Woodrow Wilson In His Own Words

From the “Leaders of Men” essay:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates. The power will fail if it be misapplied; it will be misapplied if it be not suitable both in kind and method to the nature of the materials upon which it is spent; but that nature is, after all, only its means. It is the power which dictates, dominates: the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

From “The Author and Signers of the Declaration” essay:

Neither can we depend upon individuals: they are now too minute and weak. The moralizer and disciplinarian of corporations can in the nature of the case be none other than the government itself, and, because corporations spread from state to state, can be none other than the government of the United States.

We are indeed in love with law,— more in love with it than were the makers of the government,— but hardly in love with it as a government of mere regulation. For us it is an instrument of reconstruction and control. The individual has eluded us, we seem to say, has merged and hidden himself in corporations and associations, through the intricacies of whose structure we have not time to thread our way in search of him; we will therefore meet the circumstances as we find them, treat him not as an integer but as a fraction, and deal with the association, not with the individual. We will prohibit corporations to do this or to do that, to be this or to be that, and punish them either with fine or with dissolution if they disobey.

From The Campaign Address in Scranton, Pennsylvania:

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.

Theodore Roosevelt

In [Theodore Roosevelt’s] teen years, his violent side became apparent. After Roosevelt had a lovers’ quarrel with future second wife, Edith Carrow, he “nearly rode his horse to death, and when a neighbor’s dog barked at him, he took out a pistol and shot at it.” When Roosevelt was engaged to the woman who became his first wife, Alice Lee, he bought dueling pistols, which he planned to use if there were any rivals for her affection.

Later on in his life, he would characterize killing other men as the most dangerous game of all.

It was Roosevelt’s personal belief that the gov’t was not only better at understanding the people’s future needs but also better at striking a balance between the people’s present and future needs. Never mind that the political environment easily manipulates politicians, while corporations respond to market conditions.

Acting upon his goal, Roosevelt set aside 150 national forests, 4 national game preserves, 51 federal bird reserves, 18 national monuments, and 5 national parks, which amounted to a whopping 230 million acres of land.

[Roosevelt] publicly complained about “hyphenated-Americans” such as Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans. He even went so far as to applaud the brutal murders of a group of Italian-Americans in a prison in New Orleans in 1892, many of whom were in custody despite the fact that they had been exonerated of the crimes of which they had been charged. Roosevelt actually called these mass lynchings  a “rather good thing” and bragged that had made this statement in front of a group of “various dago diplomats.”

As open minded as his Progressive movement seemed at the time, Theodore Roosevelt still excluded blacks from attending his convention. He saw them as a corrupt element sent by the general Republican party to make his convention and the people of his party look bad. Roosevelt was a long believer that Anglo-Saxon whites were the dominate race, and he did not want to change by associating “lesser races” with his Progressives.

Roosevelt also hated immigrants, of which he said.

Source: Theodore and Woodrow. How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. (2012) by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

Roosevelt started his own political party called The Progressive Party. It’s platform called for among others:

• Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
• A Constitutional amendment to allow a federal income tax.
• An inheritance tax.
• An eight hour workday.
• Direct election of senators.
• Farm subsidies.
• Woman’s suffrage

The “social insurance” platform was the precursor to social security. Yea, Roosevelt wanted to directly elect senators like Wilson did. The only good thing on his platform was woman’s suffrage. For the low-information people out there, that means the right for women to vote. 

25 Facts About The Fall Of Detroit

From theeconomiccollapseblog.com (July 20):

One of the greatest cities in the history of the world is just a shell of its former self.  The following are 25 facts about the fall of Detroit that will leave you shaking your head...

1) At this point, the city of Detroit owes money to more than 100,000 creditors.

2) Detroit is facing $20 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities.  That breaks down to more than $25,000 per resident.

3) Back in 1960, the city of Detroit actually had the highest per-capita income in the entire nation.

4) In 1950, there were about 296,000 manufacturing jobs in Detroit.  Today, there are less than 27,000.

5) Between December 2000 and December 2010, 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in the state of Michigan were lost.

6) There are lots of houses available for sale in Detroit right now for $500 or less.

7) At this point, there are approximately 78,000 abandoned homes in the city.

8) About one-third of Detroit's 140 square miles is either vacant or derelict.

9) An astounding 47 percent of the residents of the city of Detroit are functionally illiterate.

10) Less than half of the residents of Detroit over the age of 16 are working at this point.

[read more]

Wasting away in Progressiveville as the singer/songwriter Jimmy Buffet might sing.

In March 2005, Lawrence W. Reed wrote an essay called “Detroit's Flirtation with Economic Suicide”. In this essay he writes:

The political establishment in Detroit is statist to the core. No failure of government is too big to prevent that establishment from throwing more public money at it.

By a vote of 7–2 last September, the Council endorsed a paper titled “A Powernomics Economic Development Plan for Detroit’s Under-served Majority Population.” It spent a reported $112,000 for the document, written by a former low-level apparatchik in the Carter administration. It called for the creation of an “African Town” within the city, to be implemented by an overtly racist policy of dispensing city-financed loans and grants exclusively to black applicants.

So, it seems that Detroit is done flirting. It is married to economic suicide. Hopefully, it can get a divorce.

Progressivism—coming to a town near you. Or maybe your town. Who knows. God I hope not.

The Founding Fathers on God and Jesus

Here’s what Benjamin Franklin said about Jesus:

Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar People zealous of Good-Works. And there is scarcely a Chapter in the whole Gospels or Epistles from which this Doctrine can’t be prov’d.

Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance.

John Adams on Jesus and God:

Our Saviour taught the Immorality of Revenge, and the moral Duty of forgiving Injuries, and even the Duty of loving Enemies. Nothing can shew the amiable, the moral, and divine Excellency of these Christian Doctrines in a stronger Point of Light, than the Characters and Conduct of Marius and Sylla, Caesar, Pompey, Anthony and Augustus, among innumerable others.

Is it not then the highest frenzy and distraction to neglect these expostulations of Providence, and continue a rebellion against the Potentate who alone has wisdom enough to perceive, and power enough to procure for us the only certain means of happiness, and goodness enough to prompt him to both?

My adoration of the author of the universe is too profound and too sincere. The love of God and his creation — delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence — though but an atom, a molecule organique in the universe — are my religion.

And finally George Washington on Jesus and God:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.

I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.

These are just a sampling of quotes from the Founding Fathers about God and Jesus. In his book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era (2012) by Bill Fortenberry does a good job of dispelling the argument that the Founders were not Christian that historical revisionists try to make. There are many more quotes by other Founders like above in the book.

Woodrow Wilson

For Wilson and other Progressives at this time, the idea behind compulsory education was not to provide children with a well-rounded education but to make them wards of the state.

Clearly, Wilson did not want compulsory education to give all children an equal opportunity. He genuinely believed that children could be divided into elite and non-elite classes, and that their roles in society could be predetermined based on their class.

Shortly after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Revenue Act of 1913. It imposed a system of income tax that was the direct precursor to what we have in place today—a progressive tax system.

The passing of the 17th Amendment [under Wilson’s administration] was an important aspect of the goal of concentration of power, because it destroyed the balance of powers between the states, the people, and the federal gov’t that the Constitution had originally set out; and it prevented the states as states from blocking federal encroachments of their sovereignty.

While he was governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed legislation creating the Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives. Under this law New Jersey had the power to determine when “procreation is inadvisable” for the “defectives” and others who were referred under the legislation.

Woodrow Wilson believed that the days of open competition were gone and that planned economies were the future.

Source: Theodore and Woodrow. How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. (2012) by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

In his book, History of the American People, Wilson depicted white European immigrants with empathy while African American immigrants and their children were regarded as unsuitable for citizenship and unable to assimilate positively into American society.

Wilson believed that slavery was wrong on economic labor grounds, rather than for moral reasons.

Wilson's segregationist stance as president should perhaps not have come as a surprise; while president of Princeton University, Wilson had discouraged blacks from even applying for admission, preferring to keep the peace among white students than have black students admitted.

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding lecture notes part 2

Progressive writer Frank Goodnow wrote in “The American Conception of Liberty” that man as viewed in Europe as a member of society as secondarily as an individual. The rights an individual possesses comes from the society in which he belongs and not from his Creator. His rights are to be determined by the legislative authority in view of needs of that society. Social expediency is what determines his rights.

Natural rights theory, according to the progressives, was appropriate at that time. Perfectly understandable. The Founders were oppressed by a tyrannical king. Today, gov’t has to be understood by its particular historical context. The problem was the doctrine of natural rights was meant for everybody at all times. That it transcended time and space.

Abe Lincoln praised Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1859. The last paragraph Lincoln wrote:

“All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times [my emphasis], and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”

John Dewey said in his “Liberalism and Social Action” (LSS) essay that the italicized part of the letter was the problem. He agreed with Goodnow that the Declaration did not transcend space and time. The doctrine of natural rights is a relic from the past.

Dewey writes the following in LSS:

“The earlier liberals lacked historic sense and interest. For a while this lack had an immediate pragmatic value. It gave liberals a powerful weapon in their fight with reactionaries. For it enabled them to undercut the appeal to origin, precedent and past history by which the opponents of social change gave sacrosanct quality to existing inequities and abuses. But disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant only to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves....”

Dewey goes on to explain in the essay that the idea of liberty is not frozen in time. Liberty has a history of evolving meaning. History of liberalism is a progressive history. It’s a narrative of the move to a more primitive to a more mature form of liberty. Progressivism is a vast improvement over early or classical liberalism according to Dewey.

This coupling of historical contingency with the doctrine of progress is shared by most progressives to one degree or another. It shows how German historicism was imported from Europe into America in the 19th century. Almost all progressives at that time were either educated in German political philosophy by studying in Germany or had teachers who were educated in Germany who taught the philosophy. By 1900 the faculty of most universities were populated by those educated in the German model because it was prestigious to get a European Ph. D. at the time. John Hopkins University for example was one university was founded to bring the German model to America. Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey went to John Hopkins.

The American progressives took from the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his disciples this critic of social compact theory and the “organic” notion of the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson wrote of gov’t as a living thing. The notion of the Constitution as a living Constitution is vastly superior, according to the progressives, to the notion of the Constitution as a fixed-mechanistic form of gov’t. In his essay, “What is Progress?” Woodrow Wilson talks about the Founders view of the Constitution:

“….the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of The Federalist to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the "checks and balances" of the Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and particularly of the solar system,---how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a sort of imitation of the solar system.”

Then Wilson explains his organic notion of the Constitution:

“The makers of our Federal Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way,---the best way of their age,---those fathers of the nation. Jefferson wrote of "the laws of Nature,"---and then by way of afterthought,---"and of Nature's God." And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery,---to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of  ‘checks and balances.’

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

So according to Wilson, Gov’t has to evolve. It has to adapt to all the changing circumstances that are out there. Liberty is no longer threatened in the way like it was in the Founding era. Take a look at all the new economic and social ills out there and it seems to call out for a new gov’t remedy. For an adaptive gov’t. So, the progressives took this idea of progress and translated it into a call for an sharp increase in the scope of gov’t power.

Theodore Roosevelt saw almost no limits in the power of the national gov’t especially when he was in charge of the national gov’t. In the “New Nationalism” speech he calls for the State to take an active role in effecting economic justice, redistributing property,  and superintending the use of private property. He said new circumstances have necessitated a new view of gov’t.

We have to reexamine this idea of property rights. Those rights should no longer serve as principle boundary that the State is prohibited from crossing. In Woodrow Wilson’s “Socialism and Democracy” essay he defines socialism:

“'State socialism' is willing to act through state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will…”

Then he goes on to say that democracy and socialism are essentially the same principle:

“For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme [my emphasis] over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

According the progressives, we ought to have faith in the majority. This rights-based Republicanism of the Founders is not democratic and isn’t going to work for our circumstances today. It limits the people to implement their collective will.

Progress for the progressives is about moving on from the limited principles of the Founding. It’s about opening up the power of the gov’t. It’s about faith in the people to use gov’t in a way that won’t be threat to the liberty of their fellow citizens.

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding lecture notes part 1

The intellectual roots of the New Deal took hold in the Progressive Era.  FDR named Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as laying the foundations for progressivism.

Progressivism is the argument to progress or to move beyond the political principles of the American founding. Things are different. Times have changed. We need to think more historically, we need to think in terms of catching up with new circumstances. We need to get beyond the notion of gov’t that we had in the county thus far.

The reason for rapid change the progressives give is because of historical circumstances. The founders could not envision industrialization, immigration issues, economic problems in the future therefore we need a big gov’t to handle those issues.

Progressives believe the ends of gov’t, the scope of gov’t have to be redefined in each new historical era. Progressives believe in historical contingency, ie just gov’t depends on what time and place the nation is in. They believe in the historical power of evolution that gov’t evolves to become less and less a danger to the public and becomes more capable of solving current issues more effectively. History has helped people overcome the factionist of human nature.

The Progressive Era is the first period in American history where the progressive writers openly criticized the Constitution. Criticizing the Constitution was the dominant theme of progressive writers at that time. In their writing they said the Constitution was old and obsolete. It was written for another time. The progressive writers at that time were honest and direct.

The progressives understood the Constitution very well. That it was meant to limit gov’t powers. Progressives understood the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda like social justice.

The progressives interpret the Declaration of Independence as a mean to secure man’s natural rights. In their writing they attacked natural rights theory, the philosophy of social compact, the framing of the Declaration, the idea that the fundamental goal of gov’t is to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

Woodrow Wilson said “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence do not repeat the preface.” What’s in the preface? Securing the natural rights of man as the purpose of American gov’t. So, if you ignore the preface of the Declaration you basically are treating the document just as an article of historical grievances against a king. Since King George III is dead the Declaration is irrelevant today under Wilson’s way of thinking. Gov’t is tied to the specifically things going on right now (historical contingency). Conditions change gov’t changes.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 lecture series, “The Progressive Rejection of the Founding” (2012) by Associate Professor Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto.

This attitude that the Constitution is an obstruction to the progressive agenda or vision continues into the present day. For example, President Obama said during an interview that “our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Sometimes? Really?

If you want to put the progressive reaction to the Constitution in psychological terms, the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion goes like this:

           Stimulus –> Interpretation of stimulus –> Physiological reaction/emotion

The physiological reaction and emotion happens simultaneously according the the theory. So,  here’s how the Left’s reaction:

          The Constitution –> An obstacle –> Increase pulse, face reddens, muscles tighten/Irritation or Frustration or Anger

By the way, the lecture series is free to anyone. You just have to register online to take the courses.

Excerpts from “Are We Rome?”

The paramount lesson of the Roman experience is actually not peculiar to Rome. It may be, in fact, the most universal lesson of all history: No people who have lost their character have kept their liberties.

Roman society at the time of the Republic’s founding was basically agricultural, made up of small farmers and shepherds. By the second century B.C., large-scale businesses made their appearance. Italy became urbanized. Immigration accelerated as people from many lands were attracted by the vibrant growth and opportunities the bustling Roman economy offered. The growing prosperity was made possible by a general climate of free enterprise, limited government, and respect for private property. Merchants and businessmen were admired and emulated.

No one should claim that Romans fostered a libertarian society. They took liberty to new heights in many ways by limiting the power of the State, but shortcomings were plentiful. This much is clear: The liberties they achieved were made possible and sustained for centuries by traits of character on which liberty always depends: courage, hard work, personal independence,  and self-reliance.

Rome’s remarkable achievements in sanitation, education, banking, architecture, and commerce are legendary. The city even had a stock market. With low taxes and tariffs, free trade and considerable private property, Rome became the center of the A.D.; when it was gone, the world was plunged into darkness and despair, slavery and poverty.

Why did Rome decline and fall? Rome collapsed because of a fundamental change in ideas on the part of the Roman people—ideas which relate primarily to personal responsibility and the source of personal income. In the early days of greatness, Romans regarded themselves as their chief source of income. By that I mean each individual looked to himself—what he could acquire voluntarily in the marketplace—as the source of his livelihood. Rome’s decline began when the people discovered another source of income: the political process—the State. In short, it was a character issue.

When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and self-reliance, Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people’s pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, they turned down a fateful, destructive path.

In the waning years of the Roman republic, a rogue named Clodius ran for office of tribune. He bribed the electorate with promises of  free grain at taxpayer expense and won. Thereafter, Romans in growing numbers embraced the notion that voting for a living could be more lucrative than working for one.  

Candidate for Roman office spend huge sums to win public favor, then plundered the population afterwards to make good on their promises to the rent-seekers who elected them. As the republic gave way to dictatorship, a succession of emperors built their power on the huge handouts they controlled. Nearly a third of the city of Rome itself received public relief payments by the time of the birth of Christ.

The central government also assumed the responsibility of providing the people with entertainment. Elaborate circuses and gladiator duels were staged to keep the people happy. One modern historian estimates that Rome poured the equivalent of $100 million per year into the games.

There were plenty of taxes to evade. Emperor Nero is said by Roman historian Gaius Suetonius in De Vitae Caesarum to have once rubbed his hands together and declared, “Let us tax and tax again! Let us see to it that no one owns anything!” Taxation lower classes. “What the soldiers or the barbarians spared, the emperors took in taxes,” according to historian W. G. Hardy.

Source:  “Are We Rome?” (July 2013) by Lawrence W. Reed.

I wonder if Clodius and Emperor Nero would have been the first progressives? Nero could have been one easily. Yea, America is getting close to being Rome. When the powers-that-be start to lose their character they become more corrupt.

The Sharon Statement

Adopted by the Young Americans for Freedom Conference at Sharon, Conn., September 11, 1960:

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"

Source: “The Sharon Statement” from the Young American’s Foundation website.

Excellent statement that is still true today. I would make one minor change to it though. The third statement from the bottom could read:

THAT the forces of international Marxism and its derivatives (Socialism, Progressivism, etc.) and Militant Jihadism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That would make the statement more up to date. Otherwise an excellent statement.

The Twisted Tree of Progressivism

From FEE.org (Nov. 30, 2011):

Sorting out the Progressive movement and its constituent ideologies can be difficult in that the very term “progressive” is burdened with contested meanings. Rather than work along lines agreeable to presently out-of-office politicians hoping to regain power by denouncing long-dead Progressives, we begin with some deep background.

One portent of Progressivism is found in the Liberal Republican movement of the 1870s. Prone to Paris Commune panics, distressed by strikes and labor trouble, such reformers as Charles Francis Adams (descended from John Adams), Francis Amasa Walker (Boston laissez-faire economist and Indian manager), and E. L. Godkin (Anglo-Irish editor of The Nation) concluded that efficient, inexpensive bureaucracy was just the ticket. It could manage questions too important to be left to democratic processes, especially those touching on the lately acquired government-bestowed advantages of big business. (“Efficiency” had a great future before it.) This movement was urban, basically eastern, and closely connected with economic elites (Nancy Cohen, Reconstruction of American Liberalism).

Another tributary into Progressivism—populism—began in opposition to all the above. Populists stated the case for tariff- and debt-ridden farmers in the South and the West. Their key innovation, or deviation from the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition, was the belief that “the powers of government . . . should be expanded,” as their 1892 platform put it. How far this idea actually reached depended on the particular populist, but this new approach brought some of them closer, in method anyway, to the later Progressive movement. [read more]

Evidently, Charles Francis Adams never learned anything from his ancestor. Maybe, he never read any of his papers.

Basically here are the tributaries the writer is talking about:

• Liberal Republican movement (RINO’s anyone?)
• Populism
• University-based intellectual movement
• Post-millennial Protestant reform (yea, Progressivism can infect any social group).

The IRS and its 46 new powers to enforce ObamaCare

From The Galen Institute (June 5):

The power granted to the IRS to enforce ObamaCare’s mandates, taxes, penalties, reporting, and other requirements is unprecedented. Based upon Government Accountability Office data, we count 46 new responsibilities assigned to the IRS under the health law.1

IRS officials have acknowledged the huge problems these major new responsibilities will create for the agency.  On March 5, 2013, an official from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, J. Russell George, testified before the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. George was asked about the tax implications of ObamaCare.

“It is unprecedented in recent history, the amount of responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most people don’t think of as an IRS function,” George said. Americans, he added, will have more questions about their taxes because of health care penalties or credits, flooding already busy call-in and walk-in tax help centers. “This is going to lead to problems, sir,” he testified. [read more]

Examples of the new powers:

• Charitable Hospital Tax: Imposes additional reporting requirements for charitable hospitals to qualify as tax-exempt under IRC 501(c)(3) and requires hospitals to conduct a community health needs assessment at least once every 3 years and to adopt a financial assistance policy and policy relating to emergency medical care.
• Tax on Innovator Drug Companies: Imposes a fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike: Limits eligibility for deductions under section 833 (treatment of Blue Cross and Blue Shield) unless the organizations meet a medical loss ratio standard of at least 85 percent for the taxable year.
• Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax: Imposes an additional Hospital Insurance (Medicare) Tax of 0.9 percent on wages over $200,000 for individuals and over $250,000 for couples filing jointly.
• Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: Imposes a tax of 2.3 percent on the sale price of any taxable medical device on the manufacturer, producer, or importer.
• Individual Mandate Tax: Requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents and their dependents to maintain minimum essential insurance coverage unless exempted starting in 2014 and imposes a fine on those failing to maintain such coverage.
• State Exchange Information Reporting: Requires state exchanges to send to Treasury a list of the individuals exempt from having minimum essential coverage, those eligible for the premium assistance tax credit, and those who notified the exchange of change in employer or who ceased coverage of a qualified health plan.
• Taxpayer Information Disclosure: Authorizes IRS to disclose certain taxpayer information to HHS for purposes of determining eligibility for premium tax credit, cost-sharing subsidy, or state programs including Medicaid, including (1) taxpayer identity; (2) the filing status of such taxpayer; (3) the modified adjusted gross income of taxpayer, spouse, or dependents; and (4) tax year of information.
• Health Plan Penalty: Imposes a penalty on health plans identified in an annual Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) penalty fee report, which is to be collected by the Financial Management Service after notice by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury).

Yea, it sounds like one big bureaucratic mess.

EPA Encourages Utility Controlled Refrigerators

From CNSNEWS.com (July 3):

(CNSNews.com) - At times of peak demand for electricity, do you want your refrigerator to run at the discretion of the power company?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has revised its Energy Star energy-efficiency requirements for residential refrigerators, and it is encouraging the inclusion of “connected” features that respond to utility signals to curb their energy consumption.

The EPA announced the new requirements on June 27. Included is the optional “smart-grid” connection for customers to electronically connect their refrigerator or freezer with a utility provider. [read more]

Why stop at refrigerators and freezers? Why not have every appliance plugged into the “smart-grid?” Isn’t that what the Left wants? Complete control of your life. That’s what Obamacare is really about. But I digress….

You may say that it’s the power companies that are controlling the electricity going to the refrigerators or freezers. (Why aren’t driers and washers part of this “smart-grid” connection? They use a quite of bit electricity too. Hmm. Maybe, the EPA will do that later.) True, but if the power companies are nationalized (you know like the healthcare industry is going to be. Don’t laugh. It could happen.) then it is the gov’t ultimately doing the controlling. This is a dictator’s ultimate dream—one of them anyway.

Why is the EPA encouraging companies to make “smart-grid” enabled refrigerators and freezers you ask? Can you say Global Warming, er, sorry Climate Change (I keep forgetting)? Right now the consumers have a choice to have their appliances connected to the grid. But it might not be a choice in the future if Climate Change is such a problem (as Obama thinks it is). An American citizen might be required to have their appliances plugged into the “smart-grid” to save the planet.  We all have to do our part after all.

Happy Birthday America!

Here an excerpt from an article that Matthew Spalding, Ph. D. wrote about the Declaration of Independence:

As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning--then as well as now--is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."

Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee--including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston--the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."

The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends. [read more]

Here’s some information about the men who signed the Declaration:

Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers, two were cousins, and one was an orphan. The average age of a signer was 45. The oldest delegate was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, who was 70 when he signed the Declaration. The youngest was Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina, who was 26.

Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, and four were doctors. Forty-two signers had served in their colonial legislatures. Twenty-two were lawyers--although William Hooper of North Carolina was "disbarred" when he spoke out against the Crown--and nine were judges. Stephen Hopkins had been Governor of Rhode Island.

Although two others had been clergy previously, John Witherspoon of New Jersey was the only active clergyman to attend--he wore his pontificals to the sessions. Almost all were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.

What happened to some of the signers after they pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor?

Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis's New York home was destroyed and his wife was taken prisoner. John Hart's farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey and he died while fleeing capture. Carter Braxton and Thomas Nelson (both of Virginia) lent large sums of their personal fortunes to support the war effort, but were never repaid.

Finally, here are some quotes about the Declaration:

I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

-----------------------------------------------

There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!

John Hancock (attributed), upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

-------------------------------------------------

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

--------------------------------------------------------

The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821

------------------------------------------------------------

Independence Forever.

John Adams, toast for the 50th Anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826

---------------------------------------------------------------

I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" July 5, 1852

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here is this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Ronald Reagan, address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981

If you wondering who did the painting above it was done by Armand-Dumaresq circa 1873.

Ancient Egyptian Statue Apparently Rotating on Its Own

From independent.co.uk (June 23):

Bosses at Manchester Museum have been left puzzled by the mystery of an ancient Egyptian statuette which - a video has revealed - seems to turn itself around 180 degrees in its display case.

The 10-inch tall statue of Neb-Sanu, which dates back to 1800 BC, was found in a mummy’s tomb and has been at the Museum for eighty years.

And now a time-lapse video clearly shows it turning on its axis during the day, apparently of its own volition. During the night, however, it remains still.

Campbell Price, an Egyptologist at the museum, suggests the museum may have been struck by ancient curse. [read more]

Spooky. I don’t know about a curse causing this rotation but something is causing the statue to move. Maybe, get an infrared camera or even an ultraviolet camera (I’ve been watching too many Ghost Hunter episodes. Ha!) to maybe find out what’s causing the mysterious movement. Even use a portable EMF meter to pick up any electromagnetic fields on the statue. This would be a interesting case for the Ghost Hunters International (GHI) crew.

I’m not so sure about the physics professor’s “differential friction” explanation. If vibrations caused the Neb-Sanu statue to move wouldn’t the same vibrations cause the statue next to it to move too? One way to test that theory is to put a piece of cardboard or paper between the glass and the bottom of the statue and see if it still moves. Or better yet, put a device that measures vibrations next to the statue. GHI could do these experiments. Also, usually vibrations wouldn’t cause the statue to move in a nearly perfect circle and only in the daytime.

I am thinking either a mischievous demon is causing this motion or a really strong spirit (of the mummy?) that has to rest during the night. Hey, rotating statues takes a lot of energy for a spirit. You just never know.

Now, if the statue levitates (that would be great to get on video!) that definitely would be paranormal.