Glenn Beck’s South-Bashing! ~ Craig Maus | NOW BLOG THIS! ~ GUNNY.G: AMERICAN !

…..I try not to watch the MSM very often, but today I tuned into Glenn Beck for his “Founders Friday” program. Sadly, it turned out to be nothing more than a pitch to the multiculturalists where he praised the efforts of black Americans throughout history, particularly in the War for Independence.

 

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States. Latviešu: Abrahams Linkolns, sešpadsmitais ASV prezidents. Српски / Srpski: Абрахам Линколн, шеснаести председник Сједињених Америчких Држава. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Beck and his guest David Barton were groveling at the feet of those who demand that history should be studied from month to month, each month honoring some ethnic minority wronged by evil white males, past and present. Nothing new.

 

I certainly wasn’t surprised by any of this, but what really got under my skin was the fact that Beck and Barton both made time in this program to bash the South replete with very glaring historical inaccuracies. Beck prides himself on “rediscovering” historical narratives which differ greatly from the Establishment’s verion, yet today he revealed himself to be thoroughly hypocritical and inconsistent. I was never a huge fan of Beck before all of this, but he now has zero integrity as far as I’m concerned.

 

 

 

Woodrow Wilson modeled his work chiefly on Walter Bagehot

Woodrow Wilson modeled his work chiefly on Walter Bagehot

 

PGA Weblog ^

 

Posted on Monday, April 15, 2013 11:13:13 AM by ProgressingAmerica

 

In “The Papers of Woodrow Wilson”, Volume 3, Wilson states the following: (page 111)

 

English: Woodrow Wilson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I have modelled my work chiefly on Mr. Bagehot’s essays on the English Constitution, though I have been guided in some points of treatment by the method followed in some of the better volumes of “Macmillan‘s admirable “English Citizen Series.”

 

 

 

 

 

According to an undescript Google Blog page, here:

 

 

 

Glenn Beck with Author Edwin Black of “War Against the Weak” on Eugenics and Transhumanism.

Glenn Beck with Author Edwin Black of “War Against the Weak” on Eugenics and Transhumanism.GBTV/youtube ^ | 2/5/13 | Glenn Beck ShowPosted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:27:14 PM by MozillaIn

 

War Against the Weak, award-winning investigative journalist Edwin Black connects the crimes of the Nazis to a pseudoscientific American movement of the early 20th century called eugenics. Based on selective breeding of human beings, eugenics began in laboratories on Long Island but ended in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.

 

Cruel and racist laws were enacted in 27 U.S. states, and the supporters of

 

English: Television and radio host at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

eugenics included progressive thinkers like Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Ultimately, over 60,000 “unfit” Americans were coercively sterilized, a third of them after Nuremberg declared such practices crimes against humanity.

 

This is a timely and shocking chronicle of bad science at its worst — with many important lessons for the impending genetic age.Eugenics and Transhumanism: These two ideologies have two different names, but the practices and the reason for the practices are exactly alike. These two agendas are also fuel for the global warming/population-control agenda.

 

(The GubMint Does Not Give Us Free Speech!) ~No More Asking for Permission To Speak… by Andrew P. Napolitano

In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States, the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or malicious writing – even if true – about the president or the federal government, notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.

 

 

 

English: Judge recording an episode of at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries in the press and even successfully prosecuted a congressman who heavily criticized the president. Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became president, these abominable laws would expire. He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.

 

 

 

Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedoms: New Book by Andrew P. Napolitano

The Beginning of the End of American Liberty: New Book From Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Reveals How Two U.S. Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedoms and Paved the Way for Today’s Assault on Liberty

 

Andrew Napolitano (Photo credit: ronpaulrevolt2008)

 

 

 

Release date: November 16, 2012 – They are two of America’s most celebrated presidents. One, a Republican who had a storied military career, created the American conservation movement and once gave a speech after being shot by a would-be assassin; the other, a Democrat who overcame dyslexia as a child only to lead America to victory in World War I and formulate the idea of an international body of nations dedicated to the preservation of peace.

 

 

 

These are the tales all American schoolchildren are taught about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, they are also a whitewashed view of two U.S. presidents who, more than any other, set the United States on a path of expansionist government that has given us anti-liberty policies like Obamacare.

 

Progressivism’s Revenge… “….the closest confidante and advisor to an extremely consequential American president had written a fantasy novel about a heroic social agitator with a plan to bring about a “benevolent” progressive dictatorship by instigating a brutal civil war…”

Progressivism’s Revenge

 

The American Thinker ^ | March 4, 2013 | Daren Jonescu

 

Posted on Monday, March 04, 2013 2:44:20 PM by VR-21

 

English: Portrait of Edward Mandell House by H. Havelock Pierce. Courtesy of the Edward M. House Papers, Yale University Manuscripts & Archives Digital Images Database, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Retouched by MarmadukePercy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

If the closest confidante and advisor to an extremely consequential American president had written a fantasy novel about a heroic social agitator with a plan to bring about a “benevolent” progressive dictatorship by instigating a brutal civil war, might one imagine that an honest press would take an interest? In fact this has happened, and America’s actual press has tried to dismiss the book as a meaningless “bad novel”.

 

In 1912, Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson‘s most intimate and influential advisor, wrote Philip Dru: Administrator. (Read it online here.) House is credited with having orchestrated Wilson’s presidential nomination, and was a prime mover in several controversial policy undertakings of his presidency.

 

Rand Paul In Israel: End The Gravy Train Of US Foreign Aid

The U.S. Senator (R-Ky.), who is already being touted as a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, was recently appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is showing some strong Woodrow Wilson-style isolationist tendencies.

 

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

The role of the committee, according to its own website, is to “develop and influence United States foreign policy,” and in the past has “helped shape foreign policy of broad significance.” In other words, the actions of the committee matter just a bit, and the membership of a Senator like Rand Paul, who’s primary policy goal seems to be deficit reduction and budget balancing to the exclusion and possible detriment of all other policies, is a worrying prospect to many, particularly in the pro-Israel community.

 

Why God Created the GOP….. (GyG: See Stang: Red From The Start…Related Articles)

“God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes. If they don’t do that, they have no useful function.”

 

Columnist Robert Novak was speaking of the party that embraced the revolution of Ronald Reagan, who had hung a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in his Cabinet Room and set about cutting income tax rates to 28 percent.

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

But, to be historically precise, the GOP was not put here to cut taxes. From infancy in the 1850s, its mission was to halt the spread of slavery. From 1865 to 1929, it was the party of high tariffs. Mission: Build the nation and protect U.S. industry and the wages of American workers.

 

Sixty Years Later: Why Am I a Veteran? by Larry Martines

In January 1953, I was separated from the army after having served two years as a draftee during the Korean, so-called, police action. Back then, I simply did what my three older brothers did during WWII, and what my father did during WWI. Namely, they went off to war believing they were doing so in the defense of their country. My three younger brothers were yet to serve in the armed forces.

 

sgtstryker (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Now it is sixty years later and I have learned much about how those, and every other war, we have been in, and are currently involved in, came to pass. We now know, or should know, we didn’t become veterans to defend our country. Veterans of all these conflicts should be appalled by how they were manipulated into fighting wars to totally serve Banking Class interests. That this is still happening is beyond the pale. Further, the military we once felt pride in being part of, is today once again being turned against the people of our country. (See the real history of the Civil War)

 

The Daily Bell – FDR, Lincoln … and a Disturbing Supposition Regarding Barack Obama… (“…this is a disturbing supposition. It would seem to be indicating that something is to unfold in President Barack Obama’s second term that may replicate some of the same sort of events that took place under FDR and Lincoln. What those events are to be is not yet clear. But it is a most disturbing supposition…..”)

EXCERPT!!!!!

 

…..The big problem with this review is that its premise is faulty. Today, we know that much of Hitler‘s military buildup and indeed his rise to power was supported by same Western financial forces that are today pursuing “the war on terror” and apparently for much the same reasons.

 

Thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, we can see the scope of history more fully. The information is finally available. It seems to show us that the real reason both the first and second world wars were fought was in part to generate global governance, a process that remains underway today.

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

And we can see that after every large war, the West lost considerable freedoms. Under Lincoln, the free press was suspended, politicians and journalists who opposed the war were jailed. The result of an exceptionally bloody war was that states could not secede without facing military retaliation. History shows us that once a regime is emplaced by force, empire (of a sort) is inevitable and then, eventually, a downfall.

 

Progressivism: Transforming the executive into a legislator… (“We need to stop the president from legislating and put him back into his constitutional box”)

Progressivism: Transforming the executive into a legislator

 

PGA Weblog ^

 

Posted on Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:37:05 AM by ProgressingAmerica

 

Herbert Croly was a man of vision. He had a vision of future presidents where they didn’t merely just execute the laws passed by congress, but the president himself was head legislator. Sound familiar? It should, that’s how just about every president has acted since the progressive era. In “Progressive Democracy”, the following is written: (page 355)

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

In the plan of state government which I have sketched in a previous chapter the executive has become essentially a representative agency. His primary business is that of organizing a temporary majority of the electorate, and of carrying its will into legal effect. He becomes primarily a law-giver and only secondarily an agency for carrying out existing laws. Yet he is none the less at the head of the administration; and the great majority of the progressives want him to be more responsible than he is now for administrative efficiency.

 

rprprprp (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

They want him, that is, to have the power of appointment and dismissal over the upper grades of the civil service in very much the same way that the owner of a private business would have over his employees, and they want to liberate the power of appointment from the partisan abuses which have resulted from the custom of confirmation by a senate.

 

Gunny G: The “R” Party, Secession, Etc.. (Excerpts)

The Real DiLorenzo
A ‘Southern Partisan‘ Interview

EXCERPTS!!!!!

***

What will become of the Republicans?

The way I see it is that the Republican Party is returning to its Lincolnian roots. For the whole nineteenth century, the Republican Party was the party of big government! For the last half of the nineteenth century, the Jeffersonians were all Democrats. That’s why Southerners were all Democrats until about 20 years ago.

That all changed with Woodrow Wilson, when he became a hyper-interventionist. Then FDR, of course, totally destroyed the Democratic Party as the party of limited government.

It’s ironic. Someone runs for president on a particular platform, then does the exact opposite when he gets in office. Lincoln, before the War, said, “I’m going to be hands off with the slavery issue.” Then he was the biggest interventionist ever. FDR ran, actually, on lower taxes —

A balanced budget, yeah.

A Victory for Creatures of the State… (“I mean the Progressives who’ve been waging a century-long effort to transform our American-style government into a European-style state. The words “government” and “state” are often used interchangeably, but they are really different things. According to the founders’ vision, the people are sovereign and the government belongs to us. Under the European notion of the state, the people are creatures of the state, significant only as parts of the whole.”)

The Progressives won on Tuesday.

 

I don’t mean the people who voted Democrat who call themselves “progressive.” Though they won, too.

 

President Barack Obama addresses the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I mean the Progressives who’ve been waging a century-long effort to transform our American-style government into a European-style state.

 

America’s first experiment into progressivism was a failure

America‘s first experiment into progressivism was a failure

 

PGA Weblog ^

 

Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:39:33 AM by ProgressingAmerica

 

In “The History of Plimoth Plantation“, William Bradford writes the following: (Pages 135-136) [I have chosen to stick with Bradford's actual writing. If you find the following excerpt painful, there is a translated version on the University of Chicago's website that you'll probably prefer to read]

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; – that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, without any recompence. The string, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.

 

This is pretty clear, even though it’s written in a “foreign” form of English. Redistribution was considered to be slavery and an injustice by early “Americans”. (They would’ve been British subjects at this time) On the prior page, Bradford gives details about the result of a freer society in which individuals pursued their individual best interest:

 

30 more Britishisms used by Americans…

30 more Britishisms used by Americans

 

BBC News ^ | 17th October 2012 | BBC News

 

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:54:15 AM by the scotsman

 

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

‘The Magazine’s recent article about the Britishisation of American English prompted readers to respond with examples of their own – here are 30 British words and phrases that you’ve noticed being used in the US and Canada.’

 

September is gone and Black Pastors are STILL telling their congregations NOT to vote

 

realobam (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Since February 3, 1870, when a Republican Congress ratified the 15th Amendment to insure African Americans had the right to vote, Black pastors have always encouraged their congregations to vote.

 

Until 1908 they had advised voting for Republicans since they considered the GOP their natural home.

 

The Hidden History of the Progressive Movement « News You May Have Missed

 

 

 

 

 

Cover of Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

During the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she was a “liberal”. She described herself instead as a “progressive,” making clear that she meant by this term to connect herself to the original Progressives from early in the 20th century.

 

 

 

Prelude to World War I by Ralph Raico

 

This article is excerpted from chapter 1 of Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal (2010).

 

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

This chapter is a much expanded version of an essay that originally appeared in The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories (2001).

 

 

 

 

With the World War mankind got into a crisis with which nothing that happened before in history can be compared…. In the world crisis whose beginning we are experiencing, all peoples of the world are involved…. War has become more fearful because it is waged with all the means of the highly developed technique that the free economy has created…. Never was the individual more tyrannized than since the outbreak of the World War and especially of the world revolution. One cannot escape the police and administrative technique of the present day.

 

Ludwig von Mises (1919)[1]

 

GyG: Judge Napolitano…On The Pauls, Lincoln, Etc.!!!!! (“…The Problems…Started with Lincoln…”)

 

…..Daily Bell: What’s your take on Ron Paul? Give us a summation of his career.

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Judge Napolitano: I think he probably continues to go around the country, keeping the dialogue going of small government and maximum individual liberty. I think he probably passes the mantel to his son, Senator Paul. Senator Paul and Governor Johnson probably battle it out and if they can’t come to some kind of agreement as to who will personify human freedom and who, in public life, will be the champion of it.

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

I think that’s probably a good thing because I think the movement will continue to grow.

With Congressman Paul free from congressional duties he might actually stir up the pot even more then he’s done already. My next book, which comes out after election day, is an assault on the progressive era, dedicated to Ron Paul in large measure because no person in these times has done more to remind people about the loss of liberty than he. He has been an inspiration to millions and among those millions is me.

Daily Bell: Are you a backer of Rand’s generally?

The Daily Bell – Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice… (“I think these are bad days for freedom and unless a Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Gary Johnson is in the White House they will continue to get bad. I just couldn’t imagine a President Romney dismantling the security state, not enforcing the Patriot Act…”)

 

…..Daily Bell: You were negative about the freedom trend in the USlast time we spoke. Are you more hopeful now?Judge Napolitano: No, not at all. No. The government keeps getting larger and more in our faces. There is less outrage than there used to be.

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

The Air Force predicts that in ten years there’ll be 30,000 drones in the sky at any given moment and that some of them will be the size of golf balls and some will be the size of mosquitoes, and nobody is complaining about that. People seem willing to give up their privacy in exchange for safety.

People forget they need protection from the government.People are confusing freedom and safety. Freedom does not promote safety; freedom promotes unfettered choices, free from government interference. It accepts the fact that there will be some dangerous things in society but it assumes that risk from danger without is a more desirable state of affairs than an authoritarian government than within.

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

I think these are bad days for freedom and unless a Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Gary Johnson is in the White House they will continue to get bad. I just couldn’t imagine a President Romney dismantling the security state, not enforcing the Patriot Act, disregarding the National Defense Authorization Act, stopping all the drones.

If You Vote by Melanie Johnson

 

I had a political science teacher in college who taught this, and it has stayed with me. He said that if people don’t know the issues, they are better off not voting than risking a vote for the wrong candidate.

The Crisis of Liberalism… (“If his heralded new majority for change does not triumph in congressional and state elections in 2012 or …”)

 

In the late innings of the health care fight President Barack Obama told a joint session of Congress, “we did not come here just to clean up crises,” even one as big as the Great Recession.

 

obamadash (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

“We came to build a future,” to do the “great things” that “will meet history’s test.” He concluded, “This is our calling. This is our character.”

 

And that had been his ambition all along. “Let us transform this nation,” he implored in 2007 when he announced his candidacy for president. As Election Day 2008 approached, he promised, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”Those words mean this will be a different country when he’s finished with it. If, Rip Van Winkle-style, one had slept through the Obama Administration, one would awaken, as it were, in a new land.

 

Who Wants the U.S. To Make War in Syria? (“Forget Democracy We need capitalism, not more neocon mass murder. Article by Mike Rozeff.”)

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

There are people vigorously promoting America’s entry into new wars in Syria and Iran. Many of them eagerly advocated the U.S. aggressions against Iraqand Afghanistan. Despite the failures of these wars to achieve the projected goals, they are urging new U.S. wars. They are the neoconservatives.

They applaud U.S. military action in places like Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. The neoconservative paradigm also looks favorably upon a U.S. military presence in countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and the Central African Republic.

Our Disgraceful President

Warren G. Harding was corrupt, as was Richard M. Nixon. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were like blind golfers, looking for a hole, any hole, every hole. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were power-mad narcissists convinced they knew best how everyone else should live. Jimmy Carter was clueless. But as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first of these men to serve as president, all have been lapped in debasing their office by its current occupant: Barack Obama.

Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt read the book Philip Dru Administrator?

Sadly, the book Philip Dru has been a hot topic amongst conspiracy websites for quite a long time, and I would use the term “hijacked” – Philip Dru has been hijacked by conspiracy websites.

English: Statue of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in wheelchair Svenska: Staty av Franklin Delano Roosevelt i rullstol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

DICK ACT of 1902. . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

At last: parental authority challenges government intruders

English: Woodrow Wilson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Wes Vernon

It has been a century since Woodrow Wilson reportedly opined that young boys should grow up to be as unlike their fathers as possible. Whether he worded it exactly that way, our 28th president surely pursued the goal, both as educator and as politician.

Not that his era was the first to witness a challenge to parents’ prerogative. However, the early 20th century “progressive movement” (of which Wilson was a part) did offer up the most open manifestation of that attitude in American official circles up to that moment in history.

Don’t like the 17th amendment? Blame Theodore Roosevelt

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front. Deutsch: Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von 1901 bis 1909, Friedensnobelpreisträger des Jahres 1906. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a book titled “Progressive Principles”, which is a collection of Roosevelt’s speeches, (and which Roosevelt himself endorsed, see the preface) Roosevelt made clear his favor for the direct election of senators: (Page 3 – April 3rd, 1912)

For this purpose we believe in securing for the people the direct election of United States Senators exactly as the people have already secured in actual practice the direct election of the President.

Page 65: (February 21st, 1912)

I believe in the election of United States Senators by direct vote.

Page 315: (August 17th, 1912 – Bull Moose platform)

Arlington National Cemetery—A Memorial Day Tribute

The world famous Arlington National Cemetery in located in the shadow of the Custis-Lee Mansion (Arlington House) that was home to General Robert E. Lee and family until 1861 at the beginning of the War Between the States.

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com …

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Click to Add Topic

KEYWORDS: southernveterans; Click to Add Keyword

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

Monday, May 28, 2012, 11 a.m. A wreath-laying ceremony and concert will be held at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in honor of Memorial Day.

Read more at: http://dc.about.com /od/hoildaysseasonalevents/a/MemorialDay.htm

Arlington National Cemetery is the final resting place for those who fought for the Confederacy and Union during the War Between the States. It is also the burial place for men and women who fought our nation’s wars since the War Between the States.

There are 245,000 Servicemen and Women, including their families, buried at Arlington?

The world famous Arlington National Cemetery in located in the shadow of the Custis-Lee Mansion (Arlington House) that was home to General Robert E. Lee and family until 1861 at the beginning of the War Between the States. This cemetery is on the Virginia side of the Potomac River and Washington, D.C. is across the river.

In 1864, Union soldiers were first buried here and by the end of the war the number rose to 16,000.

(“The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible”) Progressivism: The purpose of colleges it to indoctrinate and manipulate

The following words are attributed to Woodrow Wilson in 1909: (14th quote down)

English: Woodrow Wilson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible. By the time a man has grown old enough to have a son in college he has specialized. The university should generalize the treatment of its undergraduates, should struggle to put them in touch with every force of life.

This is important, for several reasons. He’s making clear the progressive point of view about universities – they’re not really there to educate people with meaningful and substantive information(although, some of what will come out of a college education will inevitably be useful) what they’re really there for is to indoctrinate! To turn students into good little progressives. The progressive view is that colleges are a manufacturing plant. And I’m not being hyperbolic about this, it’s no wonder that after the Days of Rage,

Betty Freauf — A Sampling of Ron Paul’s Adversaries

MEDIA IGNORES THE DELEGATES RON PAUL HAS WON

Ron Paul won the most delegates in Maine and Nevada. Someone named Lauren in Louisiana reported that he won 111 of 150 delegates in the Louisiana State Convention. One newspaper article said it was an embarrassment for Romney but that news never left the state. How many more states have there been there like that? After primaries in Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia, the established media says Romney figures he’s close to the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination. The media has been busy reporting on the France and Greece elections and the anti-government protests in Russia over Putin’s re-election. In Russia they decide between themselves who will hold which job. It’s like a swap in chess – my bishop for your rook.

Congressman Ron Paul at an event hosted in his honor at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 2008 Romney was encouraged to drop out and support McCain. He was promised his turn the next time around. Sounds like Russia. Without the Internet, we would have never learned how many states Ron Paul has won. But instead of reporting Paul’s victories, now there are those who have decided that he is doing something sneaky or unfair or, God forbid, he’s undermining democracy (mob squad). Of course, we have a “republic” which makes what Ron Paul is doing perfectly legitimate and long overdue- challenging the establishment!

Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and modern American imperialism

One thing I find to be very ironic is how modern progressives will decry evil “American imperialism”, yet even a cursory view of the history of the 20th century progressive era will expose the obvious: Progressives own it. It is progressives who own modern American imperialism. They’re upset about what it is that their own forefathers began! On page 18 of the book “Public Opinion”, Walter Lippmann quotes Senator McCormick stating the following:

Col. Theodore Roosevelt. Crop of Image:Theodore Roosevelt, 1898.png with minor Photoshop cleanup עברית: תאודור רוזוולט (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mr. Knox, interested in the question, forgets that he asked for an inquiry, and replies. If American marines had been killed, it would be war. The mood of the debate is still conditional. Debate proceeds. Mr. McCormick of Illinois reminds the Senate that the Wilson administration is prone to the waging of small unauthorized wars. He repeats Theodore Roosevelt’s quip about “waging peace.”

This may be a bit anecdotal, but it still applies and does carry weight given that it’s coming from a sitting senator. Even the term “Wilsonianism”(as in Woodrow Wilson) is still in some quarters in use to this day. It’s a term that is specifically used to describe interventionist policies in foreign affairs. As Conservapedia points out, and Wikipedia largely says the same thing about Wilsonianism. It’s not ‘isolationist’, it’s ‘interventionist’.

Enter Theodore Roosevelt. For all that can be said about how awful that Wilson was(which is all true and perhaps even understated) and how he can be pointed to as the center point of progressivism during those days, Theodore Roosevelt is really the grandfather of progressivism. How much of what Wilson did was merely an extension of Roosevelt’s grandiose anti-constitutional schemes? In a speech titled “True Americanism and Expansion” on December 21st, 1898 Roosevelt said the following:

The Real DiLorenzo: A ‘Southern Partisan’ Interview (Thomas Dilorenzo “…Our Republic Cannot Be Restored Until GOP Destroyed”!)

What will become of the Republicans?

The way I see it is that the Republican Party is returning to its Lincolnian roots. For the whole nineteenth century, the Republican Party was the party of big government! For the last half of the nineteenth century, the Jeffersonians were all Democrats. That’s why Southerners were all Democrats until about 20 years ago.

That all changed with Woodrow Wilson, when he became a hyper-interventionist. Then FDR, of course, totally destroyed the Democratic Party as the party of limited government.

It’s ironic. Someone runs for president on a particular platform, then does the exact opposite when he gets in office. Lincoln, before the War, said, “I’m going to be hands off with the slavery issue.” Then he was the biggest interventionist ever. FDR ran, actually, on lower taxes —

A balanced budget, yeah.

And, of course, Clinton was going to be the most ethical administration in history.

Some historians call Lincoln a “master politician,” which I think he was. As I say in the book, that means he was a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator. If Bill Clinton is a master politician, that’s what he is. If Franklin Roosevelt is a masterful politician, he’s a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator. That’s what it means to be a masterful politician.

When the Partisan was being attacked during the Ashcroft nomination, the mainstream press lifted out certain quotations. One of them they lifted was where we were saying that. They left out the “if he was a masterful politician, then — ” part. They just said that we said, “Lincoln was a liar,” and that was one of the horrible things —

Well, it’s still true the way they wrote it. He was. He was a trial lawyer. His campaign wasn’t a campaign. He didn’t say a single thing, from the nomination to the general election. He was so tight-lipped that if he wrote anybody a personal letter, he would say in the letter, “Don’t tell anybody that I wrote you a letter, because they’re going to ask if I said anything about public policy.” That’s the way he was.

That’s an awful thing to have a secretive dictator, for the president of the United States, not telling the public what he’s going to do, and then forcing them to do it through military conscription.

Do you think the War was inevitable?

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States. Latviešu: Abrahams Linkolns, sešpadsmitais ASV prezidents. Српски / Srpski: Абрахам Линколн, шеснаести председник Сједињених Америчких Држава. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I think it was avoidable. It’s a controversial thing to say. People hate to think all that death was unnecessary, but it was avoidable if people stuck to Jefferson’s thinking on secession and the consent of the governed. If they would’ve let the Deep South go, they would’ve eventually reunited. That would’ve forced the North to be less aggressive with its economic plans, its grandiose Manifest Destiny to have an empire that would rival Great Britain’s. It would’ve calmed them down a great deal. It would’ve brought them to their senses, but they couldn’t tolerate that. So, they had to kill one out of every four adult white males in the South to get their way.

The New England Federalists threatened to secede, and had they done it, they would have been allowed to go in peace.

What they would’ve had to have done is compromise on the tariff, for one thing. The Republican Party, as soon as it got power, doubled the tariff rate, then it tripled it.

It stayed around 45 to 50 percent until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson introduced the income tax. That was part of the deal of the income tax. “We’ll reduce the tariff, if you vote for the income tax.”

In your book, you talk a lot about Northern racism — the idea that they didn’t want the expansion of slavery into the territories because they didn’t want blacks there. Then there’s the Northern attitude toward the Indians after the War. Do you get a lot of criticism for your book on the race question?

The War Comes To America,,, jim dean | Veterans Today

TheWar Comes to America

By Clayton R. Douglas

War Comes to America – Psycho Politics

As a well known, controversial, publisher and broadcaster I have been demonized, labeled, libeled and slandered by a wide range of opposition. From the days of Rush Limbaugh mocking us as “Black Helicopter Types” and “Militia” to today’s attacks on activists in the Tea Parties, Ron Paul, his supporters and Veterans, this is merely history repeating itself. These attacks were once limited to high profile and loud activists, writers and publishers like Bill Cooper, John Kaminski and myself, today they are going after our readers, listeners or fans. Remember being considered to be a terrorist if you had a Constitution on your dash or a Ron Paul Sticker on your bumper? But I was labeled a “Conspiracy Theorist” when I tried to warn you of what was to come based on suppressed history.

I have always told you that you should consider me the canary in the coal mine. It is no theory that many of the things that I warned about 15 years ago are occurring right now in our country. It is not like it hasn’t happened before. John Kaminski sent me this a few minutes ago.

John will be on my show tomorrow. I urge you to tune in. I want you to do more than just listen. Another war is planned and imminent! We must prepare on the home front without relying on a government that is behind and profiting from millions of deaths and misery for millions.

“Just before World War I, Woodrow Wilson was the peace candidate, but later lit the fuse that killed 25 million people. Franklin Roosevelt said he’d keep us out of war just before he was elected to a third term, and history has long ago revealed how he engineered Pearl Harbor to get us into WW II, which killed 57 million.

Just before World War I, the sentiment in America was decidedly pro-German, and more the half of all the immigrants coming to this developing land WERE German. Nobody wanted to get involved in a European war. But the media, owned by the same people who were making the weapons, convinced us, apparently, by suddenly and savagely telling hair-raising false stories about the Germans.

(“Our country is too large to have all its affairs conducted by a single government.”) America’s Supreme Judicial Dictatorship by Thomas DiLorenzo

“The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”

~ Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 178

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived when the central government became the final judge of its own powers, Americans would then live under a tyranny. The government, they believed, would inevitably proclaim that there are in fact no limits to its powers. That day came in 1865 when citizen control over the federal government ended along with the rights of nullification and secession. Not surprisingly, a warmongering, imperialistic megalomaniac like Woodrow Wilson would then celebrate this fact several decades later, as the above quotation attests.

The so-called system of checks and balances is a farce and a fraud; the reality is that all three branches of the federal government work together to conspire against the taxpayers for the benefit of the state and all of its appendages. As Judge Andrew Napalitano wrote in his book, The Constitution in Exile, the Supreme Court failed to rule a single federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995. The Court is essentially a political rubber stamp operation with all of its black-robed ceremony being nothing more than part of the circus that is employed to dupe the public into acquiescing in its dictates.

‘We The People’ by Nos Populus (video) (“…Our great nation is a Republic. We will not accept tyranny under any guise. Your policy to redistribute the fruits of our labor is Statism and will not be tolerated….Dismiss us at your political peril.”)

United States of America (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dear President Obama,

“We The People” have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country. You claim you have not heard us.

“We The People” have assembled across America resisting your efforts to subvert our constitution and undermine our liberty. You claim you have not seen us.

Since you have not acknowledged our message, let us here present it once more for if as President Wilson said, “a leader’s ear must ring with the voices of the people,” the time has come.

Our greatest treasure is freedom – the absence of restraints on our ability to think and to act. The corollary of freedom is individual responsibility. We believe in the power of the individual.

A few years ago President Bush said, “History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart.” Let us add that we will preserve it only as long as devotion to freedom is expressed in the heart of our actions.

When President Lincoln dedicated Gettysburg National Cemetery he declared, “It is for us the living to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so nobly advanced.”

That unfinished cause for which our soldiers willingly go to battle and for which so many have given their lives is a free United States of America. It has been nearly one hundred fifty years and the work President Lincoln spoke of is not finished. In fact, that work will never be finished.

Freedom is the capacity of self-determination. It is not an entity but a condition and conditions change. Freedom can expand, yet so can it contract.

You promised change when you took office, Mr. President, but subjugation is not change we wanted or will accept.

You have expanded government, violated our Constitution, confounded laws, seized private industry, destroyed jobs, perverted our economy, curtailed free speech, corrupted our currency, weakened our national security, and endangered our sovereignty.

By compromising our nation’s cultural, legal and economic institutions, you are ensuring that our children will never achieve the same quality of life as we enjoy today. Through generational theft you are robbing the unborn of opportunity.

This is not acceptable. Not in America. We did not become a strong nation through hope but rather through self-reliance.

No one better understands the relationship between individual achievement, dignity and strength than our armed forces. Through every war our soldiers have held this nation’s destiny in their hands. They have not failed us. They cherish freedom enough that they are willing to die for it.

Our duty to them and to ourselves is to treasure freedom enough to live up to it.

We accept the challenge, Mr. President. That is why we are assembling across the land to deliver our message to you as often and in every way we can. c

Our great nation is a Republic. We will not accept tyranny under any guise. Your policy to redistribute the fruits of our labor is Statism and will not be tolerated.

(“And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a cabinet member to each category of control.”) Obama’s Executive Order Authorizes Peacetime Martial Law

EXCERPT

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

That’s right. The last line of the quoted material gives the President of the United Staes the power to “control the general distribution of any material (including services) in the civilian market.” This seems to be no less than the nationalization of all food, energy, water, and healthcare pipelines and providers in the country.

And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a cabinet member to each category of control.

Presidents have issued similar orders in the name of national defense. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham

Image via Wikipedia

Lincoln famously (infamously) suspended habeas corpus and the rights to an impartial trial as protected by the Sixth Amendment.

Then, during World War I, President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated with Congress’s reluctance to grant him a full panoply of power over natural resources, invoked the powers given him under an executive order to assume absolute and unilateral authority over the same range of resources as are included in President Obama’s latest fiat.

As any student of history can testify, when government begins to interfere with the free flow of goods and commodities (especially life-giving resources such as food and water), then it may manipulate the availability of these items, as well as the prices thereof. Typically, such fluctuations result in civil disturbances and a demand for greater security from those unwilling to abide by the new “laws.” And, in exchange for greater security, those clamoring for it are often willing to give up their fundamental freedoms.

Obamacare’s unconstitutional coercion ~ Judge Napolitano

When we were colonists and fought a war against the king and Parliament so that we could secede from the British Empire and be independent of it, we also fought for the value of personal freedom. That is the idea that in matters of personal choice, the government should play no role. The king only cared about the colonists’ personal choices if he could control or tax them.

One of the taxes he imposed was to support the Church of England. The Church of England that the colonists’ tax dollars supported was, of course, in England; it was not here. So, among the hateful taxes that impelled the colonists to revolt was this tax to support the king’s church.

When the Constitution was written, religious freedom was a principal matter for discussion and debate among the framers. They addressed this in the first clause of the First Amendment. Before the Constitution even protects the freedom of speech, it protects the natural right to worship or not to worship, free from the government. Here is what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. …”

That is very direct and clear. It was intended to prevent any tax money from going to a church, and it was intended to keep the government from using its coercive powers to influence or to punish religious institutions. For 125 years, most governments in America left churches alone.

Then along came the progressive attitude that some ethnic groups are superior to others. This is a damnable and racist view foisted upon the federal government by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, in direct response to the influx of southern European immigrants at the beginning of the last century, most of whom were Catholic. Roosevelt and Wilson and their progressive followers thought these immigrants had too many children, children who would grow up to be voters and vote out their nanny-state central-planning values. So they began to encourage birth control and sterilizations and even abortions.

The Catholic Church resisted this by its teachings on birth control. The Church had made its teaching on contraception a core part of its mission for 400 years, and Pope Paul VI reaffirmed these teachings in a permanent way in 1968. That the Church embraces these teachings is well-known, and equally as well-known is the policy of the federal government to resist them.

(“The Rand Paul Detainment”) ~ The Paul Detainment and Metastasizing Executive Power: Another Progressive Triumph by William L. Anderson

One only had to wonder how long it would take before there would be open confrontation between a member of Congress and the TSA, and it finally happened with the detainment (and that is what it was) of Rand Paul in Nashville on Monday. That was bad enough, but when one takes into account the larger picture of separation of powers, it is even worse.

Image via Wikipedia

Many years ago, I asked then-Tennessee U.S. Senator Jim Sasser in a public forum why Congress did not have to obey the laws it imposes on the rest of us. Sasser, unfortunately, answered by saying that the Senate was full of the greatest people he ever had known, which was not a real answer, but neither was Sasser exactly a bright bulb of knowledge. To him, the whole thing was a power play, and he had power, and I didn’t.

Except that Sasser unknowingly had a very important principle on his side, the separation of powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. (I have to thank Lew Rockwell for pointing out this issue to me, and I admit it opened my eyes to a lot of things regarding the law and the growth of executive power.)

The founders of the United States had laid out three branches of the central government, and also had constructed legal walls between the central government and the states, all known as “separation of powers.” There were to be limits upon the powers of people in those entities, and in the case of Congress and the executive branch, one of the provisions was the prohibition upon detaining members of Congress on their way to legislative sessions. As Mac Slavo has written, this provision existed to keep political rivals, be they in legislative, state or the executive branches, from using arrests as political tools to prevent legislators from voting.

UNBELIEVABLE?! Newt Loves FDR, Models Himself After Woodrow Wilson and Admires SEIU’s Andy Stern

UNBELIEVABLE?! Newt Loves FDR, Models Himself After Woodrow Wilson and Admires SEIU’s Andy Stern

Glennbeck.com ^ | January 21, 2012 | Glen Beck

Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:52:56 PM by Steelfish

UNBELIEVABLE?! Newt Loves FDR, Models Himself After Woodrow Wilson and Admires SEIU’s Andy Stern Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM EST

t’s not as if Newt couldn’t have known his past comments were going to eventually be called into question. He’s capably navigated his way through his big government tendencies so far and miraculously still has solid support in the Tea Party. Will the latest damaging clip have any impact? Gingrich is caught praising his favorite president of the 20th century: FDR. Yup, he picked the mother of all progressives ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Watch the video montage below:

Cue sound of heads exploding across the country…NOW!

Seriously?! This is unbelievable.

“This goes back to what Newt Gingrich said on this program. You got to get things done. That’s akin to saying we all love the Constitution but there are things we got to do,” Glenn warned.

Why did the progressives have to steal our founding fathers away from us?

There are many reasons, of course, but here is a good illustration:

This would have resonated very well among Americans in 1912, because back in those days we knew full well who the founders were, it had been in the textbooks. Even a century after Washington’s passing, his star was so bright, he was such an incredible role model, that the point of this cartoon is impossible to miss – “Theodore Roosevelt, YOU are no George Washington!”

What the progressives had to do, is clear. Revise history. One of the first places that progressives established as a stronghold was academia, you may know that Woodrow Wilson was the president of Princeton for 6 years. Having complete control over the universities afforded progressives a great opportunity. Someone gets the bright idea about removing The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution from school books, give it a short time for people to forget, then they’ve given themselves a convenient way to now attack the Founders for being racists. Then they could remove from the textbooks that several of our Founders were dirt poor. Now the progressives can sneer at our Founders for being nothing but a bunch of rich white racist elitists. And finally, it’s put into motion to take the Founder’s faith out of the textbooks, now the Founders really aren’t even the Founders. Rich athiest racists, a bunch of white elitists who now only exist on a bunch of old dusty documents. Why on earth would you consider any of them a role model?

This was done so the progressives could rule over us.

Progressivism: Making journalists into associates of the state

Progressivism: Making journalists into associates of the state

PGA Weblog ^

Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:58:53 PM by ProgressingAmerica

In “How we advertised America“, George Creel wrote the following: (Page 16/17)

As a matter of fact, I was strongly opposed to the censorship bill, and delayed acceptance of office until the President had considered approvingly the written statement of my views on the subject. It was not that I denied the need of some sort of censorship, but deep in my heart was the feeling that the desired results could be obtained without paying the price that a formal law would have demanded. Aside from the physical difficulties of enforcement, the enormous cost, and the overwhelming irritation involved, I had the conviction that our hope must lie in the aroused patriotism of the newspaper men of America.

With the nation in arms, the need was not so much to keep the press from doing the hurtful things as to get it to do the helpful things. It was not servants we wanted, but associates. Better far to have the desired compulsions proceed from within than to apply them from without.

Mark Levin: Woodrow Wilson was the first Fabian Socialist President

Mark Levin: Woodrow Wilson was the first Fabian Socialist President

Video link(shortened clip) ^ | November 5th, 2011 | Mark Levin

Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:36:22 AM by ProgressingAmerica

At 5:30 of Mark Levin’s speech at the Defending the American Dream Conference(Full speech courtesy of Right Scoop, please click here and watch the whole thing), Mark Levin had some comments regarding Fabianism in the United States. Here is a short clip:

(Embed doesn’t seem to show up in preview, click link above for the clip)

What he is referring to comes out of Woodrow Wilson’s book “Constitutional Government In The United States”. There are two things, actually. One of them is from page 16, which I made a posting about some time ago.

What Is a Progressive

What Is a Progressive

Townhall.com ^ | November 19, 2011 | John C. Goodman

Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2011 6:09:46 AM by Kaslin

When is the last time you heard a liberal describe himself as a “liberal”? It’s probably been a long time. These days, those on the left are more likely to call themselves “progressives.”

Writing in The New York Times, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs said there have been two progressive eras — one in the early 20th century and the second under Franklin Roosevelt. He called on modern liberals to usher in a third era.

But what exactly is “progressivism”? To many people, the term “Progressive Era” evokes fond caricatures of Teddy Roosevelt and such reforms as safe food, the elimination of child labor and the eight-hour work day. Yet real progressivism was far more sinister. Here is how Jonah Goldbergdescribes the World War I presidency of Woodrow Wilson:

States’ Rights vs. Monetary Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

States’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government ended in 1865, of course. As Forrest McDonald noted in States’ Rights and the Union (p. 224), after Lincoln’s war the Supreme Court “became the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies. No longer could a Jefferson arise to insist that the other branches of the federal government had coequal authority to determine constitutionality. No more could a Calhoun arise to defend a doctrine of interposition or nullification.”

America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise

At a campaign stop in Scranton, Pa, Presidential Candidate Woodrow Wilson had the following to say:

Of course this was intended to be a government of free citizens and of equal opportunity, but how are we going to make it such–that is the question. Because I realize that while we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible, which exercises its power as little as possible. And that was said in a day when the opportunities of America were so obvious to every man, when every individual was so free to use his powers without let or hindrance, that all that was necessary was that the government should withhold its hand and see to it that every man got an opportunity to act as he would. But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise. It is true that we have come upon an age of great cooperative industry. It is true that we must act absolutely upon that principle.

Let me illustrate what I mean. You know that it used to be true in our cities that every family occupied a separate house of its own, that every family had its own little premises, that every family was separated in its life from every other family. But you know that that is no longer the case, and that it cannot be the case in our great cities. Families live in layers. They live in tenements, they live in flats, they live on floors, they are piled layer upon layer in the great tenement houses of our crowded districts. And not only are they piled layer upon layer, but they are associated room by room so that there is in each room sometimes in our congested districts a separate family.

Now, what has happened in foreign countries, in some of which they have made much more progress than we in handling these things, is this: In the city of Glasgow, for example, which is one of the model cities of the world, they have made up their minds that the entries, that hallways, of great tenements are public streets. Therefore the policeman goes up the stairway and patrols the corridors. The lightning department of the city sees to it that the corridors are abundantly lighted, and the staircases. And the city does not deceive itself into supposing that the great building is a unit from which the police are to keep out and the city authority to be excluded, but it says: “These are the high-ways of human movement, and wherever light is needed, wherever order is needed, there we will carry the authority of the city.”

And I have likened that to our modern industrial enterprise. You know that a great many corporations, like the Steel Corporation, for example, are very like a great tenement house. It isn’t the premises of a single commercial family. It is just as much a public business as a great tenement house is a public highway. When you offer the securities of a great corporation to anybody who wishes to purchase them, you must open that corporation to the inspection of everybody who wants to purchase. There must, to follow out the figure of the tenement house, be lights along the corridor; there must be police patrolling the openings; there must be inspection wherever it is known that men may be deceived with regard to the contents of the premises. If we believe that fraud lies in wait for us, we must have the means of determining whether fraud lies there or not.

So you see, they’re not going to outright nationalize industry. No no, they’re only going to nationalize a small corridor, if they even go that far. They’ll just make progress. They’ll make haste, slowly. There needs to be inspections, which means they’ll regulate everything to death. It’s regulation, not socialism. It’s social regulation. Ronald Reagan said: (20 minutes in)

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

That perversion took place in the early 20th century. Under Wilson and two Roosevelts, among many, many other people at the time. Governors, congress, advisors, judges, and more. And we’ve been stuck with it ever since.

via America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.

Is the New World Order Unraveling?

With Greece on the precipice of default, and Portugal and Italy approaching the ledge, the European monetary union appears in peril.

Should it collapse, the European Union itself could be in danger, for economic nationalism is rising in Europe. Which raises a larger question.

Is the New World Order, the great 20th century project of Western transnational elites, unraveling?

The NWO dates back as far as Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, which a Republican Senate refused to enter. FDR, seeking to succeed where his mentor had failed, oversaw the creation of a United Nations, an International Monetary Fund and a World Bank.

In 1951 came the European Coal and Steel Community, love child of Jean Monnet, which evolved into the European Economic Community, the European Community and the European Union. A European Central Bank and a new currency, the euro, followed.

The hidden ultimate goal of economic union was political union — a United States of Europe as model and core of the 21st century world government.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the EU expanded to the east. And the New World Order, formally proclaimed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, was out in the open and seemingly the wave of the future.

Progress was swift.

A North American Free Trade Agreement, bringing the United States, Mexico and Canada into a common market that George W. Bush predicted would encompass the hemisphere from Patagonia to Prudhoe Bay, was signed in 1993.

A World Trade Organization was born in 1994. U.S. sovereignty was surrendered to a global body where America had the same single vote as Azerbaijan.

The Kyoto Protocol, brought home by Vice President Al Gore, set up a regime to control the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.

An International Criminal Court, a permanent Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, was created.

A doctrine of limited sovereignty had been asserted. Elites claimed a higher law than national sovereignty, “a responsibility to protect,” enabled them to intervene in countries where human rights violations were egregious.

Serbia, bombed by Bill Clinton for 78 days for fighting to hold its ancient province of Kosovo, was the first victim.

Suddenly, however, the progression has stalled. Indeed, the New World Order seems to be unraveling.

Emerging powers like China, India and Brazil are demanding they be exempt from restrictions that developed countries seek to impose. The follow-up summits to Kyoto — Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010 — ended in failure. The Doha round of world trade negotiations ended in failure.

China refuses to let her currency float lest she lose the trade surpluses that have enabled her to amass $3 trillion in cash reserves.

Protectionism is rising. Americans chaff at a new world economic order that has led to deindustrialization of their country. Congress is talking of defunding the U.N. as anti-Western and anti-Israel.

Why is the New World Order suddenly going in reverse?

A primary reason is the resurgence of nationalism. Nations are putting national interests ahead of any perceived global interests.

A second reason is the decline of a West whose project this was. We no longer dictate to the world, and the world no longer marches to our tune. The deficits and indebtedness of Western nations preclude more of the big wealth transfers in foreign aid that once bought us influence.

A third reason is demography. Not one European nation has a birth rate sufficient to replace its population. Europe’s nations are aging, shrinking, dying. A depopulating Germany cannot carry forever the deficit-debtor nations of Club Med. The oldest nation, Japan, is on schedule to lose 25 million people by 2050, as is neighbor Russia.

Militarily, America remains the most powerful nation. But Iraq and Afghanistan have bled the country and left us without the certain attainment of our goals. Old allies like Turkey go their separate ways.

Ethno-nationalism also explains a disintegrating world order. Aspiring nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Padania, Flanders, Ingushetia, Dagestan, East Turkestan, Kurdistan and Baluchistan seek a place in the sun, free of the cloying embrace of the mother country.

The desire of peoples for nations all their own, where their own language, faith and culture predominate and their own kind rule to the exclusion of all others, is everywhere winning out over multiculturalism and transnationalism.

Through history there have been attempts to unite the world.

The Roman Empire. Catholicism. Islam. The West that ruled much of mankind from Columbus to the mid-20th century. Communism, which conquered half of Europe and Asia but arose and fell in a single century.

With the death of communism and the decline of the West — in relative population and power — Islam has become the largest religion, China the world’s emerging superpower, and Asia the continent of the future.

Could this still be the Second American Century?

Not the way we are going.

via Is the New World Order Unraveling?.

Lying despots make a mockery of UN

…..This marks the opening of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly when free people of open democratic societies are deluged with advice or insults by dictators and despots from around the world.

This year is no different than previous years ever since the failed League of Nations was given a new lease under the banner of the United Nations.

Those individuals who can recall history will remember the League was the grand scheme of progressive politicians, such as Woodrow Wilson of the U.S., who ardently believed fine speeches, lofty ideals and covenants devised by an assembly of representatives from sovereign nations could go a long way to outlaw war and herald a new age of peace.

There was urgency then, for the First World War of 1914-18 had bled the nations of Europe of its young and its able, and few doubted the genuine commitment of Wilson and his peers to never allow another such war to break out.

But the hyenas and jackals of Europe gnawed at the entrails of the League, made a mockery of its ideals, preyed upon the weak, uncorked the toxin of racial bigotry, and unleashed another war in Europe and beyond — a war far more cataclysmic than the one that had barely ended 20 years earlier.

The problem then, as it is now, was ideals are insufficient to contend with lies — lies spouted by dictators and despots from the pulpit of the assembled nations whether in Geneva or in New York.

These lies infect the healthy bodies of open democratic societies and what inevitably follows is leaders of the free world, fearful of conflicts instead of repudiating the lies, engage in the politics of appeasement.

Right from the outset of the UN’s founding, open societies were confronted with a barrage of lies from leaders of totalitarian powers — the former Soviet Union, its satellite states of Eastern Europe and Communist China…..

MORE…..

via Lying despots make a mockery of UN.

Be Patriotic: Don’t Vote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL))

Murray Rothbard once wrote that even the most brutal dictator ultimately bases his power on the opinions that are held by a majority of the population that is under his rule. After all, even dictators with large armies tend to be vastly outnumbered by the populations they rule over, and revolution is always on the dictator's mind. That's probably how he gained power himself in the first place — the previous dictator was, well, too dictatorial and … Read More

via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

Be Patriotic: Don’t Vote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Murray Rothbard once wrote that even the most brutal dictator ultimately bases his power on the opinions that are held by a majority of the population that is under his rule. After all, even dictators with large armies tend to be vastly outnumbered by the populations they rule over, and revolution is always on the dictator’s mind. That’s probably how he gained power himself in the first place — the previous dictator was, well, too dictatorial and created the conditions for his own overthrow.

Democratic regimes also base their legitimacy on their ability to claim that their rule is “the will of the people.” They believe in democracy with all their will, they tell us, so much so that generations of American politicians have believed that it was legitimate to wage war on other nations and to kill thousands of their citizens to impose “democracy” on them. Lincoln’s armies killed some 300,000 fellow citizens and maimed for life an even greater number, supposedly so that “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” i.e., democracy, shall not perish from the earth.

This of course was pure B.S.: Had the South seceded peacefully, democracy would have still existed in the U.S., the Confederate States of America, Canada, England, France, etc., etc. Nevertheless, that was an official purpose of the war, and of numerous other American wars. Woodrow Wilson brought America into World War I to supposedly “make the world safe for democracy.” We are now supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq at bayonet point with numerous other Middle East countries in our sights.

But America was not founded as a democracy. It was a constitutional republic. The whole purpose of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, was to control “the violence of faction,” by which he meant democracy. That’s why, until the Lincolnian “Civil War Amendments” were added to it, every part of the Constitution was a prohibition of some kind of governmental power or activity. Democracy was made into a “civil religion” by Lincoln and subsequent generations of Lincolnites who have successfully overthrown the constitutional republic of the founding fathers……………….

 

MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

via Be Patriotic: Don’t Vote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.