as we can see by the Obama agenda, progressivism lives to this day under another name -- liberal -- that likewise is losing popularity.

However, when Roosevelt decided not to run for president in 1912, he supported William Howard Taft, who pretended to be a progressive to get Roosevelt's support. Thus, finally, classical liberals obtained control of the party, and stopped any further damage to the country.

Taft, indeed, was worried that Roosevelt's desire to change the law with disregard to the Constitution made him "not unlike Napoleon."

Teddy and Wilson spoke ill of the Constitution

As I mentioned in a previous post, Woodrow Wilson was the first President to speak bad about the Constitution. However, he was not the first President to decide he knew better than what the Constitution allowed.

Johan Goldberg in "Liberal Fascism" wrote that Theodor Roosevelt believed states rights were more important than state or individual sovereignty as protected by the 10th amendment. Likewise, Roosevelt "regularly exceeded the bounds of his traditional legal powers, doing his will first and waiting (or not) for the courts and the legislature to catch up.

FDR did, and Obama does, the same thing. Heck, many republicans, like Teddy Roosevelt, also did the same. So, as you can see, the progressive movement, to fully evolve, to fully evolve the Constitution that they believed was a living organism, or Darwinian, believe they have to ignore the Constitution to obtain their goals. That's the only way.

Classical liberals of the past, and Conservatives of today, believe the opposite. They want to do whatever they can to stop progressives from changing the Constitution at the expense of individual rights.

Actually, as Goldberg notes, "Wilson wrote treaties explaining why Americans should abandon their 'blind devotion' to the Constitution, Teddy was rough-riding all over the document, doing what he pleased and giving bellicose speeches about how the courts had sided against 'popular rights' and were 'lagging behind' the new realities."

As you can see, this is one of the reasons why progressivism lost favor with the people, who believed some changes was good, but progressives were going overboard. That is why, by 1936 when FDR ran for president, the word progressive was changed to liberal.

Then, by the 1980s, the word liberalism lost favor. Today liberals are using the word progressive more and more, considering many who learned to hate progressivism have since passed. Although it's hard to fool Americans who love tradition America and love the Constitution.

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.

Republicans are worse; democrats are worser

So I'm flipping through the channels in a patient waiting room during a down time at work, and for some reason I ended up watching the Glenn Beck Program. I sort of caught the tale end of his commentary, where he was talking about a Republican Senator who was guilty of supporting progressive tax and spend policies.

That kind of got Mr. Beck off on a tangent, which is what lead to our quote of the day:

"If you want a progressive or a socialist in the Office of the President you vote for a democrat. If you want a democrat now, you have to vote for republican."

That quote pretty much sums up what's wrong with Washington, and why poll numbers are so pathetic. It also explains why many states are close to going bankrupt (the way of Greece), and why even the United States is headed in that direction.

Whether you are republican or democrat, you simply cannot keep spending the way progressives are. You can't keep creating entitlement programs, and then taxing hard working Americans to pay for them.

Look, here in the U.S. just under 50% of Americans pay for the programs that they don't even qualify for, and for every tax dollar taken from an American worker, that's one more person who is out of a job."

That's sound economics 101. It's almost amazing how these "highly qualified and educated" people don't understand this. The reason countries are in debt and can't pay their bills is because they are spending too much money.

If Congress would stop taking away our money, we'd spend it, and the economy would be fine. If they cut taxes, everything would balance out. Yet, they just don't get it.

The republicans are worse, and the democrats are worser. That's why we need sound conservatives or even libertarians (or classical liberals) to come in and save our country. It's starts with you and me in the voting booth.

Progressives see Constitution as Darwin-like

Darwin believes in evolution, and hence the progressives believe in an "evolving" Constitution as opposed to a "stagnant" one that never changes. They believe the Constitution must evolve, and hence believe the Constitution to be "Darwin-like."

Like life, constantly evolving, the Constitution also must evolve. Wilson noted on the 1912 campaign trail that "living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life.. it must develop."

Thus, "all that progressives ask or desire is permission -- in the era when 'development,' 'evolution',' is the scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle."

In other words, as Goldberg writes, "this interpretation leads to a system where the Constitution means whatever the reigning interpreters of 'evolution' say it means."

So the next time you want to critic Congressmen, Senators or the President for wanting to do something you think is "unconstitutional," like I did about the Social Health care Program, you should understand that progressives see this as no big deal, and a necessity.

Progressive goal is to impress our kids

Today you see videos of Obama on his website lecturing children that they are better educated than their parents, and that they need to talk to their parents, to lecture them, to educate them. This sounds scary to me. Yet, to progressives like Obama, this is normal.

Progressives as far back as Woodrow Wilson lectured that, as Jonah Goldberg wrote in "Liberal Fascism," believed government was a "social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn't want to behave, let alone 'evolve.' You home, your private thoughts, everything was part of the organic body politic, which the state was charged with redeeming."

Goldberg notes that "Children were a special concern of the government's, as is always the case in totolitarian systems.

Classical liberals, on the other hand, believed the government was a necessary evil. Conservatives today have essentially taken over where the Classical liberals left off, believing government to be a necessary evil. They believed elder Americans are less tend to be more conservative, are more stubborn, and are less likely to change. And this is good, because this makes sure the Constitution is adhered to, and the American way of life will be persevere.

Progressives believed the Constitution is a living object, and should change with the times. Thus, they believe it to be antiquated and it must "evolve." For this reason, they don't believe older set-in-their ways people (however wise) should not be deciding the future of the country.

"Hence," Goldberg writes, "a phalanx of progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs. Often the answer was to get children out of the homes as quickly as possible."

This lead to the government run schools we see today. Progressives said they wanted to make sure every kid got a good education, so they created "free" government schools. This sounded great so we Americans supported this plan. What they didn't tell you was the ultimate goal was to create a breeding ground for teaching the progressive agenda.

Hence, we see our children being taught about things we don't necessarily believe in, that God is not real, that global warming is a fact as opposed to a theory, that climate change is occurring as opposed to this being a theory, that more taxes generates more money for the government, that FDR ended the Great Depression, and the like.

Personally, like many of my readers, I don't care that my children are taught this stuff, yet I doubt there are many progressives who want would say the same about children being taught about God or Jesus in public run schools. They don't because God stands in the way of the progressive agenda.

If kids are taught about God, then perhaps they will become Christians. Christians are, like the elder statesman, modest and stubborn and too likely to adhere to the traditional ways of the church and life and less willing to accept change. Hence, change is needed for the progressives to create their programs to benefit the people, or perform their "social justice."

Goldberg notes, "John Dewey helped create kindergartens in America for precisely this purpose -- to shape the apples before they fell from the tree -- while at the other end of the educational process stood reformers like Wilson, who summarized the progressive attitude perfectly when, as president of Princeton, he told an audience, 'Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life... (but) to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.'"

This is scary to me. Yet this type of strategy has been going on for years in America.

No evidence liberalism/ progressivism works

When I first got interested in politics, I mean really interested, it was about 1993, Bill Clinton was President of the United States President, and I started reading as much as I could about politics, both liberal and conservative, right wing and left wing, republican and democrat, and I analyzed the information I obtained and made a decision based on the facts.

The problem I had with the left wing progressive movement is that I could find little evidence to support many of their claims. For example, I can name ample evidence that tax cuts and supply side economics work, all you have to do is look at the administrations of Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

However, I can find no evidence to support the Keynesian economic claim that tax and spend policies boost and maintain an economy. In fact, I can find more evidence to the contrary. All you have to do is look at the administrations of Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

A lot of people like to claim that Herbert Hoover wasn't a progressive, although his progressive policies are actually the reason the name progressive lost favor with the public, and by the time FDR became President the name was changed to liberal, thus changing the classic definition of classical liberalism which was the opposite of progressivism (yet that's a post for another day.)

Many others will say that FDR worked to end the Great Depression, although six years into FDRs tenure the unemployment rate was still 15-20%. And the Great Depression truly did not end until tax cuts after WWII. Proof the Depression did not end even as a result of WWII is rations. If there wasn't a recession, why did we need rations?

I found little evidence to support the claim that a few experts (mainly progressives or liberals) in Washington know better as to how to run an economy, or a business, or regulate a business, than individual business owners. As history shows the more regulations on businesses the worse the economy gets, and the fewer regulations the better. Just compare the FDR and Obama administrations with the Ronald Reagan administration for your proof.

The minimum wage is another great example. Progressives claim a minimum wage is needed to allow such workers to maintain a quality of living. Although every time there has been a minimum wage increase the value of the dollar also increased, making that extra buck or two essentially worthless.

The proof is in the history. I can find no evidence to support that progressivism, or liberalism if you prefer to call it that, works. It has, in essence, according to history, failed every time it has been tried. It sounds good, but it fails. I have even read books with an open mind purposely to try to allow a writer a chance to change my mind, although not one author has.

The evidence is in the history, liberalism has failed every time it has been tried, and conservatism has succeeded every time it has been tried. The proof is in the history.

Progressives are idealists: period!!!

Do you ever notice whenever you try to defend the truth there's people around you who will always try to tell you you are wrong, ignorant and stupid. They may not use those exact words, yet that's how it is.

Now I'm not one to bring up politics much, mainly because I'm not much of a debater. I might be a good online debater because online you have plenty of time to think, and make a good response. But in the real world I'm not good at thinking of a good response off the cuff. Sometimes I am, yet debating is not my suit.

Yet when the topic is brought up, I'll state my opinion. Like this morning when the Today show had a segment discussing a possible tax on pop. The goal, according to the lady being interviewed, was to get people to stop buying pop.

I said to my friend, "There are 32 states with a similar tax, and it records show it hasn't stopped one person from purchasing a pop. Sales have not diminished whatsoever."

My friend said, "The goal is not to get people to stop buying pop, it's to make more money."

"Sure, you are right, but the ULTIMATE goal of these people is to create a perfect society. They are idealists. They think they know what's best for you, and they want to create a perfect world where everyone is in good shape, there are no poor, and there is no war. That's their ultimate goal."

"No it's not," she said, "It's to make more money for the government."

"True," I said, "but their ultimate goal is to create a perfect society. They believe perfection is possible, while idealists like myself know it's not. The only reason they need more money is to fund their socialist programs that they think are going to some day make the world perfect."

"No, I don't believe that at all. You're an idiot."

Ah. See what I mean. Anyone who opposes any socialist position is an idiot. They have no better argument. I'm dumb. I'm stupid. I have an opposing view, so I'm an idiot.

Now the person I discussed this with was not a liberal by any means, nor a progressive, yet she went through the government run school system and she believes what she was taught there.

"They just want to make more money," she added.

"Yes, you're correct," I said, "but the reason they need money is to fund socialism, which is an attempt to make a perfect, ideal, euphoric world where there is no war, no poor, and everyone is perfectly healthy. Of course you and I know this perfect world is not possible."

"How do you know that?"

"In order to get rid of the poor, they have to tax the rich. They have to tax the middle class. They have to tax everyone as many times as they can. In that way you are absolutely right. Yet their ultimate goal is perfection."

"Oh, you're an idiot."

That's fine. I can take the criticism. I'm just an EVIL conservative who is a thinker. Sure you might disagree with me, yet, in a debate, the person who becomes angered is the first to come to the realization she has no facts to back up her claim.

The facts are on our side. Idealism is not possible, and attempts to create it have destroyed governments (look up the U.S.S.R), and has thus taken away freedoms, because to get something for "free" means you are a prisoner of the person or "government" providing the "free" service.

Of course I use "free" loosely here, because we all know "free" from government is not really "free," we are all paying for it via our hard earned money. Yet instead of us getting to decide where our money is spent, a person sitting in a leather chair in Washington does.

Yes, it is true that these people are idealists. And just because I have made this observation does not make me an idiot.

Repubs should be proud to be party of NO!

I'm sitting here listening to Wolf Blitzer interview Al Sharpton. Al is complaining because republicans are championing people should vote for republilcans in 2010 because they say "NO! to everything democrats propose. "When, in fact, they are opposed to anything progressive," Al said.

The reason, Al, that Republicans even have to vote no is because the policies of the Obama administration , and of Congress -- such as health care and targetted tax hikes -- are unconstitutional.

Republicans are simply defending the constitution, which is something you should be doing to. They are defending constitutional principles that are meant to protect individual freedom.

Progressive democrats, on the other hand, view the Constitution as obsolete, and they think government should changem with the changing times.

The republicans believe they have to STANT UP for the Constitution and prevent further degradation of the Federal Government that would take away MORE of the God Given Freedoms We Are Born With.

I understand progressive democrats like Al Sharpton don't view it that way. Al is a good guy. I really like Al. However, his progressive, anti-constitution views are too much for me and America to handle. I don't want to change the fabric of America, and he does.

The truth is, republicans should be proud to be the party of no, especially when yes would mean changing the fabric of what America is.