Friday, December 30, 2016

Patience is the progressives most deadly weapon

Have you ever read Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party platform? You should. In Chapter 3 of his book "The Art of War", Sun Tzu writes:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

That quote has been in the right side bar of the progressingamerica blog since day one, and will never change. We need to know progressives in order to defeat them, that's what guides the progressingamerica project going forward, and it always will. Sun Tzu is right. That's why Tzu's book is still studied, even after this many thousand years. It will be studied a thousand years from now.

So, what does the Bull Moose party platform advocate? The Bull Moosers, the progressive party's 1912 party platform calls for these following things:

* A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.

* Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled

* Limit the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.

* A minimum wage law for women

* An eight-hour workday

* A federal securities commission

* Farm relief

* Workers' compensation for work-related injuries

* An inheritance tax

You will see much of the modern progressive agenda in this old proclamation, in which they still fight for these things in 2016 - keep in mind this was written in 1912. That's how patient the progressives are. They plan for longer than their own lifespans. They plan forward for longer than their children's lifespans.

Think about that, that is a lot of patience. Now, most of the items in this list the progressives achieved long ago. But one item, healthcare, took the progressives 97 years to achieve. The first president to call for government meddling into healthcare was Theodore Roosevelt. And the progressives have been on that agenda ever since, it took Barack Obama to complete the job. Let me state it for you this way:

In Theodore Roosevelt's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, everybody involved with that effort - they're all dead. Who was the next progressive president to push toward government healthcare? FDR for certain, made his moves. But Truman is the one. Truman called for government healthcare.

In Truman's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, nearly everybody involved with that effort - all but only a small handful are all dead.

And so it goes. And let's also at least make one mention of how the progressives achieved government healthcare. Like so many other of their objectives, they nibbled. First, it was old people. Then it was children. Then it was everybody. They did the same thing with education. They nibbled. First it was one thing, then another, then the Department of Ed, then NCLB, then finally Common Core.

See, the progressives are patient, patient, patient. And they do not let death of the physical body halt them. They just complete the circle with the next guy in line. Here's another one:

* A strong, centralized government.

* An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.

* The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

* The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.

* The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.

* The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.

* The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.

* The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

* The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.

* The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency

* The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.

* The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.

* The control of agricultural production.

* The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.

* The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.

* Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

* Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.

* State control of communications and propaganda.

That's from Stuart Chase, who was an adviser to FDR. He called this "political system x".

At varying degrees throughout our lives, these 18 things have been fought for by progressives. Some of these things have come and gone over the years, but 100 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these. 500 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these.

Death does not stop the progressives. That's only a speedbump, an inconvenience, a distraction. That's a serious amount of patience to have. You may still be thinking that I'm kidding. Ok, check this out. A man named Hamilton Fish was a close friend with Theodore Roosevelt and a partisan hack progressive back in the day. Hamilton Fish was an actual Bull Mooser.

Hamilton Fish had a son named Hamilton Fish, who in turn also had a son named Hamilton Fish, who finally again, had a son named Hamilton Fish. Where is Hamilton Fish today?

Hamilton Fish the fifth is the current publisher of the magazine The New Republic. Please, please look it up. This seriously makes me want to start cussing! I couldn't make this up even if I tried. Reality is stranger than fiction. These progressives are the biggest scumbags! They do not stop. They're cockroaches. Once the building has roaches, it needs to be razed. And even that doesn't stop them. You build a new building and their descendants are right there anew.

Do you know what The New Republic is? I mean, do you know what The New Republic actually is? The New Republic was the progressive mouthpiece of Herbert Croly, who as you may know(everybody should know this) wrote a highly influential book titled "The Promise of American Life". The 'Promise' was one of Theodore Roosevelt's favorite books, and is generally believed to be the inspiration for his "New Nationalism" programme. TR also highly recommended Croly's second book, "Progressive Democracy".

This whole thing is incestuous! It's all cyclical for the progressives: Here we have Fish and TR and Croly and back to Fish again. True that its only one anecdote, but it really shows what I mean. There are others.

These progressives will just wait 10 or 20 years or however many they need, and if you've fallen asleep? Now they have you. Because the progressives certainly aren't changing their minds. You're just too stupid to understand their brilliance. They'll just change the people who pursue the agenda. They'll replace one Roosevelt with another Roosevelt, replace a Wilson for a Kennedy, for a Johnson for a Carter, for a Clinton for an Obama, for a Reid for a Schumer for a Pelosi and beyond. And I didn't even name any of the progressive republicans who have played their part either. John McCain anybody? And if you figure out the agenda? Change the title! That's why the progressives have been masquerading under the title of "liberalism" since FDR renamed their entire movement.

The agenda never stops. It only sleeps. Death gets cheated. The agenda is eternal. Big government forever!

Thursday, December 29, 2016

What if the Bureau of Land Management were its own country?

Have you ever heard "what if Texas were its own country" or "what if California", etc.... Hat tip to Mark Steyn for pointing this out. Here we go:

If Alaska were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 33rd among all of the world's nations.

If Texas were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 40th among all of the world's nations.

If California were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 59th among all of the world's nations.

But what of the BLM - the Bureau of Land Management, an out of control behemoth of a federal agency filled with progressives and bureaucrats that you never elected - which, BTW, owes its existence due to the lineage going back to the work of big government Theodore Roosevelt - where would it stand?

If the BLM were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 26th among all of the world's nations.

Naturally, the BLM would knock Alaska down to the 34th country, Texas to 41st, and California down to 60th, respectively.

You still don't think progressive governance is a problem?

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Democracy is a relic from a bygone era

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. - Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964

Democracy, the moldy-oldy discredited system, was introduced in the year 507 BC. That's 2,500+ years, for those of you counting. The American Republic and the Liberty which it was founded on, which was never discredited but simply circumvented by progressives; by comparison was introduced in 1776 AD. That's 240 years. But who's counting?

Democracy carries with it a fatal flaw: tyranny of the majority. The American Republic fixes that flaw. It contains safeguards in it to protect the people from the failures of democracy, so as to ensure the Liberty of every citizen and respect that no other source of power is legitimate except the sovereign people.

Long live the Republic. Now it is true that true republics are necessarily democratic and that's a good thing, however, a republic is far superior to democracy.

But right now, as we speak, tyranny is on the march. Even when they lose elections, progressives do not stop. The agenda moves forward. For the last 100 years, progressives, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, have sought to circumvent the Republic and pervert the Republic into a democracy by introducing measures such as direct election of the senate, an easier way to add in amendments to the constitution, and the last piece of this puzzle, abolition of the electoral college. Two of these efforts are listed in the Bull Moose platform of 1912.

These progressive scumbags are patient sonsabitches, aren't they? Their patience to destroy this country outlasts their own lifespans. They are that committed to seeing it done.

Their final effort to destroy the Republic would have states join what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would nationalize the Electoral College, and as you probably know is unconstitutional because it is illegal for states to engage in treaties or treaty-like-behavior. Right now, these progressives, they are plotting and scheming yet again to take your Liberty and your Republic away from you and give you something far, far inferior. They seek to abolish the new in favor of the old.

Democracy - old. Outdated. Discredited. Doesn't work - for the progressives, it's not designed "to work"(In the way people generally mean "it's working"). They want democracy because it works in conjunction with their machine: Progressives indoctrinate children from right out of the womb until and including past college age: Pre-k, k-12; and then the indocrination lasts for the rest of their lives with the drive by media. "Who you going to vote for? Well the newspaper said that people who read the constitution are evil, so I'm voting for the progressives. My teacher was a progressive. What a great guy!"

That's the machine that the progressives set up, in order to control your vote. If people only know what the media tells them, and they only know what their teachers taught them, they will vote accordingly.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

In the "living constitution", we see that progressives are ardently anti-science

Specifically, the science that progressives are rejecting is Newtonian in nature. I'll explain:

In the book Constitutional Government in the United States, Woodrow Wilson wrote the following:(page 57)

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Fortunately, the definitions and prescriptions of our constitutional law, though conceived in the Newtonian spirit and upon the Newtonian principle, are sufficiently broad and elastic to allow for the play of life and circumstance.

To be even more specific, what Woodrow Wilson is doing as he is actively inventing the concept of the "living constitution", is holding up Darwinian science over Newtonian science. Darwinian, as in, "making progress", as in, it can be changed at will depending upon circumstance or interpretation. Most people falsely believe that "evolution" is confined to battles between the religious/irreligious and/or about the small changes that occur in biological animals. All of these things are true, but the most important aspect here is ideological evolution.

The idea that evolution is the opposite of revolution, is the least talked about aspect of evolution.

If you want to achieve a totalitarian state, you simply don't need a revolution to do it. You can have ideological evolution and do it. A revolution moves you from A all the way to Z in one step. Ideological evolution, however, moves you from A, to B, evolves to C, evolves to D, to E, to F, G, H, I, J, etc etc etc until you find yourself at Z.

That's progressivism. They "make progress".

Now, I went a little further in explanation than I originally wanted to, but that's ok it's important information. As to what I quoted from Wilson on page 57, he writes something nearly equally as important on page 55, which allows me to drive this point home.

The government of the United States was constructed upon the Whig theory of political dynamics, which was a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe [see: Newtonian government]. In our own day, whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything, whether in nature or in society, we consciously or unconsciously follow Darwin; but before Darwin, they followed Newton. Some single law, like the law of gravitation, swung each system of thought and gave it its principle of unity. Every sun, every planet, every free body in the spaces of the heavens, the world itself, is kept in its place and reined to its course by the attraction of bodies that swing with equal order and precision about it, themselves governed by the nice poise and balance of forces which give the whole system of the universe its symmetry and perfect adjustment. The Whigs had tried to give England a similar constitution.

Now, make no mistake: This is Wilson complaining. He is whining about the fact that the Constitution was founded using the Newtonian theory; that it has checks and balances using the Newtonian model. As a progressive, they want something they can mould and remould any time they please. Also, his use of planets as an example is huge. Wilson is more offended by the checks and balances than anybody will ever know, and I include myself in that. He wrote about it repeatedly.

But at the end of the day, he is rejecting science. A science denier. Woodrow Wilson is saying that Newtonian physics, gravity, etc., that's not good enough as a role model for governmental structure.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Could you ever trust a "Citizen of the World"? What would the Founders say about this, if anything?

Progressives are fond of selling old ideas as somehow being new, and the only real point that they have to rely on is that someone won't go and look it up. Meanwhile they engage in revisionist history, erasing and covering up historical facts, then progressives top it all off with the arrogance to claim that "Well the Founders could not have fore saw........" (finish the false claim)

Mr. progressive, you would be wrong - as you always are. As recorded by James Madison, Gouverneur Morris made the following comment on August 9th, 1787:

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The lesson we are taught is that we should be governed as much by our reason, and as little by our feelings as possible. What is the language of Reason on this subject? That we should not be polite at the expence of prudence. There was a moderation in all things. It is said that some tribes of Indians, carried their hospitality so far as to offer to strangers their wives & daughters. Was this a proper model for us? He would admit them to his house, he would invite them to his table, would provide for them confortable lodgings; but would not carry the complaisance so far as, to bed them with his wife.

He would let them worship at the same altar, but did not choose to make Priests of them. He ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there could be no room for complaint.

As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal biass in favor of that of England. It has been said that The Legislatures will not chuse foreigners, at least improper ones. There was no knowing what Legislatures would do. Some appointments made by them, proved that every thing ought to be apprehended from the cabals practised on such occasions. He mentioned the case of a foreigner who left this State in disgrace, and worked himself into an appointment from another to Congress.

Chalk that one up as yet one more thing that the Founders did, in fact, fore see.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

How is it that progressivism gets confused? Why do even some conservatives fall into the trap?

Have you ever scratched your head sometimes, when someone you know who you are sure is not progressive in any way, doesn't support big government, doesn't like it, and doesn't like people who are progressives and are constantly push for the biggest government man has ever known - sends you something or says something that makes you scratch your head? The end result is you say to yourself or to them: "You know who wrote that, right?"

Enter the "An American's Creed". You ever heard of this? Chances are, you've seen it in whole or at least in part at least once in your email. I know I have. This is a good lesson in how progressives reel people in and start polluting them into the religion of big government.

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream, to fail, and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, "This, with God’s help, I have done." All this is what it means to be an American.”

Look at that! Look at it. This could easily pass as a Reagan quote. If I didn't know who wrote it and what their story was, I myself would be very sympathetic to this in its entirety. This was written by Dean Alfange, who started out with the American Labor Party, an actual socialist party which tended increasingly communist. Alfange tended anti-communist. Being anti-communist simply is not enough. Since Alfange wrote this, I reject it.

Alfange later became a Democrat and a strong supporter of Truman due to Truman's promise of nationalizing healthcare.(The life long dream of progressives for over a century) Alfange eventually was a part of the Liberal Party of New York which was, again, a party for bigger government.

The point is, none of this quote is real, since Alfange was a life long supporter of big government for as far as the eye can see. Coming from Dean Alfange, this might as well have come from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Van Jones. This "Creed" is not a genuine statement of deeply held internal convictions, this "Creed" is an outreach in order to suck people in. "Yeah, maybe them progressives aren't so bad after all!" "Maybe he's a centrist!"

It's a trojan horse. Don't fall into the trap.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Eugenics: Margaret Sanger vs. Theodore Roosevelt

Here's something I do not understand:

The very same people who blast Margaret Sanger, and inevitably bring up the fact that she supported eugenics, will then turn around and defend Theodore Roosevelt with the deepest sincerity knowing full well that Theodore Roosevelt also supported eugenics. Somehow TR is a good progressive, but MS is a bad progressive. How is this possible?!?!?!???? In my book, there are no good progressives and I think every last one of them ought to be thrown out onto the ash heap of history.

What follows are two quotes, and I defy anybody - anybody to off of the top of their head(no googling! no peeking!) tell me which quote is from Margaret Sanger, and which one is from Theodore Roosevelt. Neither quote is a work of fiction. To the untrained eye, you cannot tell the difference.

Who said it? Margaret Sanger or Theodore Roosevelt? It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.
Who said it? Margaret Sanger or Theodore Roosevelt? If plants, and livestock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts. How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan?

Monday, December 12, 2016

Margaret Sanger spoke in front of the Ku Klux Klan. How did this come to be?

Would anybody say to themselves that it must be that Margaret Sanger tripped, fell over, and landed on a Klansman?

Yes, that must be it, I'm sure. It was all coincidence. She received an invitation to a Klan meeting, and everybody in her inner circle scratched their heads not having any clue how.

When Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, she was close friends with one Lothrop Stoddard. They had been friends for years, as her publication Birth Control Review gave a very positive review of his most notorious book in 1914, almost a decade earlier. (See here)

Who was Lothrop Stoddard? Among other things, he was a Klansman.

In Sanger's autobiography, she starts her section on her Klan speech as "I received an invitation", which contained a letter of instruction on where to go, etc. She doesn't specify if this invitation was random. Why did the Klan pick her? What was the connection? She probably didn't randomly meet a Klansman on a subway train somewhere and say to herself "now that's a great robe. That nice, pointy hat, I need to introduce myself to THIS guy. He is making sense!" Did the klan pick a random name out of the telephone book and say to themselves "Now this is the one!" Out of the hundreds, if not thousands of radicals they could have picked, why did the Klan pick Sanger? What was the process?

By a simple process of agreeing that sending her an invite was not random, and we have also employed a process of elimination, it has to be Lothrop Stoddard, as a Klan member(current or former/recent in the 1920's) as well as a member of her Birth Control League. Through his contacts, his extremely close proximity, I would bet you is how Sanger found herself the subject of an invitation and later speaking event for the Klan. It makes too much sense to not be at a minimum a strong possibility.

Could I be wrong? Possibly. Nobody's ever looked into this, that I can see. Were there other Klan members at the League? Could be. If so, then Stoddard may not be the missing link. I would bet, though, that there's even more of a "here" here than what I've already put together, whatever that ends up being. There usually is with progressives. These are some nasty people.

Process matters.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Why is communist indoctrination required to go work at a corporation?

It has long ceased to be a secret that college campuses at all levels, from the highest ivy league centers down to community colleges, are centers of far far left wing indoctrination.

Why then is it that corporations keep requiring 4 year and above degrees - many times for jobs that clearly don't need such a thing? Most of the time, if you don't have that bachelor degree, you aren't even getting in the door. Don't bother. Don't send an email, don't call, do not show up at the office. Just don't.

Ok, Mr. Corporate toady boss. Let's examine your contradiction, your hypocrisy. How does it benefit you personally for me to be indoctrinated by a communist professor? How does this company benefit if every one of its new recruits hates the company? Are these idiot managers really that stupid, that they can't see all these protests, all these young indoctrinated students out there holding up signs about how the American Corporation is the root of all evil.

Meanwhile these managers watch these protests and they're picking out candidates for future employment. "That third guy on the right, holding up the red flag with the yellow emblem, calling big oil and big pharma the problem, find out who he is Frank. He'll make one heck of a regional manager!" Ok, that was a little sarcasm on my side, but seriously. Enough is enough. It's time for people to get real about what is really going on on university campuses these days, and cut the crap.

Who exactly came up with this suicidal policy structure anyways? I don't want to be an expert in communism to come work for your company!

To the reader of my post, go ahead. Right now. Go searching for a job, even if you don't need one, you'll see what I mean. Go to, or go to, or, or In job posting after job posting after job posting, you aren't getting a job until you have that 4 year degree communist indoctrination. Minimum. 6 years indoctrination preferred.

Send out all the resumes you want. They don't want to hear from you until you're redder than a tomato.

Tyranny re-focuses: Targetting the electoral college

The Electoral College(EC) is anti-democratic. It's supposed to be anti-democratic. Democracy does not work. It is a failure of a system, it's simply a bad idea. One of the many great features of the EC is that it protects the people - and the Republic - from the known, historically proven failures of democracy. Democracy always fails - no good parent would seriously do that to their children, inflict them with purely democratic government. Good parents give their children Republics, representative republics which as a guiding feature limit the size and scope of the national government.

It's simple to understand why those faithful to progressivism want to abolish the EC. A purely national vote would hand the election every time to any silver-tongued demagogue or two-bit tinpot dictator who sought the presidency. Progressives have for generations stated that's what they want, a benevolent dictator. They even mingle with communists like Van Jones, so that ought to let you know where they're headed.

You can tell how bad they want to get rid of the EC, because they're even playing the race card, even though the EC is not the result of that. The EC came out of the Connecticut Compromise, where little states like New Jersey and Connecticut worried about big states like New York and Virginia. In the irony of ironies, the Electoral College was born because of equality and fairness. The progressives like to tell you that's what they favor, equality and fairness, but they really do not. The EC is one example to prove this.

There's three reasons why we have the Electoral College, the third of which few people know or realize:

1: Equality and fairness among the states, so that people in less populated districts are allowed to have a say against people in the big cities.

2: Protection against democracy. Long live the republic!

3: Protection from cabal and corruption. The EC is actually very good at this, and it doesn't get talked about enough.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Demise of a Highly Respected Doctrine

The Demise of a Highly Respected Doctrine

By Neva R. Deardorff, January 12, 1918


LAISSEZ-FAIRE is dead! Long live social control! Social control, not only to enable us to meet the rigorous demands of war, but also as a foundation for the peace and brotherhood that is to come. This was the theme that ran strongly through all the annual meetings of the learned societies of the social sciences(1) which were held holiday week in Philadelphia. Education in idealistic concepts of service, toleration, justice, are in the future to underlie this social control and to make possible an enduring world democracy. New faith was everywhere manifest in the ability of democratic governments, and of our own in particular, to rise to occasions and handle gigantic enterprises both efficiently and with a view to benefitting society as a whole. While most of the contributions were in the nature of analyses of fundamental social forces which are now at work, suggestions, often quite specific, were not lacking as to how those forces can be directed to secure the maximum of human welfare. Everywhere there was a proud loyalty to the best that American life has produced, but nowhere the fatuous assumption that the promise of America has been achieved. Criticism was searching, frank and kindly; the spirit of genuine helpfulness abounded. Men and women, young and old, brought a fine spirit of toleration and mutual respect which stands in sharp relief against the acrimonious dissension which now characterizes so much of the discussion elsewhere of the issues which were before these meetings.

The political scientists were mainly concerned with new bases for international relations and with questions of improving the governmental machinery in nation, state, county and city. Prof. Munroe Smith of Columbia pointed to the new evidences, produced by the war, of the vitality of international law which, now in its infancy, seems to be following the same line of development that national law has pursued. The German government's disregard of international law has affronted the whole world, while the allies now represent a stupendous vigilance committee organized to punish the offender and to uphold that law. In future the fabric of international law will need to be strengthened by new provisions for arbitration, for delaying the resort to force, and for joint action, short of war, to show approval or disapproval of some nations for the action of other nations. New laws of war will be forthcoming as a result of the new conditions of air and submarine fighting; "military necessity" will need definition and some proportion established between injuries and reprisals. It is probable that eventually the nations of the world will be federated. Prof. Robert M. McElroy of Princeton, as well as several other speakers, maintained that there is no essential conflict between national and international ideals just as there is no essential disharmony between loyalty to family and to nation. All of the political science teachers seemed convinced of the necessity for cultivating in their students an international-mindedness as a basis for peace.

As for government at home, the professors seemed very diffident about the part they have, until very recently, played in shaping its course. The older teaching of government was referred to as rapt contemplation of the theoretical structure of government with no regard for its actual workings. Prof. A. R. Hattonsof Western Reserve University characterized political science to date as descriptive anatomy of political institutions and legalistic concepts. The pathology of politics, together with hygiene and prevention of political ilk, are the big opportunities of political scientists today. Everywhere it came out in the discussions that civic and political education for the mass of people is the sine qua non of the kind of democracy to which the United States is now committed and that this education is to be socio-economic rather than historico-juridical. Prof. Guy S. Ford, now of the Committee on Public Information in Washington and one of many teachers who have gone into public service since the war began, explained how the federal government is now educating, with millions of pamphlets, with pictures, films, four minute-men, etc., the mass of people on public affairs. Altogether the political scientists showed a refreshing regard for truth, a wholesome independence of judgment, and a sincere, though perhaps too modest, desire to be of service.

The discussions of constitutional law brought out very clearly the temper and spirit with which existing institutions are being examined. Decisions and judges of the Supreme Court were appraised with the utmost candor and in general the conclusions were by no means laudatory. Dissenting opinions were pointed out as evidence of the somewhat unsanctified character of the court and the fact that constitutional law frequently changes its mind lends color to the suspicion that politics is not wholly divorced from that high tribunal.

The economists, like the political scientists, have progressed from the detached, dehumanized study of the phenomenon of wealth to the consideration of the psychology of men in relation to the possession of wealth. Prof. E. C. Hayes of the University of Illinois, in what was considered the star session of the economic association's meeting, cleared the ground tor the new approach by calling attention to the fact that every age has had its philosophy to justify the existing order and that laissez-faire had until recently performed that function for our time. Our present order makes life and labor the cheapest commodities on the market and results in conditions that ill befit a democracy. As wealth is now distributed in the United States, the top 1 per cent of the population receives as much income without work as the lower 50 per cent obtains for its labor, and the top 2 per cent own three-fifths of the property. The middle class is declining. A better distribution, rather than equality of income, is the practical aim of those who would arrest the cleavage of classes that is widening, but the class-control of schools and press now makes very difficult the organization of a liberal party and tends to preserve the two old political parties, both of which are conservative.

Prof. John R. Commons of Wisconsin, in the presidential address of the economic association, pronounced the obsequies over the laissez-faire or rather the "let's grab" doctrine, and at the same time knocked the bottom out of the "pork-barrel" as the great objection to government ownership and control. The special assessment of benefits to private property from public.improvements can be depended upon to correct whatever tendency localities may have to dip unduly into the public treasury. Through such a system of taxation the basic utilities and such improvements as irrigation, land-reclamation and railroad extensions can be promoted. Rural credit can be extended and subsidies given to roads and education. Quite as important as obtaining the capital with which to do these things is the fact that by keeping capital at home one of the irritants which cause war will be removed. Capital which hunts in backward countries for high profits and big increments influences diplomacy, demands military protection and breeds international disputes. For the job of directing through taxation, the most beneficial use of our surplus, the government is becoming rapidly more expert. Indeed, our public inefficiency is even now little more than a state of mind.

The "economic man" of the classical economists was ushered off the stage by Prof. Carleton H. Parker of the University of Washington, who introduced the new discovery of the psychological man. This newly found being has some sixteen separate instincts which cause him to behave as he does. As Professor Parker had been testing his ideas among strikers in some of the lumber camps of Washington, the report of his observations of the motives of economic life represented considerable rugged reality.

Health Insurance by Common Consent

Health insurance and the conservation and mobilization of the labor supply of the country were the main topics of discussion in the meetings of the American Association for Labor Legislation. Relatively little time was devoted to the question of the advisability of health insurance legislation in the United States, it being quite generally agreed that we should have taken steps in this direction long ago. The great obstacle to be overcome in securing the adoption of health insurance laws would appear to be the lack of popular understanding of the subject, and this obstacle can be removed only by a campaign of education. The main participants in the discussion were members of state legislative investigating commissions appointed to inquire into the question of health insurance and to recommend appropriate legislation. Representatives of six such commissions were present - those of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Views were exchanged regarding the lines of inquiry that commissions ought to follow and also regarding the methods of conducting public hearings. A comparison of the experiences of the various commissions revealed that in nearly every state the first impulse of employers and wage-earners alike is to oppose the idea of government health insurance, but as both groups come to understand its operation and benefits more thoroughly, their opposition tends to give way. Private insurance companies are usually against the scheme, and physicians and surgeons seem to be divided on the question. Opposition has come also from Christian Scientists, and in agricultural states it is difficult to obtain the support of farmers.

The Labor Difficulty Analyzed

In The discussions on the conservation and mobilization of the labor supply of the country there was general agreement that we are not at present confronted with a shortage of labor. Our real ailment is that of maladjustment and improper distribution of our available man power. In order to correct this state of affairs, a more complete and better coordinated system of employment agencies was advocated. Opinions differed as to the advisability of securing this end by establishing cooperative relations between the federal and local systems or by bringing all government employment agencies under national control and operation. How to provide the farmer with the help he needs received considerable attention. To a great extent the farmer himself seems to be to blame for his predicament. He does not yet realize that wages generally have gone up and that it is no longer possible to obtain men for the wages he has been accustomed to pay. The conditions of labor on the farm also are such that men generally prefer city work. Relief for the shortage of farm hands might be brought about, partly by improvements in the system of employment agencies, partly by the transfer of men from cities and industries to the farm during the harvest season, partly by inducing retired farmers, women and other unemployed persons to take part in agricultural work, and partly by the offer of better wages and working conditions to farm laborers. The use of city school boys of working age during vacation also was recommended.

There seemed to be no sentiment in favor of labor conscription. Some attention was given to the efforts of the federal government to conserve human life in the war industries by safeguarding workmen against accident. At the last meeting of the association the applicability of the British munitions act to American conditions was discussed briefly. The suggestion of adopting these provisions in the United States, however, met with the immediate objections that, our conditions were different from those in England and that even in England the munitions act had been the cause of much dissatisfaction and unrest. According to an investigator of the London Times, it had been the cause of driving one-half of the workers of England to the verge of revolution.

As has been said, all the associations had turned "social." so that in point of view, the sociologists were but a vaguely defined group of thinkers at the big conference. Their most distinguishing mark consisted in that, while most of the other associations talked about social control somewhat in general, they took it for granted and discussed applications of it in particular. Both Profs. George E. Howard of Nebraska and Charles H. Cooley of Michigan submitted thoughtful analyses of the elements of social control of international relations - Professor Howard, the ideals that must guide, and Professor Cooley, the psychological and social machinery through which it is even now working, and will work, it is hoped, much better in the future. Among the false ideals which now make so difficult amicable relations among the nations are overdeveloped nationalism, territorial aspirations, the notion of war as a good in itself, race and sex conceit, the supposed necessity for economic and political oppression of the masses, and contempt for the idealist. The teaching of world-wide brotherhood must supplant these narrow concepts and democracy must be made to mean something tangible to all.

Of the more concrete suggestions for the better adjustment of social machinery was that of Prof. Arthur J. Todd, of the University of Minnesota, for the control of immigration based upon the true demand for labor. Briefly, his plan calls for information as to the true demand for labor, organization of the labor market, abolition of the contract labor provision and the illiteracy test in the present immigration laws and the introduction of the sliding scale as a guide to admitting immigrant labor, with a bonding of the employer who imports labor to cover deportation costs for any laborers who may become public charges and with a provision for the employer to carry unemployment insurance for his laborers. Prof. Carl Kelsey of the University of Pennsylvania thought that the need for conscription of labor is now imperative and that the time is coining when strikers should be treated as traitors. On the other hand, the laboring class must, of course, be protected from low wages and other abuses.

Perhaps the group which assumed the reality of social control with least question was the statisticians, for they simply went ahead planning how to forge the tools with which society is to work out better opportunities and protection for all. Prof. Irving Fisher of Yale cited the recent stock-taking in health of the men within the draft age as a confirmation of what had been known to a few interested people for some time. He drew the conclusion from the large number of rejections that we ought to have a national department of health to conserve the physical well-being of our people. Nation-wide recording of vital statistics should take the place of state action, which at present covers only about two-thirds of the population of the United States. Prof. Allyn A. Young of Cornell demonstrated the urgent need of coordinating the statistical work now being done by the United States government. The war found us in a state of statistical unpreparedness. Since last April, independent investigations have sprung up in many departments and bureaus, which frequently failed to make use of the permanent statistical bureaus. Much work was duplicated and business organizations have been bombarded with questionnaires. The results have been far from satisfactory. A general war statistical bureau to serve all the other bureaus was suggested as the orderly way out of chaos and as a means to obtain a comprehensive view of our national assets, labor, resources and goods.

Better Government Statistics Wanted

From the discussion of present conditions as regards the vital statistics of our army and navy, it would appear that there is now much room for improvement in the record-keeping systems of the military establishments. Frederick L. Hoffman, the well-known statistician of the Prudential Life Insurance Company, deplored the lack of anthropometric statistics of the army and in the absence of any scientific knowledge of physical growth and development, he considered a lowering of the age limit of drafted men little short of a crime.

Committees were provided by the American Statistical Association to assist the government in systematizing the federal statistics and in planning for the census of 1920. An interesting and valuable suggestion came from the Children's Bureau that the material in regard to family groups which is recorded on the census schedules should be tabulated, i. e., the number of motherless families, the number of fatherless families, the number of mothers at work, etc. Hitherto the published data on population have related only to individuals.

History on the Heels of Current Events

The historians were quite as interested in the present as in the past. The Russian revolution, the recent Massachusetts constitutional convention, present day politics of China and Japan, found places on the historical association's program. At the closing session of the conference, held jointly by the political scientists, the economists, the sociologists and the historians, Prof. Wallace Notestein of the University of Minnesota described the uses which German magazine writers, geographers, politicians and others have made of history to engender hatred of the British empire, to glorify Germany's history, to magnify her wrongs, to point to her manifest destiny of colonial expansion and reunion of all the German peoples of Europe. The partial truth of that which they taught has made it extremely difficult to combat their conclusions. While the British empire is a solid fact, Professor" Notestein was inclined to doubt that John Bull had been the consistent villain "through five acts" that he had been depicted in Germany. Anyone who believes that England's methods of acquisition were cunning plots, faultlessly executed, has only to stay a little while in the British Foreign Office, said R. H. Brand, deputy vice-chairman of the British War Mission to this country, to realize that British foreign affairs are not handled that way. Mr. Brand viewed the "British commonwealth of nations" as the one successful experiment in internationalism which the world has thus far produced.

Edward P. Costigan, of the United States Tariff Commission, ably represented the administration's position in regard to economic alliances. The "war after the war" policies will find little or no support in this country', and the United States is distinctly against selfish and exclusively economic leagues and economic discriminations which impose such stubborn barriers against world federation.

The farm managers conferred very largely with the economists and those interested primarily in labor legislation. The accounting instructors likewise flocked with the economists. Indeed, the tendency of each group of specialists to harmonize its views and teachings with those of its brothers in the allied sciences was one of the outstanding features of the conference and one of the best omens for the successful growth of the new culture of knowledge of and interest in the socializing processes now going on in the world.


(1) American Sociological Society, American Political Science Association, American Economic Association, American Association for Labor Legislation, American Statistical Association, American Historical Association, American Farm Management Association, Association of Accounting Instructors.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Who was the first liberal journalist?

In the wake of Rolling Stone and its activist being found guilty of manufacturing a fraudulent rape hoax story, I wanted to start back at the beginning.

Who was the first liberal journalist? Everything has a beginning. Where can you find that very first yellow brick in the road? Well, the first thing is making sure that we get the question right, otherwise we will produce garbage answers. In computer science, that falls into the category of "Garbage in, garbage out".

So, "Who was the first liberal journalist in the age of objective journalism?".(meaning, when they started hiding their biases) I think there might be an even better question. "Who was the first liberal journalist in the age of objective journalism, as the liberal media's monopoly was being built?" This question really nails it, because as modern media came to be ABC, NBC, and CBS, and the newspapers, how they all came to largely be one reporting entity is crucially important. Even though we ultimately only want to know who is the man who started it all.

His name is Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann stands at the center of a perfect storm when journalism becomes a profession - at his request and leadership - while at the same time journalism becomes a taught study in colleges - where, you know, the students will be indoctrinated en masse - and where Lippmann's own tactics of manipulating the news become both the de-facto as well as de-jure way that journalists operate - at the same time the big modern media entities that we have all known for so long were being built. Modern objective journalism largely came into existence in the 1920's/30's, as did the completely one-sided media monopoly. Lippmann's book Public Opinion was published in 1922.

Walter Lippmann has been called the "Father of Modern Journalism" by people in the industry for a long time, for good reason. That's not my designation, and his book "Public Opinion", a book for which every single conservative should be reading, is a public domain book that is free to download. The audiobook is also for free in the public domain.

Some of you may not realize, or even argue against the notion that Walter Lippmann's way of journalism is at the heart of what Rolling Stone did, and I only have one question for you:

"What stereotype was Rolling Stone hoping to supply to its readers?" For those of you interested in journalism, the left wing aspects of journalism, etc, this question is a whopper. Lippmann was obsessed with stereotypes, and in particular how to manipulate them to effect. Let's examine the answer to the question first. Rolling Stone was hoping to play off of various stereotypes about how evil men are, about the victimization of women, rape culture, and several others. Other commentators who are much better at dissecting this can and have already done the job, so I'll move on.

So along comes Rolling Stone, hoping to supply a stereotype about fratboys and their mass rapes. How does that relate to Lippmann? Here's what he wrote: (page 355)

It is a problem of provoking feeling in the reader, of inducing him to feel a sense of personal identification with the stories he is reading. News which does not offer this opportunity to introduce oneself into the struggle which it depicts cannot appeal to a wide audience. The audience must participate in the news, much as it participates in the drama, by personal identification. Just as everyone holds his breath when the heroine is in danger, as he helps Babe Ruth swing his bat, so in subtler form the reader enters into the news. In order that he shall enter he must find a familiar foothold in the story, and this is supplied to him by the use of stereotypes. They tell him that if an association of plumbers is called a "combine" it is appropriate to develop his hostility; if it is called a "group of leading business men" the cue is for a favorable reaction.

It is in a combination of these elements that the power to create opinion resides. Editorials reinforce.

Did Rolling Stone intend to provoke feelings in its readers?

Did Rolling Stone intend to induce its readers to feel a sense of personal identification with the story?

Did Rolling Stone intend to offer the opportunity to its readers to introduce themselves into the struggle?

Did Rolling Stone intend to see people participate in the news, in other words, did it think protests may occur because of this article?

Did Rolling Stone intend to label the fratboys (in an equivalent fashion) as a "combine" instead of labeling them as a "group of leading business men"? In other words, were they just boys having a good time? Or were they rapists?

Did Rolling Stone's editorials reinforce the original article? In the first few days, I bet they did.

People who are tired of the left wing bias constantly ask, "How can we do damage to this media" and the answer to your question is that you should be reading Walter Lippmann. He built the blueprints for all of this. You have questions, his books are where the answers reside. Particularly, the book "Public Opinion". How does this machine work? Ask it's creator.

It would be best, by far, if people read Lippmann's book in full. If an audiobook is preferred, click here. I can only scratch the surface, and even then, it is hard in this format to cover every single detail.

But, if you're simply looking for a small write up, I have one here. There is no substitute for a full read.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

This is how Theodore Roosevelt's cult of personality stays alive

Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? It's true. And they are going to put it on display again soon. People haven't seen this lion for two decades.

Hey, did you know that Teddy really loved football?

Hey, did you know that Teddy was a really avid outdoorsman?

Hey, did you know that Teddy once was giving a speech, someone shot him, and he kept on speaking?

Hey, did you know (pick your favorite wholly-divorced-from-governmental-policy-related-trivia and place it here)?

I could just imagine if Ronald Reagan had shot a lion. The Washington Compost certainly wouldn't be celebrating it, that's for sure. They would put quotes from some PETA whacko in the first paragraph, in the second paragraph, and that's how they would close the article in the last paragraph. In short, it would be a hit piece. But what makes Reagan so different than Teddy? Why would progressive journalists treat the two so differently? For starters, the two men had completely opposing viewpoints of the constitution. One man wanted to respect the constitution, and the other wanted to shred it.

Every time some progressive journalist (unrelated to elections) trots out Ronald Reagan, it's so that they can take a crap on his grave. But every time some progressive journalist trots out Theodore Roosevelt, (unrelated to elections) it's so that they can puff him up and parade him around like it's a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's. Did you read the article?

I read the article. Man I feel good. That was some good crack, man. I feel so good about myself. I feel so good about life. I feel so good about killing lions. I feel good about taxidermy. I feel good about the Smithsonian, because you know, it's a government institution. It's a great institution, the government owns it. I really feel good about the Washington Post and that Sarah Kaplan, she's a great writer. But most of all, I really feel good about our 26th president - the puff piece worked. I feel great! Wow he was a good man, it's a good thing he never was in a position to actually govern. All he did was shoot lions and go out on safari! He was a man with a plan! He wasn't one of those crazy whackjob Tea Partiers, you know, with their old dusty constitutions, you know! He made a lot of sense!

So how do you keep small government people loving a big government man? Keep the big government man's big government views a secret - and more importantly, keep the big government man's big government activities a secret. That's why his cult of personality has persisted for over 100 years. If the truth about TR were ever told in a wide-scale fashion, only progressive democrat voters would want anything to do with him. Ask me this question: If Lyndon Baines Johnson shot a lion, why should I care about that? In the article, it says:

“What story did this lion and Roosevelt want to tell us?” Harvey wondered. That's what he aims to conserve.

Of course, the only stories that we should allow to be out there, are all of the puff piece, human interest stories. Get Theodore Roosevelt as far away from any notions of government as you possibly can. And these are the same people who still, still can't get over Iran Contra!!! The exact same people. I can guarantee you, that your children's children's children will know all the details about Iran Contra, but they won't know a thing about Theodore Roosevelt's policies - not deep in the details. They will only know the surface-level stuff. The flowery stuff. That which they can make smell good. Hey did you know TR was a conservationist? Yeah, it's great.

NO! Conservation is not a direct pre-cursor to radical environmentalism. We can't have people making that connection! Let's get back to the fluffy stuff.

Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? I hear he really loved football too. It's really great. Life's great. Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? And he loved the outdoors, too. That's about all I know. Why am I repeating myself? Well, that's all that matters. Because Teddy once killed a lion.

I couldn't tell you how many executive orders he issued, I couldn't tell you how he related to congress. I couldn't tell you the contents of his New Nationalism speech, nor could I tell you anything about the Progressive Party. I couldn't tell you if he stayed within the constitutional limits placed on the executive branch or if he worked to undermine those safeguards. I just couldn't tell you. I just know he was a manly man. That's all I know. I only know that he killed a lion. What else is there to know? What else matters?

Friday, October 28, 2016

How Theodore Roosevelt's big government schemes created the modern trucking industry

Does today's trucker and trucking industry owe its entire existence to big government? The answer to that question may very well be yes.

Recently, I wrote a post pulling together details about how Teddy used "reaching across the aisle" to undermine any attempt to keep government small, in passing the 1906 Hepburn Act.

But what happened after the act passed? Well, it significantly damaged the railroad industry, and some news outlets at the time attributed the economic recession: the Panic of 1907 (whom some also call the "Roosevelt Panic") specifically to the Hepburn Act.(Source) The Panic had multiple causes to be sure, but Hepburn clearly did not help.(source)

Let's examine what happened. Because Theodore just had, HAD to have bigger government, he undercut an entire industry and made it impossible for them to adequately continue. So what happened? Nature abhors a vacuum, that's what happened.

With all of the air sucked out of the room by the ICC, the Hepburn Act, and meddling progressive republicans, the Trucking industry stepped in. This new industry blew new air into the room and they've been trucking ever since. Now, I'm not the first historian to notice this,(source) at least, not in regard to the train half of the equation. I'm just the first to point out that progressivism is to blame. This is the logical conclusion of following a bankrupt ideology instead of paying attention to the constitution. In this article, Professor Albro Martin primarily focuses in on how the Hepburn Act ravaged the train industry.

However, if one is true then the other must also be true. A and b arrive hand in hand. Killing the train gave birth to the truck. Stuff has to be moved around somehow. What, did TR think we would all just sit around and accept his dictates without trying to get around the obstacle he created? Of course not, people have done this since time began, innovating their way around big government obstacles. The train industry cannot just sit around ravaged, without someone else coming along and saying "hey, we can do this" without the damaging effects of big government - brought to you by progressives. Trucking would again be strengthened by necessity during WWI, and trains would again be attacked later by Woodrow Wilson. This continued governmental assault necessarily has to have an end result. What is that result?

Today in the 21st century, progressives know full well that their schemes will destroy industry and destroy the lives of citizens. And they don't really care. To them, that's a good thing.

At least in this context, in the days of TR and other big government progressives probably really think that the utopia was upon them and that transporters would be more than happy to bend over and take it, even though no lube was being used.

Sorry for the graphic depiction folks. But there's just no good end result when government goes bullying people around. They hurt us. Government hurts us. Progressivism is the most destructive force in America and it has been now for almost 120 years. Isn't it time more people honestly dig in to their history, the progressives' history, and see just how much damage they've done to us?

Now, of course someone is going to come along and start saying "you're just an apologist for the railroad trusts" blah blah blah - do you really not understand how people would have been significantly hurt by the Panic of 1907? That panic may not very well have even needed to have happened. With regard to the railroad trusts, they made their own beds, but I'm not very interested in hurting everybody in the nation just so you can get your revenge. That's really petty.

What's the funniest thing of all, is that progressives have for the last decade or more been trying to revive an industry that THEY themselves destroyed. How is it that train technology, technology that's several hundred years old, is somehow the harbinger of the greatest progress? Every city must have mass transit, all of the cities must have government(they say "public") transit. That's progress - old technology.

In the end, trucking probably would have superceded trains anyways because of the advantages of open road, but we still have to respect the process as it actually happened and point out the authoritarianism of progressives going back to the turn of the 20th century. If they did it, then they own it. We should not be afraid to call a spade "a spade".

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger

In 1914, the publication Birth Control Review published a review of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, by Lothrop Stoddard. The review was published by Havelock Ellis, a close friend of Margaret Sanger. Stoddard, like Ellis, was also a close friend of Sanger. Additionally, Stoddard was a board member of Sanger's pride and joy: The American Birth Control League.

To what degree did Sanger agree with the contents of this review? As editor of the magazine, she had the ability to decline/approve anything written in her pages.

The review said: (page 14)

Dr. Stoddard is an American, a graduate of Harvard and a citizen of New York, and like many Americans, aware that they have to attract the attention of a vast hustling audience absorbed in its activities over an enormous area, he is inclined to address it through a megaphone, in the strong, simple, emphatic language that that instrument demands. His message has thus to be a little discounted, but even when that allowance is made it remains a message it concerns us to hear, and it is delivered with force and knowledge. It is well to remember that his conclusions are, after all, fundamentally in harmony with those of sober and judicial observers in Europe, it is enough to mention Professor Demangeon's recent book Le Declin de l'Europe.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Theodore Roosevelt - the original "reach across the aisle" republican

Have you ever heard the whole story about exactly what it was that ol' Teddy did to get the 'rate bill' - the Hepburn Act, passed in 1906? If I didn't know the details of what I was reading and who was involved, I would swear this story mirrored a similar situation with John McCain rampaging on the floor of the Senate against Tea Party Hobbitses. Yes my friends. All tricks are fair game. Roosevelt threatened to pass the bill with democrat votes in order to undercut his own party, in order to stick the nose of government further into where it didn't belong. It's all a part of that war on big business, you know. The ends justify the means.

Politically, it is a brilliant move. Particularly if you love big government in every aspect of your life. But the danger of big government just keeps moving. It does not stop. It is never satisfied. Here is the scenario:

At the time of writing the Senate has not yet passed the Bill to regulate freight rates, but it will have passed the Senate several days before this is read. In the early days of this longdrawn-out and at times acrimonious contest between the President and some of the most influential Members of his Party in the Senate, Mr. Roosevelt announced that "Canossa gehen wir nicht." It would be somewhat unprofitable, and almost too academic, to determine whether the President played the part of Henry IV. and the Senate that of Gregory VII. The Republican Senators who blocked the Bill insisted that the Bill as it passed the House must be amended so as specifically to provide for an appeal from a decision made by the InterState Commerce Commission to the Federal Courts, which Mr. Roosevelt at that time resisted, because, as he viewed it, that would defeat the purpose the law was intended to correct. This appeal, however, has now been provided for, and Mr. Roosevelt expresses himself satisfied.

The Senators may claim it as a victory, but the country can see in it only the triumph of the President and the forced obedience of opposing Republican Senators to the will of the people. The country is correct in giving the President the credit for this legislation. He not only made it the great question in Congress, but he compelled a hostile Senate to enact it into law. Facing at one time a seemingly adverse Republican majority, he consented to the Bill being thrown into the hands of the Democrats, much to the confusion of the Republicans and to the gratification of their opponents, who expected to reap political advantage. But the Republicans pulled themselves together, and will vote solidly for the Bill, which disappointingly deprives the Democrats of their expected political gain. Mr. Roosevelt has again shown his amazing political shrewdness. He emerges from the fight the champion of rate legislation, and if that legislation corrects the abuses that are aimed at it, it is Mr. Roosevelt, and no one else, whom the victims of railway extortion - the farmers and small business men, who constitute the real political strength of the countrywill thank for relief and the end to favouritism, by which the great trusts have been able to crush out competition. Apart from what he gains personally, Mr. Roosevelt has put his Party in a very favourable position. Had the President been forced to accept Democratic votes to offset Republican defection, it would have been a non-partisan measure which, politically, would have done the Republicans great harm; but as the majority vote was cast by the Republicans, the Democrats can claim no credit. And though it is a fact that an important group of Republican Senators were able to secure the concession they demanded, thus again demonstrating that in a trial of strength between the President and the Senate it is generally the Senate that can force the President to its terms, the country will believe that for once, at least, the usual order was reversed. Mr. Roosevelt having said that the Bill suits him, the country sees in imagination the Senate making a wry face and swallowing an unpalatable dose while pretending to enjoy it. This discomfiture of the Senate, and this belief - quite a mistaken one, but which is of no consequence—that the Senate has at last met its master in the President, is very pleasing to the people.

Dang! No wonder McCain is literally in love with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a supreme conservative-defeater! TR knew how to rout those nasty little hobbitses.

In T.R., the Last Romantic, Brands notes what TR wrote to his son Kermit: (page 547)

"I am now trying to see if I cannot get it through in the form I want by the aid of some fifteen or twenty Republicans, added to most of the Democrats."

"The Republican leaders have tried to betray me", Theodore Roosevelt whined to his son. Mr. Roosevelt, you were growing government bigger, your usual M.O. Of course they were betraying you. They were supposed to betray you. It is my sincerest wish that at any time someone is trying to grow government, that betrayal is what they face. I hope he fails. - to borrow four famous words.

Betraying the forces of big government means allying with those of us, the serfs of this country.

In any case, this mirrors the exact activity that we see today, with only one exception. Back then, republican leaders betrayed a big government president. Surely, many of them probably had all of their reasons that may not have had small government at its core, but that would have been the end result: a small government triumph. Today, the exception, is that republican leaders betray small government activists to the benefit of big government. Little doubt exists in my mind, that Theodore Roosevelt is very proud of what the GOP has become. They all now do what he did.

Other than that, what do we see? The republicans are too busy battling the democrats, and the democrats are too busy battling the republicans, that not a one of them stops and asks if the current activity is constitutional or not. We see it all the time, at least, a facade of such activity. Nobody asks the constitutional question. Nobody wants to ask that question. In the end, it's always 'we the people' who get hurt the most by government activity and largess. The GOP "goes along to get along" because in the end, they have proven that they reject the mold of constitutionally minded people such as the Founders, Reagan, or Coolidge. The GOP is the TR party. Over the last 80 years, TR won. They now want big government too in the GOP. The more bigger, the more better.

That's progressivism. The ends justify the means. Theodore Roosevelt, as usual, provides the blueprint of how its done. Growing government the big stick carrying way. This is the beginning of today's uniparty. These are the roots.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

George Soros is translating Saul Alinsky into different languages

On October 14th, 2014, the Open Society of Macedonia held a workshop, promoting the great work of Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals, after the institute translated the book into the Macedonian language. Most of you will prefer to click on the second link. The third link is Rules for Radicals, in full, in the Macedonian language. They're that proud of their accomplishment, that they'll give it to you for free.


PDF Download of "Pravila za Radikali" - Rules for Radicals

In the first links, you will notice a particular book on the table with a mostly white cover, but it has two distinct red diamonds in two corners. This is the version they translated.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Conservatives: Worried about losing the internet? I have an idea; record an audiobook

It is almost certain that with giving the internet to "the world", that people with voices who say certain things run the risk of being silenced.

One possible solution: You should record an audiobook. Here's why.

As an example, one audiobook that I recorded was The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, which highlights the black patriots that fought side by side against the British for American Independence and liberty. I completed that entire book on Valentines Day of this year, the day believed by some to be Frederick Douglass' birthday.

Why is this book important? Have you ever run into this meme that the Founding Fathers are supposedly racist? Well, I don't think one single book is going to put it to bed, and I certainly acknowledge that I can't possibly record every possible thing myself, however, these facts being so easily available, and so easily consumable, present quite a conundrum for those progressives who seek to keep "the narrative" alive. We need more. If more were available, there's a potential it could present a credible, visible threat.

Currently, there are roughly 3800 people who have been to this page, which is a fair estimate of at least how many people have listened to that book. That's 3800 in 8 months, and will certainly be over 4000 by year's end. The number who have listened is likely to be far higher, considering indirect mobile downloads and the like. But that's a number we can work with.

Think of that: That's nearly 4000 people I've educated about a topic that progressives would prefer people didn't know. If that number pattern stays true, at the end of the next year it will be 8000. In 5 years it will be 20,000.

Wouldn't you like to educate 20,000 people in five years about inconvenient facts? What kind of cultural impact does that have?

Here's how this relates to the internet giveaway. As I said at the outset, there will be voices who are silenced. I hardly think that audiobook recording is any kind of silver bullet, but I've yet to find any downside while conversely I can clearly demonstrate the upsides. The upsides are self-evident.

I'll give you another example, one which I think there might be some takers to my proposition. Have you ever run into the meme that there was no Christianity of any kind during the time of the American founding? Yeah, there were no pastors, that's it. And they certainly didn't discuss any political topics! The easiest way to combat that meme would be to record some sermons. Virtually everything prior to 1923 is public domain. Early American sermons, from pastors who were acknowledged to be highly influential in the years directly prior to the event of the Founding; the years that made the Founding possible. I know of several sermons that would be great candidates for recording, and several works of the Founders that have not yet been attempted. I, unfortunately, can't record everything on the planet in relation to these topics. At some point, someone will have to help.

I give all my audiobooks away for free. I'm not selling any thing here. Only, an idea. But selling you the idea isn't going to cost any money.

Making information easier to consume - that's a problem for the progressives. I'll gladly do that for free.

But, I do have one alternative, for those of you who would recoil at the idea. Here's what you should do. Do nothing. Sit there behind your keyboard. Do what you've been doing, because that's worked so well so far? It perturbs me to be harsh and I apologize in advance, but anything rooted in facts, and rooted in facts that are easier to consume(meaning faster), will present a little bit more of a challenge for anybody seeking the route of censorship. We need more, no matter how small that 'more' may appear to be. We have the power to give ourselves more. We don't have to wait for someone else to do it.

I'm looking to educate you, all I ask is that you are willing to listen. I'll give you every one of the mp3s as fast as you can download them. Now, I would like to find some people who would like to educate me. I'm willing to listen.

One thing I've noticed within the blogosphere is the tendency for people to focus exclusively upon their own opinion. This is not me saying that that is bad. I do it myself from time to time on my blog. But here is a converse thought.

The Founding Fathers - they speak for me. So I speak for them. And you can speak for them too. Why do you and I need to formulate new, additional words, when some of the best words that need to be spoken have already been spoken? They just weren't recorded. Ok, great! The only thing that is missing, is that microphones didn't exist in 1776 or 1753. That's not a problem. It's not.

We can rectify that. We have microphones. Download the transcript, and read it verbatim. For those of you who agree with me: if you can raise your hand and say "yes, the Founders speak for me",(or the pastors of that era) then it is likely that speaking for them may present a prospect that might be worth considering.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Ronald Reagan's 1975 speech to YAF - Young Americans for Freedom

Ronald Reagan Addresses Young Americans for Freedom

Officers, members of YAF, Young Americans for Freedom, first of all let me thank you for allowing me share in this meeting with you in this manner, and at the same time express my regret that it was impossible for me to be there with you in person.

You know you never cease to amaze me, you have followed a philosophy in spite of the fact that you spent your lives growing up in a nation that was characterized by an atmosphere of tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. The era of the free lunch and the handout. How you have clung to principle and followed the philosophy that you follow does amaze me but at the same time as a citizen I want to thank you and commend you for it.

You know, the policies that our opponents, those who follow the liberal philosophy, have espoused have distorted the balance between the different branches and levels of government, they have distorted also the relationship of the people to their government. But maybe you and I have done better than we know, those of us who talk of conservatism. Because the great majority of the people today, believe with us. They may not be able to put a label on it, but their approach to the various policies of government is the same as ours.

Now, this was evidenced in the 1974 election, disastrous as it was, when we look at the liberal candidates who campaigned and who won, by espousing the same philosophy that we have talked for so many years. When they wet their fingers and held them up in the political wind they found there was no longer a market for the old fashioned cliches of the New Deal and the Great Society, and all the other social tinkering that's gone on for the last forty years. They were against deficit spending in the campaign, but what we have to be on guard for, is the fact that now they are voting for a $100 billion dollar deficit in the budget. There was an incumbent senator from the middle-west who ran on a platform for re-election in which he opposed gun control and bussing, and since returning to Washington he's voted for both.

They say that politics is the second oldest profession, sometimes it bears a grave resemblance to the first.

Our responsibility now, is to point out every discrepancy between the campaign promise and the post-election performance of these people who sang our song. Its time to quit trying to organize the same old minority every two years and start informing the new majority every day who has been responsible for bringing us to the brink of disaster, economic disaster. Our task is now one of education and information, we no longer have to sell our philosophy. And I submit that the Republican Party has the great opportunity to do this. We have a concrete example to hold up for comparison.

A great nation, with a land mass greater than our own, rich in natural resources, 250 million capable people. And for more than fifty years, they have been free to fully implement and put into practice without hindrance or interference, all the principles of socialism. And we could be just like them, but it would take a little doing on our part.

We'd have to start by cutting our paychecks eighty percent, move 33 million workers back to the farm, destroy 59 million television sets, tear up 14 out of 15 miles of highway and two thirds of our railroad tracks, junk 19 out of 20 automobiles, rip out 9/10ths of our telephones and tear down seventy percent of our houses. And then all we'd have to do is find a capitalist country that would sell us wheat on credit, so we wouldn't starve.

You know, in spite of all our greatness, our people feel a sense once again or a desire to feel a sense of greatness. A sense in the pride in their own capacity, for performing great deeds. We republicans I think can do something about this, but not if we try to be all things to all people. There are some in our midst who have suggested that we should broaden our base. Except that what they mean by broadening our base is to blur the image, to make us indistinguishable from the other party.

Some have suggested that the 1974 election, the disastrous results, were an indictment of what we stand for. Well may I suggest that the meaning of the last election will not be found among those who voted, it will be found by polling those who stayed home. The biggest non voter bloc in our nation's history.

And why did they stay home? Well because they said they couldn't see any difference between the two parties.

I think they're basically wrong, but I think this is also an indication of what our answer should be to those who would make us more like the opponents. I am a convert to Republicanism. I spent most of my adult life as a democrat, and I can testify that when I found I could no longer follow the leadership of the democratic party, I became a republican not because the parties were the same, but precisely because they were different.

More than half of those who didn't vote have been polled and say, it no longer makes any difference which party wins.

Now some have taken another course, there are some among us, and I respect their views, who suggest that that means an end to the Republican Party that we should form a new third party. May I suggest an alternative to that? Let's have a new first party. A Republican Party, raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels, a banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.

Yes, we must broaden our base, but lets broaden the way we did in 1972, because those Americans, democrats and independents, and republicans are still out there looking for a banner around which to rally. And we have what they want, what they're seeking. But they don't know that. And sometimes I wonder if we know it.

Young people, your own companions, I am told are registering either democrat or independent avoiding us in overwhelming numbers. Well is this because of what we represent, or what they think we represent? I know that in a poll of 35,000 college and university students, eighty percent of them said they wanted more individual freedom, less interference by government in their private lives. Well isn't that what we want?

Our banner should also proclaim our faith in the marketplace as the greatest provider for our people, and that we will eliminate needless regulations and restrictions that keep the marketplace from being able to provide the jobs our people need. And on that subject, let us also proclaim compassion for those who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves, see that their needs are fully met. But at the same time, let us say that all those who are able-bodied, will be given an opportunity to work for their welfare grants. We will not make them lifetime recipients of a dole, as clients of an ever growing welfare bureaucracy.

We must extend our compassion to that great group of unsung heroes, the working men and women of this country who ask nothing of government but to be left alone. They make the whole system work, but for a long time they haven't been fairly represented in government.

Today they see themselves falling further and further behind unable to afford the good life they've earned and deserve. Political demagogues for the last four decades have been appealing to the worst in us, the tepidity and selfishness of human nature. They've been telling us that each one of us can have a bigger slice of pie but we have to help them take it away from someone else who's been getting too big a share. Well I think it's time for us to tell those political demagogues, we can all have a bigger slice of pie if government will get out of the way, and let the free enterprise system bake a bigger pie.

James Burnham has said that even the most skillful surgeon when operating on a democratic politician, cannot separate demagogic from solid tissue, without causing the death of the patient.

Can anyone say that the banner that I've presented so far does not represent what has been typical republican philosophy, but does it not also represent what the people of this country in an overwhelming majority desire for themselves and the country today? Our party must stand for the traditional belief in a federation of sovereign states, of local autonomy and individual freedom. We didn't seek on the world scene the leadership that has been thrust upon us, but we can't abdicate that leadership without abdicating our ability to keep the peace.

We have seen in recent months little men with little minds in Washington tarnish our shield and rob us of credibility throughout the world. Make it plain to every friend and foe alike, every nation, that we will join any in seeking peace, but we will keep our commitments, and we will not give away freedom not ours to give. Nor will we sacrifice our own freedom, we will indeed sacrifice to maintain that freedom and peace throughout the world.

One last line, I think we have room for on our banner. Let us add a line that says as a pledge:

That never again will young Americans be asked to fight and die for their country, unless the goal is victory.

Thank you very much.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Theodore Roosevelt - the first globalist president

All of us know how politicized the Nobel Prize is, but many people falsely believe that it's only been politicized since around the time of Obama, perhaps since the time of Carter. It's been a tool for awarding statists for over a century. Don't forget, Wilson also won a Nobel. On May 5th, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt gave his acceptance speech for receiving his political prize.

Here is how Roosevelt began the last paragraph of that speech:

Finally, it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court.

Even here, TR continues his zeal for kingly government and some power, any power, who can issue decrees to all of you little peasants out there. But this is much, much worse. Being as this speech is from 1910, this makes Roosevelt the first American President(he was a former president at the time) to call for an international body to lord over multiple nations. Note that last line, where he laments the fact that there's no executive power at the Hague. So, to you living in 2016, do you think Roosevelt would be proud of what his World Court has become? It's just a side question, a thought piece.

Woodrow Wilson would continue Roosevelt's work with an attempt to form a League of Peace League of Nations, and finally, TR's cousin Franklin would succeed in implementing the dream, with the introduction of the League of Peace United Nations.

Friday, August 26, 2016

The Columbian Orator, audiobook edition

Normally I wait until I am fully complete with an audiobook before announcing it here, but I am handling this one a little differently.

For my next audiobook, I am not doing a solo read. It is a group project on Librivox instead. So if you are interested, feel free to join in and take a section. The book has over 80 sections, so most are not more than 1-3 pages long.

The Columbian Orator, first published in 1797, is a great book for anybody interested in the culture of early America. It contains speeches from Founders such as Franklin, Mason, and Washington; it has several British parliamentary speeches from Pitt, Fox, and others, and even earlier classical works, from well known Roman authors such as Cato and Cicero. Additionally, many sections of the book are deeply religious, in regards to topics like Christ's Crucifixion, David and Goliath, and the existence of God. Finally, there are sections of this book that contain back and forth discussions, which could afford two people the ability to have somewhat of a personal dialog together.(per the book text, of course)

In short, this is truely a great book and it will be a great audiobook when complete. If you have ever thought about considering recording an audiobook or want to give it a try, this is a good place to start.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Progressivism kills dolphins. So stop feeding the dolphins!

You ever see one of these signs? If you live in a warm-climate state near large bodies of water, you most likely have in one form or another. They're quite common. It is also common to see the official signs, which may look like this:

You know this is a discouragement of socialism, right? Now, I don't want to downplay the effect of wild animals who get hungry and lash out, and other maladies, such as getting stuck in a net or the effect of propeller blades.

But lets be serious here. Among other things this is a de-facto campaign against socialism and progressivism. It truely is. On the intro page, states this: "The billboard in the picture says it all. It’s illegal to feed wild dolphins. And it can cause a dolphin’s death." and then the very next line it says is "Dive deeper". OK!!! I will! Diving deeper beyond just simply "food handouts to dolphins", is there a system designed around handouts and dependence? Yes, there is such a system. There's quite a lot of such systems.

According to sarasotadolphin, as well as Don't Feed Wild Dolphins .org, "Dolphins are hunters, not beggars". Hey wait! Humans are hunters, not beggars! The website says: "when people offer them food, dolphins, like most animals, take the easy way out. They learn to beg for a living, lose their fear of humans, and do dangerous things."

Hmmmmmm......... when people offer them food, humans, like most animals, take the easy way out. They learn to beg for a living and do dangerous things.

On the website this phrase is used: "begging for a living". That phrase is the key. The website even states that when you practice dolphin socialism, the mother dolphins don't teach the baby dolphins how to be independent and hunt for their own food. In other words, they become wards of the state; they become permanent dependents on getting handouts. Among researchers, there is even a famous example: a dolphin named Beggar. According to National Geographic, "Beggar mostly stopped foraging on his own". Was Beggar killed by socialism? Slate has an interesting article about this, which states that "He was loved to death." Now isn't that exactly what the progressives claim? That the reason they get people hooked on handouts want to redistribute wealth, is because the progressives are so loving and caring? Are people also loved to death?

As history has proven, socialism kills. It even kills dolphins.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Does Japan have a living and breathing constitution?

Joe Biden made some interesting comments recently regarding the constitution of Japan and nuclear armaments. It's been widely reported, so I don't have much need to re-hash all of that.

Except for one thing: What is it about Japan's constitution that makes progressives believe that the Japanese constitution does not qualify as a living and breathing document?

I would really like to know the answer to that question.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

As police commissioner, Theodore Roosevelt laid out his dreams for benevolent dictatorship

If this country could be ruled by a benevolent czar, we would doubtless make a good many changes for the better. - Theodore Roosevelt, 1897

In most of the puff piece biographies written about Theodore Roosevelt, one will read about the valiant days of TR as police chief, cleaning the joint up, and rooting out the bad guys. But is that really all that happened? Nothing more? Why is it that the full story is never told, rather, it has to be pieced together?

During his time as a police commissioner, TR was actually quite unpopular. There were many who dubbed him "King Roosevelt I"(source), with some newspapers even going so far as to coin a jingle based on the notion:

East Side, West Side, all around the town, yesterday went King Roosevelt I, ruler of New York and patron saint of dry Sundays.(source)

Now, it is true, that much of Roosevelt's unpopularity as "King Roosevelt I" was directly connected to his taking away people's drinks(source), but there was more, much more to this.

As an aside, wasn't prohibition one of the crowning achievements of progressivism? And didn't that involve big government taking away people's drinks? Interesting. But I digress.

Roosevelt had a longstanding proclivity toward "strong"(which he used as a euphemistic code word for roughshod, hurtful, bully government) government. In a letter to his sister Anna, TR wrote:

If I were ... a single-headed Commissioner, with absolute power (not to speak of his having an infinitely less difficult problem to solve), I could in a couple of years accomplish almost all I could desire; were I even the member of a three headed commission, like the Boston Police Department, with absolute power, I could have accomplished very much; but, as it is I am one of four commissioners, any of whom possess a veto power in promotions.(source)(source)(source)

Now really.... Who do you know who speaks this way besides 12 year olds and young college grads who are completely out of touch with reality?

It's no wonder then, we have all of these stories of how most of the republicans in New York were just waiting with bated breath to get rid of Roosevelt. The web page for the National Park Service contains a very interesting line in this regard:

In 1895, he resigned to take the post of Police Commissioner of New York City. With this new appointment he hoped to expand his ideas of reform into new areas. Just like the Civil Service Commission, Roosevelt wanted the Police Department appointments and promotions to be based on merit rather than patronage. He tirelessly hounded corrupt and incompetent policemen, often replacing them with men who had no connection to any political machine.

With all of his talk of benevolent czars and absolute power, and the fact that the NY GOP ejected him as fast as they could, I highly doubt that Roosevelt's time as commissioner was truely as clean as the wind driven snow as they make it seem with this line here. Particularly this line of him "tirelessly hounding" "incompetent policemen". As we have seen with Obama, people enthralled with absolute power such as this have bizarre definitions for "incompetence".

This certainly matches with his letter to his sister. His "tireless hounding" had a lot to do with getting rid of people that he, and only he alone, knew to be incompetent. It is likely that there were some true incompetents. Others, however, were probably no more than simply of a different ideological persuasion than he.

Between that, and his anti-saloon campaign, Roosevelt ended up losing his job as commissioner - a job that was revoked by republicans.(source) All the reform work Roosevelt had attempted to do was for naught.

It is interesting to note, that one of Roosevelt's last acts as Governor, was to unify the job of Police Commissioner under a single head starting in 1901. This is very, very indicative of how deep his progressive ideology ran, even at that time. He wouldn't even be the one sitting in the top chair, as he had dreamed of years prior. But that power - it had to be centralized. He couldn't let it go.

Centralization for centralization's purpose. That's progressivism.