The Roosevelt Legend

In Bulton W. Folsom Jr.’s 2008 book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America he lists the four points of FDR’s legend:

1. The 1920’s were an economic disaster;
2. The New Deal programs were a corrective to the 1920s, and a step in the right direction;
3. Roosevelt (and the New Deal) were very popular;
4. Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader.

All (except maybe the third point) are bogus.

First, the 1920’s weren’t an economic disaster. Ever heard of the Roaring 20s? The automobile, movie, radio, and chemical industries skyrocketed during the 1920s. Okay, in the beginning of 20’s, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. President Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. He proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding did not live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years. And who was Harding’s predecessor in those early 20s you might ask? Progressive Woodrow Wilson that’s who. So, why do progressive historians believe the first point? Because they say workers back then didn’t have purchasing power. That they saved too much. In other words, it’s those mean-evil businesses oppressing its workers. The same old same old.

Second, The New Deal weren’t corrective and a step in the right direction. According to the New Deal book, the National Recovery Act damaged American businesses by allowing industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. In other words, no free-market. So, much for the Left being for the little guy.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act paid farmers not to produce on part of their land. Then, farm prices would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; finally, millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program. What’s more, power would be centralized through the secretary of agriculture, who would set the processing taxes, target the price of many commodities, and tell farmers how much land to remove. A step in the wrong direction it sounds like to me. Another example of gov’t thinks it knows best.

Was FDR popular with the people? Sort of. He was charismatic and charming. People liked his fireside chats. The press put a positive spin on him and his New Deal programs. And oh, yea. The public could drink liquor legally again.

Finally, Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader. Let’s look at that opinion more closely. Putting aside the administrator part (which what is really important to the Left) let’s talk about his “moral” leadership. He bragged (actually lied) to a group of farmers that he wrote the constitution of Haiti and actually ran the country. He not only said this once but multiple times in speeches. FDR used patronage to command the loyalty of Democrat congressmen for his more controversial New Deal programs. He lied about cutting expenses and balancing the budget when he ran for president. 

As for being a good administrator—you make the call. Roosevelt used a "competitive administration" strategy to maximize presidential power at the cost of confusion, delay and inefficiency. He made sure in each policy area that several top officials had overlapping jurisdictions. They would feud and have to bring the problem to FDR, who wanted to make every final decision. For example, in the case of the PWA relief program, the competition over the size of expenditure, the selection of the administrator, and the appointment of staff at the state level, led to delays and to the ultimate weakness of PWA as a recovery instrument. Well, I guess if your definition of a good administrator is “ maximizing power no matter what the costs are” then by that definition FDR was a good administrator.

The Fractal Beauty of Feudalism

"Feudal" is today a pejorative term, but feudalism was in some ways well suited to a time of instability. Like the classic chiefdom, it kept food on the table without relying on a sound currency or on trade with distant peoples. It also kept warriors at the ready. This was especially impressive because, with the ascendancy of armored cavalry (due largely to the coming of the stirrup), equipping warriors got expensive. It was almost as if, today, no soldier could safely set foot on the battlefield without his own personal tank. The solution to this financial challenge—giving knights lordship over chunks of property they could subdivide for the use of peasants—worked well enough. And making each lord a governor of his immediate subordinates (not just peasants, but any other vassals) made for a decentralized government—a handy thing in a time of poor roads, low literacy rates, and other barriers to distant administration.

Perhaps most important, feudalism’s nested structure, its long chain of mutual obligation, gave the system a kind of resilience. Each link in the chain was a simple and direct nonzero-sum relationship; a lord and his vassal both benefited from the deal, and had consecrated this interdependence with ornate oaths of devotion. So if for any reason the bonds at the highest level broke, the lower levels of the hierarchy tended to stay intact out of mutual self-interest. When kingdoms collapsed, they broke up into regional or local polities, not into anarchy. Moreover, because larger units were structurally identical to the smaller units constituting them—mathematicians call this a "fractal," or "self-similar," structure—subsequent reassembly could proceed readily.

Source: NonZero. The Logic of Human Destiny. (2000) by Robert Wright.

Stand Your Ground 101 – Part 3

From US Concealed Carry.com (Aug. 15):

Now, those of us in the carry community learn early on in our training the importance of avoiding conflict, and most of us would likely try to find a way to escape a dangerous situation before using deadly force. So why do we need Stand Your Ground? There are a number of good reasons.

First, without Stand Your Ground (whether in statute or in precedent law within your state), prosecutors routinely, and often egregiously, abuse the concept of retreat, arguing that unless the defendant used every outrageous (and sometimes virtually impossible) option to run, crawl, hide, go through a door, or otherwise escape a situation, they cannot claim self-defense.

Contrary to claims by opponents, Stand Your Ground does not “wipe away” the long-standing principles of self-defense.  A defendant always has to conform to all of the common law rules of self-defense. Obviously, if you provoked the confrontation, or if at some point you came to be seen as the aggressor, or in some other way were found to have violated the standards of deadly force, then Stand Your Ground may not even be applicable, let alone help you. [read more]

In Part 1 of this trilogy the author John Caile talks about what states have Stand Your Ground:

“The following is a list of states that have enacted laws specifically affirming one’s right to stand your ground when defending yourself against a serious imminent threat, with no duty to retreat, so long as you are in a place you have a right to be in. States that have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws are not included in this list:

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

Then Mr. Caile talks about states with the “castle doctrine.”

As noted above, some states have self-defense laws, either through statute or case law, that are similar to stand your ground laws, but with at least one key difference. These laws generally apply only to the home or other real property (such as an office) and are often referred to as “castle doctrine” or “defense of habitation” laws. These states include:

Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.

Finally, states that the “duty to retreat” law. I believe you should only retreat if you have to reload. Ha!

The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before deadly self-defense is authorized:

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

The author, of course, has a part 2 you can read too. In that article he goes into detail about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

Glenn Beck Breaks Down ‘The Anatomy of a Racist’

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

Glenn Beck tackled “the anatomy of a racist” on his television program Thursday, arguing that there are three traits racists usually have in common, regardless of their backgrounds or against whom they discriminate.

He began by putting the issue in the context of today’s issues, saying that before, during, and after the Zimmerman trial “the media sensationalized the story and turned it into a clash of races — but were they trying to report the truth, or were they trying to stir up old animosities?”

“The people who stood by the Constitution and said let’s rationally look at this and let this play out in the courts were called racists,” he said.  “…Tonight I ask the question, Who are the real racists here? And how do we identify them? Is there a pattern to a racist? What is the true anatomy of a racist?” [read more]

These are the characteristics of a racist. Glenn Beck added the fourth:

1) They don’t see people as individuals. They see people as groups only.

2) They are unable to judge a situation fairly or objectively.

3) They seek power by creating conflict and dividing people for personal gain.

4) Racists usually hate the Jews, whether they’re black or white, they’ll unite on their hatred for the Jews.

Now, Glenn didn’t say this but in my opinion the Left definitely has the first and third characteristic. They sometimes have the second.

Now, anyone can be a racist, sexist, classist, lookist, etc. especially if you have the first characteristic. Once you stop seeing people as individuals but as part of a group you have dehumanized them—ie you treat them as an object. After that you can mistreat them, harm them, manipulate them, and control them without feeling guilty. You have become a border-line sociopath. Bureaucracies have a tendency to be sociopathic over time.

GOP can't let loyalty and power trump innovation

From Fox News.com (Aug. 7):

Mitt Romney’s loss last November precipitated acknowledgement within the GOP of the vast “digital divide” between the Democratic and Republican parties, and the role it plays in driving election outcomes.

The GOP’s technological shortfalls have been well documented and widely discussed by pundits and political operatives, including the party’s own leadership. In fact, the RNC’s 2012 post-mortem, the “Growth & Opportunity Project,” identified a lack of “relevant data and analytics” as a primary reason for Republican losses in 2012.

The term “digital divide” is commonly used to describe the technological disparity between the parties, and I, too, use it for consistency’s sake. But what we saw in 2012 was not a divide -- it was a gaping void. Calling it a “divide” wrongly implies equal knowledge and capability.

Republicans have neither, and thus stick with what they know: outdated, expensive, time-intensive polling, accompanied by “spray and pray” television ad campaigns that have lost their effectiveness in recent years due the rise of DVRs and online television. [read more]

I agree with the opinion article. The GOP has to understand that to the DNC winning elections is war to them. They will do anything to win. Now, I am not saying the GOP has to hit below-the-belt but they have to go on the offense. They have to differentiate themselves from the DNC. The voter wants a choice not an echo as someone once said. The GOP has to preach the conservative message and live by it when they are voted in and show why the progressive message is wrong for the country. But to do both the GOP needs knowledge of itself and its opponent.

Yes, the GOP needs to use the technology effectively but it’s still the message that is important. The GOP needs to reach the hearts and mind of the voter.

The reason why China became communistic nation instead of a Judeo-Christian nation is because the missionaries back then did not spread the word out about Jesus. The communists did a better job telling the population about Stalin than the missionaries about Jesus. This is what the communist officer said to the missionary:

“Your missionaries have been in China for over a hundred years, but you have not won China to your cause. You lament the fact that there are uncounted millions who have never heard the name of your God. Nor do they know anything of your Christianity. But we communists have been in China less than 10 years, and there is not a Chinese who does not know….has not heard the name of Stalin…or something of communism….We have filled China with our doctrine.”

Let what the officer said be a lesson to the GOP---spread the word of conservatism.

Giving Till it Hurts: An Interview with Barbara Oakley

From FEE.org  (JULY 29):

The Freeman: When I first saw the term “pathological altruism” it was, for me, as if the two words were like peanut butter and jelly—rather like “enlightened” and “self-interest.” But can you give our readers the basic idea?

Oakley: It’s really the simplest idea around—pathological altruism is merely altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm. Altruism, in other words, isn’t an unmitigated good. In fact, it can have horrific consequences. The old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is all too true. What the concept of pathological altruism does is to put the aphorism’s essence onto scientific footing, so we can examine it more carefully and truly understand its effects.

Altruism arises in large part from our pre-wired sense of empathy for others. We often don’t realize that our empathy can trick us—it can be like an emotional, rather than optical, illusion. You feel a knee-jerk flash of wanting to make someone feel better, and you can end up doing that person a disservice. Whether you give an alcoholic the drink he craves, or a student a high grade she hasn’t earned, or you encourage truly unaffordable home ownership or taking out of student loans that will result in a lifetime of indentured service—all of these actions can feel like they’re helping, but they truly aren’t.

The concept of pathological altruism doesn’t imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act. Sometimes the best thing to do to help someone else is not what your knee-jerk empathetic feelings are telling you to do. In a culture where we’ve been increasingly taught—virtually indoctrinated—to “follow our passion” and to believe that empathy is a “universal solvent” that will disentangle all difficulties, pathologies of altruism can flourish. The unwitting result of this kind of altruism is detrimental for everyone.

The Freeman: Do you believe pathological altruism can explain many of the horrors of the twentieth century? If so, why?

Oakley: Philosopher Eric Hoffer wondered, in his book The True Believer, how people could be so caught up in mass movements that lead to so much horror. We need wonder no more. People often become entranced and entrenched in these horrific movements because, at the time, they believe they are helping others. Hitler himself noted that it was when he appealed to people’s best traits—their sense of caring and hope for others—that he had them.

Altruism is truly the best of human characteristics—and simultaneously the source of our worst.

[read more]

When a gov’t forces or puts societal pressure on people to be altruistic  that is wrong. I believe the philosopher Ayn Rand said this.  Helping people out because you want to and because the people need it is fine. But you have to be careful. If you go beyond their need you can screw up their life. Like when countries help other countries that had disasters with food and clothing. If the country doesn’t need the initial help anymore you can screw up their economy. Economist call this “unintended consequences.”

Then there are rulers who do altruistic actions to make themselves look good in the public eye and not necessarily to help out those in need.

Democrat manual: How to lie about gun control

From WND.com (Aug. 9):

Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” [read more]

The reason the Left uses an emotional appeal is because it is easy and dramatic. Also, you cannot argue with an emotion appeal. No facts will persuade a person using an emotional appeal.

The example of emotional appeals this manual uses are:

It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake
up worried and frightened about getting shot.

Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young
child is gunned down.

These reckless laws have gun-toting vigilantes roaming the streets making all
of us less safe in our own neighborhoods.

Basically, the manual is using  a fear appeal. The first two examples are showing how the Left are using children as a prop for their argument. But then again this is nothing new. They always say “let’s do it for the kids” when it comes to most social issues except for abortion. It’s almost a mantra of the Left.

The manual is basically an attack on the NRA. They are the enemy. Here are some examples of what the author’s of the manual thinks of the NRA:

There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents.  The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

When talking to base audiences, put responsibility for the stunning lack of common sense in America’s gun laws where it belongs – at the feet of the NRA. For decades, NRA officials, the firearms industry, and their allies on Capitol Hill have waged a relentless effort to gut common sense gun laws and to pass reckless measures that put more people at risk.  This has been matched by an equally vigorous effort to hamper the enforcement of gun laws at every turn.  For example, the NRA has advocated for guns in sensitive places, such as in national parks,  bars, and college campuses,  and for loaded gun carrying without a permit.

And here’s what the manual instructs the user to say about the NRA:

You don’t hear much from the NRA and their allies when violence strikes.  That's because they can't possibly defend their reckless agenda in the face of such terrible human pain and suffering.

The NRA wants powerful, dangerous weapons in every neighborhood. That's not freedom, it's fear.

The NRA officials like to talk about freedom.  Well, how about our right to be free from the gun violence killing our children and ravaging our neighborhoods.

I'll tell you what's really fast and furious here.  The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts - and how furious the American people should be that the NRA’s constant attacks on the ATF help gun-runners get away with murder.

Did you notice the third example of powerful language as the manual labels it.  It uses children again as a prop.

White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior

From Fox News.com (July30):

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team. [read more]

Could make society “more efficient?” Can you say social engineering. I wonder if “more efficient” means making society put people in power who are for social justice,  collective salvation and a “living” constitution? Just wondering.

Hopefully, the team isn’t thinking of putting pleasant orders in the air in neighborhoods while Obama, Hillary, or any other democrat is talking on the TV especially when you are sleeping. Or do the reverse for any republican or conservative.

This insights team is reminiscent of  The Psychohistorians in Isaac Asimov’s 1951 novel Foundation. The Psychohistorians were able to subtly influence people’s behavior psychically. They could also predict human history. A progressive’s wet dream.

This team being created is a power trip for The Left. No doubt about it.

The Martin-Zimmerman Tragedy

I wonder if Trayvon Martin “profiled” Zimmerman? I mean the 911 operator told Martin she thought Zimmerman was a gay guy out to rape Martin. She really should be reprimanded for making such an accusation without proof. Also, maybe Martin saw Zimmerman as a meek and mild person to attack. He wouldn’t fight back. That could be why the race hustlers are going after him like they are. They are basically bullies.

Martin is just a symbol to them. They don’t really care about him. I feel sorry for the Martin and Zimmerman family. I don’t feel sorry for Martin himself. He attacked Zimmerman for no reason. He could have chose not to attack him. Self-control anyone? If he would’ve he would still be alive today. Every action has a consequence. Then again maybe he was on something that affected his thinking.

Some are saying that Zimmerman didn’t have to kill Martin. That Zimmerman’s life wasn’t really in jeopardy. That’s pure speculation. It’s pretty simple in my mind. This is a case of self-defense. Period. Put yourself in Zimmerman’s place. You are walking back to your car. All of a sudden you get attacked from behind. Your head gets smashed against the ground real hard by a younger and stronger person who is saying he is going to kill you. Then the attacker tries to grab your gun. What would you do?

One other thing. If Martin had survived the gun shot would he have been prosecuted for assault and battery? Or even attempted murder? I guess we’ll never know.

Finally, that trial should have never happened. If the situation was the same and it would have been two people of the same race were involved—it probably wouldn’t have gone to trial. The race hustlers wouldn’t have cared. The jury made the right verdict.

Guess Who’s Going to Pay for Congressional Staffers’ Increasing Insurance Premiums?

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

For months we’ve been hearing from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. terrified that the implementation of Obamacare would decimate their staffs. Some senators and congressmen talked about a serious “brain drain” in Washington when their staff members leave. Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), who voted for the health care law, said making the law apply to elected officials and their staffers was “simply not fair.” [read more]

So, the Ruling Class doesn’t want their healthcare to be part of Obamacare. What else is knew. For a long time Congress didn’t pay any social security tax.

The Elites never want to be part of anything to do with the Commoners. After all in their eyes they are “special” and too good for those programs. They just make the laws they want everyone else to obey.

In other news, Big Labor doesn’t want to be part of Obamacare either. Figures. If Obamacare is such a mess (which it is) why don’t everybody get exempted from it. Or make it an option for everyone to get exempted from it. Well, that means most everyone (except of course for the far-loopy-Left) would want an exemption.

‘Unprecedented’ Effort Underway to Keep Secrets From Leaking

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

The CIA is polygraphing its operatives on a regular basis in an “unprecedented” effort to prevent Benghazi secrets from leaking out, CNN’s Drew Griffin is reporting, citing unnamed inside sources.

“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” the bombshell report reveals. “The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.”

More from CNN:

• It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
• In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
• Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

The CIA responded to CNN’s report in a statement, claiming it “enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress,” according to Jake Tapper.

It has also been revealed that as many 35 Americans were in Benghazi on the night of the deadly terror attack, CNN reports, citing anonymous inside sources. As many as seven were wounded and 21 Americans were reportedly working in the building known as the CIA annex. [read more]

Also from the The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

The Obama administration is “changing names” of the Benghazi survivors and “creating aliases” to keep them hidden from congressional investigators and the American people, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told Greta Van Susteren on Thursday night. He also said the administration is “dispersing them around the country” to keep them out of sight. [read more]

The Benghazi cover-up gets more and more interesting. Like reading a Brad Thor novel.

Software experts attack cars

From Reuters.com (July 28):

Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek say they will publish detailed blueprints of techniques for attacking critical systems in the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape in a 100-page white paper, following several months of research they conducted with a grant from the U.S. government.

The two "white hats" - hackers who try to uncover software vulnerabilities before criminals can exploit them - will also release the software they built for hacking the cars at the Def Con hacking convention in Las Vegas this week.

They said they devised ways to force a Toyota Prius to brake suddenly at 80 miles an hour, jerk its steering wheel, or accelerate the engine. They also say they can disable the brakes of a Ford Escape traveling at very slow speeds, so that the car keeps moving no matter how hard the driver presses the pedal. [read more]

That’s nice to know. At least ships and planes are safe to use. Then again maybe not: GPS flaw could let terrorists hijack ships, planes.

Well, you can still walk and ride a bike without anxiety, I guess.

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.