James Madison versus the 17th amendment

James Madison wrote into the Constitution so that Senators would be representatives of the state, not of the people. He basically knew if the Government had too much power, too much representation, that it would abuse it's power. And, after Woodrow Wilson pushed for the 17th Amendment, that's exactly what happened.

The 17th Amendment changed Madison's wording in the Constitution, and changed it so that senator's were directly voted in by the people. The reason for the change was that progressives, like Woodrow Wilson, believed senators, since they were representatives of the people and not the states, would be more likely to vote for certain things that were not in the best interest of the states, and may be in the best interests of special interest groups and lobbyists. In essence, the 17th amendment turned senators into lobbyists for Washington.

A good example is the health care program that just passed through Congress. If the senators were representatives for the states, they never would have voted for it because that law does not have what's best for the states in mind. This is exactly how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives wanted it. They knew they would never get their radical, socialist agenda passed without the 17th amendment, or without the support of Washington.

Madison new checks and balances were needed, and having the senators be representatives of the state was one of them. When the people don't support something, which they did not support the Obama Health care Bill, the progressivesk new they could still get it passed if the senators that were elected did not represent the states.

This is exactly how much of the progressive agenda was passed, however unpopular. The rest of it is made law by radicals in the judicial system who make laws from the bench that would never be passed through the legislature. A good example of this is the 1972 Rowe Versus Wade ruling that essentially made abortion legal from the bench.

The 17th amendment basically trampled on the 10th amendment, and therefore trampled on state rights.

Woodrow Wilson: The first imperial president

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
President (1913-1921)

When people think of totalitarian dictators, names that immediately come to mind are Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.  While this may surprise some, another name we should add to this list is a former U.S. president: Woodrow Wilson. Please, before you start tossing vitriol my way, allow me a chance to explain.

Most people rank the 28th president rather high on lists of best presidents.  This is mainly because he successfully championed for and signed laws that gave women the right to vote, created better working conditions for laborers, and protected consumers from unfair business practices.

The problem with what Wilson did is that he became the first president to use the executive branch in order to move "forward" an agenda. To accomplish this he increased the power of government at the expense of personal liberties.

The founding fathers saw first hand how government officials naturally abuse the powers invested in them.  They understood that such abuse usually came at the expense of personal liberties.  To prevent the new government from gaining such power, the founding fathers gave the government the ability to rule on only 30 areas, and they created a system of checks and balances.

The founding father believed that, while ideas and opinions change with the times, morals (rules) and natural rights (liberties) come from a higher power and are unchanging.  For this reason the Constitution was written so that it would be unchanging, written to ensure moralistic society and protect natural rights for all people for all time.

They understood that society is flawed, although they had faith in the ability of individual people and individual industries to solve their own problems.  They believed life on this earth would never be euphoric (perfect), and that true euphoria only comes in the next world.

All 37 presidents prior to Wilson had the same understanding of the Constitution as the founding fathers, and they defended and respected it to the best of their ability, as they promised in citing the presidential oath of office.

Yet this all changed in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson was elected President.  He became the first academic (he had earned a Ph.D), and the first to speak poorly of the Constitution.

He spoke poorly of the Constitution because he believed it was the only thing that stood in the way of his agenda, which in his case was an idealist agenda.  By this, he believed that people did not have to wait for the next world to find euphoria.  He believed that if he had the power, he could push Congress to pass laws that he would sign that would create this euphoria, or perfect, or ideal world.as

According to Wilson, people are flawed, and therefore prone to making mistakes that might result in chaos. If the roaring 20s showed anything, it was that unfettered capitalism leads to short term prosperity that allows greedy people to obtain wealth at the expense of the poor.  This was unfair, he believed.  And it was this unchecked system that ultimately lead to the collapse of the stock market in 1929.

So, in order to reach a state of euphoria, Wilson believed the people should not be allowed to make complicated decisions.  Instead, experts in Washington (preferably progressive experts) should make these decisions.  In this way, he championed for a large central government, a large state.

He therefore made himself the first imperial president, thus giving himself unprecedented powers. This was necessary for him to push his agenda forward.

The problem with this is that it would require people to sacrifice some of their personal liberties, something most people do not want to do.  To make matters worse for Wilson, the Constitution and the Declaration of independence stood in his way.

So it was on this premise that he spoke against it, saying that it should change with the changing times.  He trashed the idea of natural rights, or inalienable rights, or personal liberties, claiming that they do not come from a higher power but from the founding documents.  So he believed the idea of natural rights should be extricated from them.

In 1911 he said:

The rhetorical introduction of the Declaration of Independence is the least part of it…. If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.

He also said:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

In order to increase the power of the president, or to turn it into an imperial president, he championed against the separation of powers, claiming that they caused the various organs of government to fight against each other thus preventing progress. He believed that by reducing restraints on executive branch the president would be more like the British Prime Minister who has the ability to push his agenda through Congress.

Most presidents prior to him wrote their State of the Union Address in the form of a letter that was read to Congress.  Wilson wanted Congress to be clear what he wanted, so he addressed them in person in 1913.  Every president since him has done the same.

He then pushed his agenda through Congress, and signed them into law, something no previous president had dared to do.  Yet by doing so he set the precedence needed to increase the power of government, and, most important, the power of the executive.

In a 1913 address, he said:

I have been smashing precedents almost daily every since I got here."

Now he had the power to push forth his idealist agenda, whether the people wanted it or not.  He was not the first imperial president.  While all 37 of his predecessors feared this type of power, he cherished it.  He said.

I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”

So Wilson sought to relax, if not to remove completely, the restraints on government set forth by the founding fathers.  This was the only means to which Wilson, and other progressives, could move "forward" their idealist agenda that was aimed at perfecting society.

It was based on this reasoning that he was able to accomplish the following:

1.  The 16th Amendment: The Supreme Court had previously ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional.  To get around this, Wilson encouraged the democrat controlled Congress to changed the Constitution.  The new amendment enabled the federal government to create an income tax, which the senate wasted no time doing.  This was necessary to pay for the federal programs that were needed to advance the agenda.  By the end of Wilson's term as president taxes were up as high as 70 percent.  While their agenda was meant to lower unemployment, it created more.

2.  The 17th Amendment: This took away the right of states to select senators, and allowing direct election of senators.  The states generally selected senators who would protect state rights, and without selected senators, progressives have succeeded in passing many laws abducting state rights, with Obamacare being only one of them. This amendment was meant to make it easier to perfect society, and what it gave us was more laws and fewer freedoms.

Despite warnings by the Germans of dangerous waters,
Wilson made no attempt to stop the Lusitania,
a British luxury liner with 2,000 people on board,
from leaving New York on May 1, 1915.
It was on it's way to Liverpool, England.
A German submarine confused it for a warship.
While it usually took more than one missile,
the Lusitania was sunk with only one.
Almost 1,200 perished, including 128 Americans.

3.  The 18th Amendment:  This banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer of alcoholic beverages for the good of society.  Yet while this was supposed to reduce crime, it increased it, as a free people rebelled and refused to comply.  Man innocent people who just wanted to have a little fun were jailed.

4.  The Great War:  Wilson championed that the U.S. was a neutral state and that he wanted to avoid war at all costs, yet he then lead us into war we had not reason to be in for political gain.  Evidence of this, some say, is that Great Britain's powerful naval blockade prevented food from getting into Germany, therefore starving the German population.  Yet while this was against international law, Wilson did nothing.

He did nothing, some say, because he secretly sided with the Allied Powers (Britain, France, and Russia) and was waiting for the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungry) to give him a reason to go to war, mainly because this would give him a reason to advance his agenda.  It would later become an ongoing theme that progressives would use a war theme to advance their agendas, such as the war on women and the war on poverty.

The German's retaliated against the blockade, warning that neutral ships might be sunk if they get in the way.  They warned that they will not intentionally sink neutral ships, but it sometimes is impossible to tell the difference. This was especially true since British ships were violating international rules of war by placing white flags upon their ships to lure German submarines to the surface so they could destroy them.

Yet despite these warnings, Wilson continued to allow civilian ships to such dangerous waters, and this was why the Lusitania -- a British luxury liner -- was a target for German ships, resulting in the deaths of 124 innocent American civilians.

The Germans then volunteered to give up the submarine warfare if Wilson would pressure Britain to stop the hunger blockade.  Wilson refused, instead blaming the Germans for the sinking of the Lusitania and using this as a national battle cry for war.

With a limited media at this time, there was no way for the truth to get out.  So Wilson took advantage of this to advance his agenda.  In total, 115, 516 Americans lost their lives in a war American had no reason to be involved in just so Woodrow Wilson could advance the progressive agenda.

5.  Committee on Public Information (CPI):   He created this soon after Congress declared war.  Its sole function was as ministry of propaganda to convince the American people that what Wilson was doing was right.  This effort was lead by former journalist and police commissioner George Creed.  As a journalist he was a liberal muckraker, and as a police commissioner he once prevented his officers from carrying guns. He was an ardent supporter of creating a totalitarian state (socialist, progressive, liberal, fascist) in the U.S., citing that there is "no dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinction to breed mean envies."  The CPI was, in essence, the first state-run propaganda machine.

The written intent of this organization was to manipulate the minds of the people, and to enforce consent.  Some of the propaganda made Wilson look like a larger than life figure, a strategy that was later used in Nazi Germany by Hitler, and in totalitarian Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

6.  Alien and Sedition Acts of 1918:  The Alien Act allowed noncitizens to be deported without trial if they were suspected of disloyalty.  The Sedition Acts prevented individuals (particularly those in the media) from "uttering, printing, writing, or publishing an disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or military."  This gave that government, the state, unprecedented powers over the people, and pretty much ignored the first amendment which clearly states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."  Yet when a government gains power, it tends to abuse this power.

7.  Espionage Act of 1917:  Enacted after the start of the Great War, it prevented citizens from interfering with military operations or recruitment, prevented insubordination in the military (those drafted could not refuse to serve), and prevented support of U.S. enemies during war. In 1919 the U.S. Supreme Court somehow found a way to find this law did not violate the freedom of speech in Schenck v United States.

8.  Postmaster General Powers:  Wilson gave the Postmaster General the power to enforce the Sedition and Espionage Acts.  It was by this means that over 75 periodicals were shut down, and hundreds more were warned.  Tens of thousands of innocent American citizens were imprisoned just for speaking or writing dissent. Could you imagine if George W. Bush had such powers to shut up democrats who opposed the War in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He would have been loved by the media, and exceeded expectations in polls.

9.  American Protective League (API):  This was set up by Wilson's Justice Department to get citizens to spy on other citizens and turn in "seditious" persons or draft dodgers.  Members swore not to reveal other members, and were encouraged to keep an eye on their neighbors, co-workers and friends by listening in on their phone calls and reading their mail. It was under this program that, in September of 1918, 50,000 people were rounded up without just cause. Thankfully, because of the Constitution, Wilson was unable to get away with this, and about two-thirds of those arrested were eventually found innocent of all charges. Nevertheless, the Justice Department approved of this, and the assistant attorney general confessed that Americans had never been better policed.  If progressives ever succeeded in getting their ideal world, this is the type of system that they would incorporate to "encourage" or "enforce" compliance.

10.  German antipathy:  Any Germans in the United States were held under deep contempt.  German authors were purged from libraries, families of Germans were harassed and taunted.  Sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage."  In fact, some estimate that over 175,000 people living in America were arrested for not demonstrating their patriotism.  All were punished, and many went to jail.  There was no true justification for any of it at all, and Wilson got away with it. Encouraged by the state-run propaganda machine, Americans were encouraged to turn in Germans who were disloyal to the American cause.  They were also encouraged to refuse to eat German food, listen to German music, or buy dogs with German names.  Could you imagine if George W. Bush or Obama did this to the Muslim community after 9-11?

11.  Palmer Raids:  The Palmer Raids were an attempt by the Justice Department to arrest or deport people just for being anarchists. The raids, or arrests, occurred between November 1919 and January 1920 under the leadership of Wilson's Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Thankfully, while 500 leftist anarchists were arrested, the U.S. Department of Labor put an end to the raids.

Wilson justified this police state by claiming that "the gravest threats" against national peace are changed within our borders. This justification lead to over 175,000 Americans citizens being unjustly arrested within American borders by the Wilson-run state.

12.  War Industries Board (WIB):  He put Barnard Baruch in charge of the War Industries Board, which was essentially charged with taking over the entire American economic system to make sure all industries worked together to serve the state.  He seized railroads, food and energy production, and set price controls. This system would later be copied by Mussolini and Hitler, who wouldn't have a Constitution that limited their power to fully implement it.

13.  Wilson's 14 Points:  He voiced his 14 points on January 8, 1918, basically stating that the Great War (WWI) was fought for a noble cause, and he called for world peace, open borders, free trade, free navigation of the seas, and the formation of an "association of nations" to solve conflict and prevent future wars.

14.  The Treaty of Versailles:  The treaty, written mainly by Wilson, had a couple of serious faults. First of all, it entitled the United States to give loans to European nations that needed rebuilding, and the U.S. was too lenient on repayment, and they were never repaid.  America had accumulated a steep war dept, and this did not help.  It ultimately resulted in Wilson raising income taxes as high as 70 percent, which resulted in the depression of 1920.  Second of all, Article 231 of the treaty, which later became known as the War Guilt Clause, required Germany to completely disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay reparations the were the equivalent of $31.4 billion U.S. dollars.  This clause was considered to be too harsh, and it was ultimately not enforced.  So, in the end, instead of punishing or completely annihilating the German military, the peace treaty essentially allowed the German military to back off and regroup.  This created an environment that allowed a man named Adolf Hitler to form a fascist government called Nazism.  In this way, Wilson, so some believe, was also responsible for causing WWII.

15.  The League of Nations:  Of course then he attempted to create the League of Nations which was supposed to be a union of nations to prevent any future wars.  The League would force all nations involved to participate in any wars of member nations, and it would be able to create rules for all nations to follow.

While other Central Powers had already entered this League, Congress did not want other nations to create laws that took away the same natural rights protected by the Constitution. In other words, it wanted to create restrictions protecting American sovereignty. They also did not want to be forced to participate on border fights between European nations.  It was on these grounds Congress failed to sign on to Wilson's association of nations that was meant to create world peace.

Essentially, Congress had grown weary of Wilson's dream of creating laws that extricated personal liberties in order to create his perfect, or state-run, world.  It was because of this that Woodrow Wilson left office a defeated man. Voters also grew weary of laws to perfect society, and they elected conservative republican Warren G. Harding in 1920.

Yet Woodrow Wilson was far from a failure as a president, particularly for those who continued to believe in the idealistic progressive agenda.  What Wilson had accomplished was merely the first step, as over the next century they would gradually move "forward" with their agenda to "fundamentally transform" American from capitalism to socialism.

Perhaps because the media was controlled by progressives, and later by their their liberal offshoots, the full history of Wilson's presidency was not written until 87 years later when, in 2007, Jonah Goldberg published his book "Liberal Fascism." Only then was it realized the damage he created, and that Wilson in fact had been the first imperial (empire, king, totalitarian dictator) president.

For this reason, many historians have removed Woodrow Wilson from the top five best presidents, placing him now among the five at the bottom.  Some even go as far as to say that he is the single worst president of all time. 

Further Reading:

1. Wilson the Worse (Huffington Post)
2. Whoodrow Wilson: Godfather of liberalism
3. Woodrow Wilson: America's first and worse fascist president
4. Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy
5. Liberal Fascism (Johah Goldberg)
6. The Natural Rights of Men

Why is the Fifth Commandment so important?

Stalin once said that, even while he believed in God, he must extricate God and his Bible from society because God teaches capitalism, and capitalism encourages individualism. Since socialism is all about giving up personal liberties for the good of the state, then Biblical teachings must be prevented.

It was for this reason that Stalin got rid of all the churches, and prevented people from learning about God.  It is also for this main reason that most all totalitarian dictatorships fight against Christianity.  Surely there might be other noted reasons for this, but the real reason is because Christianity teaches individualism, and individualism is the antithesis of state control.

The Bible, therefore, gives us all the right to choose, although it holds us accountable for our actions.  For example, a person may make the choice of taking advantage of the poor for personal gain in life, the end result will be eternal damnation.  For example, a person may sacrifice personal gain for the benefit of society, and the end result will be eternal life in peace.

So while the right choices may lead to eternal peace in Heaven, the wrong choices may doom us to eternal damnation in hell.  Yet the end result, according to the Bible, is that the greatest rewards come from the greatest individual decisions.

So you can see that it was in this way that Christianity is what ultimately lead the assimilation from totalitarianism to the creation creation of the U.S. Constitution and American Exceptionalism that followed. It was for this reason that God and His Bible remained the Cornerstone of the American educational system until the 1960s, when the state gained control of education.

There are various names for totalitarianism depending on where you live. In some countries it is called fascism, in others socialism, and still others it's communism. Here in the U.S. it was referred to as progressivism, yet when that name soured it became known as liberalism.  Liberalism is now sour, so many are referring to it as progressivism once again.

The progressives understood that if they wanted to move forth their agenda of perfecting society, they had to extricate the Bible from society.  So that is why they created the state run school system, and why they champion for the "separation of church and state."  It is in this way they prevent Biblical teachings.

So it is here where the fifth amendment comes into play.

Dennis Prager, in his column "You Don't Have to Love Your Parents: But you do have to honor them. The Ten Commandments has it right, for families and society."  He said:

“Honor your father and your mother.” 

This commandment is so important that it is one of the only commandments in the entire Bible that gives a reason for observing it:

“That your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Many people read that part of the Fifth Commandment as a reward. But while it may be regarded as a reward, the fact remains that it is a reason: If you build a society in which children honor their parents, your society will long survive.

And the corollary is: A society in which children do not honor their parents is doomed to self-destruction.

In our time, this connection between honoring parents and maintaining civilization is not widely recognized. On the contrary, many of the best-educated parents do not believe that their children need to show them honor, since “honoring” implies an authority figure and that is a status many modern parents reject.

Then he adds:

Without a father and mother to honor, children lose out on having one of the most important things they can have — mothers and fathers exercising parental authority.

So, then, why is honoring parents so important? Why does the Ten Commandments believe that society could not survive if this commandment were widely violated?

One reason is that we, as children, need it. Parents may want to be honored — and they should want to be — but children need to honor parents, too. A father and a mother who are not honored are essentially adult peers of their children. They are not parents.

No generation knows better than ours the terrible consequences of growing up without a father. Fatherless boys are far more likely to grow up and commit violent crime, mistreat women, and act out against society in every other way. Girls who do not have a father to honor — and, hopefully, to love as well — are more likely to seek the wrong men and to be promiscuous at an early age.

Second, honoring parents is how nearly all of us come to recognize that there is a moral authority above us to whom we are morally accountable. And without this, we cannot create or maintain a moral society.

Of course, for the Ten Commandments, the ultimate moral authority is God, who is therefore higher than even our parents. But it is very difficult to come to honor God without having had a parent, especially a father, to honor. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychiatry and an atheist, theorized that one’s attitude toward one’s father largely shaped one’s attitude toward God.

There is one more reason why honoring parents is fundamental to a good society. Honoring parents is the best antidote to totalitarianism. One of the first things totalitarian movements seek to do is to break the child–parent bond. The child’s allegiance is shifted from parents to the state. Even in democratic societies, the larger the state becomes, the more it usurps the parental role.

Emphasis was added there by me.  To advance their agenda, first the progressives had to extricate parental control from society.  But the way to achieve this was to create a state run educational system where children are extricated from parental control and molded and shaped into good little progressives.

In the euphoric state-run society, schools are the parent.  It is teachers that kids look up to, and teachers who are taught to indoctrinate children to agree with the state.  It is here where they are taught to believe in man made global warming, and so forth.

So it's understandable that people who champion for state control would also seek to get rid of God from society.  If God is extricated from society, children start to treat their parents as just other members of society who must give up their liberties for the good of the state.

The Fifth Amendment is important because the alternative is honoring thy state. To honor the state means to give up some of our liberties for the good of that state.

How progressives destroyed educational system

Education was once tailored to suit the needs of the student
which created the best and the brightest minds in the world
Now education is a one-size-fits-all system that fails many,
and has resulted in a weakening of the American Dream.

Most of us are used to an educational system whereby our children get up in the morning and are rushed off to state-run schools.  They are then offered an education by trained educators hired by the state. These educators, therefore, have complete control over the minds of our children for 6-8 hours, 5 days a week. This system allows the state to shape and molds their minds.

This is not a knock on individual teachers, as most of them are excellent at their jobs.  Plus it's not their fault the system is the way it is. So keep that in mind as you read on.

The current system began in the 1960s, so it's relatively new.  It was an attempt by liberals to fix something that was working rather well.  However, let's put that aside for a moment and look into what the American educational system looked like from the founding until the 1960s.

Most, if not all, of the founding fathers, were educated by their parents.  These are men who became some of the brightest men in all the world, and they were educated for free at home. Some didn't even have access to books and learned simply by reading the Bible.

This is how it was for most of history.  Parents either taught their children, or groups of parents banned together to hire the teacher of their choosing, someone who had similar morals and values as they did.  These children were taught about God, and they were taught about natural rights and American Exceptionalism.

These kids knew more about American history, and world history, and Geography, and mathematics at the age of ten than most kids today.  It was in this way that the American educational system became the best in the world.  America gave birth to the brightest and the best minds, from which gave birth to the electric light, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the computer, the generator, the telephone, the automobile, the assembly line, etc.

It was in this way, by the creating of the best educational system in the world, that America became the greatest nation on the planet, the envy of all the world. Despite the failures of today's educational system, and even while 9 of 10 American children grew up on isolated farms, 9 of 10 of these children were literate.

Yet then it came to an abrupt halt.  Why?

First of all, tests for children privately educated were all in the form of an essay, and therefore the child was forced to fully understand the subject and be able to form an opinion on it.  Here is an example of an 8th-grade world history test:

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

That's pretty thorough.  Most Americans today could not answer those questions.  But this is what all 8th graders were expected to know.  I highly doubt most college graduates would be able to answer most of these questions.  

So the downward trend in our educational system began among a small group of individuals in the 19th century who decided that they could make our already great educational system even better.  Yet they didn't see it as great, they saw it as flawed, and they believed they could perfect it by creating rules and regulations.  

What the progressives wanted to do was very unpopular.  People inherently do not want to be told what they can and cannot do, or can and cannot buy.  They do not want to be told they have to buy healthcare, or that they have to exercise, or that they have to eat only healthy food.  

Surely they wanted a perfect society, but the one created by god and his capitalism was about as close to perfection as was ever going to be achieved.

Yet the progressives challenged parents, claiming that the state could better educate their children.  Parents wanted nothing of this, so progressives came up with a plan to extricate God from society, and to do that they needed first to assimilate the educational system from the parents to a state-run educational system.  

Here is how the gradual assimilation from effective parental education to a failed state-run education took place:

1. The first public school appeared in the U.S. in 1821
2. In 1867 the Department of Education was formed, although it was called Office of Education.  It was created on a budget of $15,000 to study how we could make education better (remember, it was already the best in the world)
3. In 1874, the Massachusetts Board of Education said: “The child should be taught to consider his instructor, in many respects, superior to the parent in point of authority.” 
4. In 1919, Oregon made it illegal to not attend a state-run school.  The goal was to squeeze out the religious schools, and religious education. The Supreme Court shot this down, however. 
5. In 1865 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed by Congress and signed by Lyndon Johnson, paving the way for governmental control of education through funding.  Essentially, state-run schools were provided for free, making it so other school systems could not compete. In other words, they essentially forced parents to conform.
6. In 1979 (October 17), President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, thereby creating the Department of Education. 
7. 2014, the educational system now receives $72 billion each year, God is not taught, the Bible is not allowed, and the educational system is so watered down that it is failing many of our children.
8. Our educational system is failing, especially in inner 
9. High school graduation rates are 9% lower than the national average, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
10. High school dropout rate for African Americans in 2014 was 7.4%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This is higher than the national average. 
11. As of November 2011, the U.S. is ranked 4th in the world among developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
12. The U.S. is ranked 4th in the world on per pupil spending, and that comes to $11,600 per student. Despite this, the U.S. is ranking among developed countries is 17th in reading, 19th in science, and 26th in math, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 
13. Despite the failures of the state-run educational system, and the previous successes of the free parental system that existed prior to the current system, people continue to ask for more money to make education better.  Yet despite annual increases in education funding, our educational system continues to fail our kids.

So, while progressives aimed to perfect an already great educational system through government control, they made education worse.  Yet what they did accomplish is taking kids out of the home in order to mold and shape them into good progressives.

As these kids mature into adults, it's difficult to convince them that the root cause of a failed American educational system is that God has been extricated from teaching, and that, above all else, the parents have been taken out of the loop.

Yet these were intended consequences for progressives, and this has resulted in them moving forth their agenda. So they certainly aren't going to insist on making changes in the opposite direction.

In fact, now that they have succeeded in brainwashing many of our children.  Worse, if you don't send them to schools you can be jailed.  Some people home school their children or send them to private schools, but federal regulations have even found a way to taint a child's education regardless of where it is taught.

They also now want to create a government pre-school system to remove kids from their parents even earlier.  Yikes!

Using the state-run educational system, state experts have succeeded in convincing many people that they -- human beings -- are responsible for creating climate change, giving government experts permission to tax and regulate to resolve this problem. This results in even less freedom.

The bottom line is that progressives in Washington have managed to abuse their power to advance their agenda.  This is something George Washington and most presidents prior to Teddy Roosevelt did not do. And considering a majority are convinced this is a good system, it may never be fixed.

 Now progressives are trying to fix a healthcare system that was considered by many to be the best in the world.  Early evidence suggests they are failing at that too. 

Why do democrats hate success?

So on April 14, 2015, at a round table in Monticello, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said, "“There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the American worker.” This statement bothers me and I'm going to explain why.

I do not know if CEOs actually do make 300 times more than the average American worker.  However, what I do know is that CEOs make a lot more money than the average worker.  Many CEOs make six figure incomes.  

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she sees this as unfair. She would like to do something to bring CEOs down to the same level as everyone else, perhaps by taxing them more.  

It seems to me this is quite common among democrats.  They see people who succeed and they want to punish them; tax them; bring them down to earth.  They say things like, "It's not fair that they make so much money," or, "This is why I hate capitalism, because greedy people get rich at the expense of everyone else."

I see such statements as odd. I think we should put people who succeed up on a pedestal, and instead of scolding success as the result of greed, they should show other people how they can succeed too.  Instead of punishing the rich and talking bad about them, we should teach other people how they too can get rich.  

I think democrats actually think there is a limited money supply. They think if one person is rich it's at the expense of other people.  But this is not true.  There is enough money in this world so that every person can become rich.

You know, in order to get rich you have to spend a lot of time and money on a good college education.  You'll have to work hard and take risks.  You'll probably have to be willing to relocate yourself and your family where the jobs are.  And while they make a lot of money, there is a lot of responsibility and a high risk you'll be fired if you fail.

These are things most of us are not willing to do, so that's why most of us make average wages.

So we should put them on a pediatal, not chide and punish them with federal regulations and taxes

The government can try to make everyone equal, but the government cannot make people rich.  Surely, if you read any history book, you'll see that it has been tried a hundreds of times throughout history, and has failed every time.  Liberalism fails time and time again.  

But government will not make people rich, only the free market system can do that; only capitalism can do that. Government makes people poor.  If you tax people who succeed so they make the same as every one else, then everyone will be poor.  This has been proven again and again and again over the years.  

Look at the Soviet Union as a good example. They had the perfect fascist government over there that was supposed to make every person equal.  The only problem was that there was no incentive for people to do the work, so food did not get planted, and food that was planted did not make it's way to plates.  

Like money, there is plenty of food in the world too.  The way to put food on plates, and the way to put money in banks, is to get the government out of the way, to create an economic environment where any one who makes the effort and takes the risks has an opportunity to succeed.  

In other words, we should respect and honor CEOs for making more than the average worker.  They have very important jobs, and work very hard to get where they are.  They take risks, and when they succeed they get paid heavily.  Instead of talking bad about them, and instead of calling them names like "Greedy," we should show others how they can do it too.

This is yet another reason why I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

Why do tax hikes hurt economies?

So government spending increases to pay for entitlement programs, and eventually taxes will be raised in order to pay for these programs. The problem with tax hikes is, that while revenues increase initially, in the long term governmental revenues decline. Why?

Well, it's quite simple actually. When taxes get up to 50, 60, or 70 percent, such as they were in 1920 after WWI, and the late fortys after the FDR spending spree, people start to find ways to get around paying taxes.

First of all, we must say here that some taxes are necessary for maintaining infrastructure, such as building and maintaining roads, bridges and tunels, and for building government buildings, and providing for national security. In order to pay for these things taxes are necessary.

Yet when the government starts to create programs to help people, taxes usually go up in order to pay for all these programs. According to the Laffer curve, as taxes are raised to a certain point governmental revenue increases. But once that certain point is reached (say it's 40%), then people start to find ways to get around paying them.

Henry Hazlitt, in his book "Economics in One Lesson, describes how people get around paying taxes.

1. Working less. Why work two jobs when all that's going to cause me to move into a higher tax bracket, forcing me to work eight months of the year making money for the government.

2. Spending less. If they are going to take half the money I make, then I'm going to put it in a bank and save rather than purchase material items, such as new TVs, iphones, vacations, etc.

4. Less risk taking. If they lose all their money when they lose, and get to keep only 30, 40, or 50% of what they make when they win, they decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital. Making matters worse here is that capital available for risk taking decreases due to high taxes.

Since people with money are spending less, this creates less capital for those who create jobs. With less capital, and with less risk taking, this means fewer jobs created. In other words, "the government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve."

Why low tariffs and free trade are good for economies

Some of my friends are upset with Bill Clinton for signing a bill creating free trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. They say that all this does is benefit foreign economies at the expense of our own.

In 1888 Benjamin Harrison made tariffs one of the key issues in the election against incumbant president Grover Cleveland. Harison was a pro-business republican who believed it was necessary to keep tariffs high in order to allow local businesses to compete.

Cleveland contested that tariffs were already too high, as evidenced by a surplus of money in the treasury. Yet Harrison won the election, and republicans gained a majority in Congress. Future president William McKinley drafted what would become the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, raising tariffs by as much as 50 percent.

Initially there was an economic boom, although it was short lived. (This is the same as what happens when taxes are raised).  By the time Cleveland was back in office in 1893 the country was embittered in a major depression, and high tariff was blamed.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods. While the purpose of a tariff is to benefit a local business, the overall effect is that it hurts the whole community.

So what is a tariff? It is a tax on imported goods. The purpose of it is to raise taxes on the imported goods so that local merchants can compete. Henry Hazlitt, in his book "Economics in One Lesson," explains it this way:

"An American manufacturer of woolen sweaters goes to Congress or to the State Department and tells the committee or officials concerned that it would be a national disaster for them to remove or reduce the tariff on British sweaters. he now sells his sweaters for $30 each, but English manufacturers could sell their sweaters for $25. A duty of $5, therefore, is needed to keep him in business. he is not thinking of himself, of course, but of the thousand men and women he employs, and of the people to whome their spending in turn gives employment."

So in this way, a high tariff sounds good. Throw these people out of work and you create more unemployment, and the economy takes a turn for the worse. So, in this way, republicans were right that tariffs are good. Of course that is what is seen. The problem here is the unseen.

Say the tariff of $5 is removed, which is what Bill Clinton accomplished with NAFTA. Certain American merchants will go out of business, because people will be more likely to buy the higher quality British sweaters at a better price. Sweater consumers now have a high quality sweater and they have an extra $5 to spend on other products. In this way, the value of the dollar increases. Instead of spending $30 on one sweater, he spends $25 on a sweater and $5 at McDonalds.

Now, on the surface this looks bad to the American merchants, and all the people who lost their jobs. But on the plus side, since America no longer needs to produce cheap sweaters and sell them at a high price, the merchant can focus on manufacturing another product that is necessary. For instance, the merchant will make washing machines or aircraftss instead. These industries then absorbs those who were previously unemployed.

Since American washing machines and aircrafts are of higher quality and less expensive than those made in Britain, British washing machine and aircraft manufacturers will be forced to close their doors. Those who lose their jobs will be absorved by industries that otherwise would not have been created if the tariff had been high.

Another advantage of lower tariffs is that the British are encouraged to sell their sweaters in the U.S., and, since American money is only good in America, they will have to spend it on American goods. So this in and of itself boosts the American economy.

"So," Hazlitt explains, "as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And though fewer peple are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed -- in, say, the American washing machine or aircraft building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being forced to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better provided with sweaters, adn British consumers are better provided with washing machines and aircraft."

So, in the end, lower tariffs are good, and so are free trade agreements between nations. The challenge is to look beyond what is right before your eyes. In order to see the big picture you almost need to use your imagination.

Media wrong about 2016 GOP prospects

The media has no clue what republicans need to do to win in 2016. Take a recent article by Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, "Large GOP field has party leaders anxious about their chances in ’16," as an example. Consider the first paragraph:

To take back the White House after eight years in the political wilderness, Republicans think they must soften their image and expand their appeal in particular to women and Latino voters. As Jeb Bush, a leading presidential contender, puts it, “We’re going to win if we show our hearts.”

That might be what the party leaders think, but that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. This paragraph is wrong on two accounts.

1. We don't need to soften our image.  This is essentially saying we need to give up on our core principles to win.  They basically want us to give up on our fight preserve traditional marriage, and against the welfare state, amnesty and abortion. If we caved on principles liberalism would win. 
2. We don't need to cater to women and Latinos.  I say this because what the republicans need to do is cater to all Americans, not groups of Americans. Liberalism tries to separate people into groups, as though America is a salad bowl.  They want to pit one group of Americans against another, such as the rich verses poor. Conservatives believe we are all together as a melting pot, and we should create an environment whereby everyone benefits, not just one or another group.  

Later, Rucker explains that the "large and diverse" republican field, along with the fact that Jeb Bush has failed to jump out ahead of the fray, may impact the amount of money that can be raised to win a general election.  He said:

This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

Sure, this sounds great if you want to turn the republican party into the democrat party.  This is fine if you want both parties to be the same.  This is fine if you want the republican party to return to being the liberal party it was when Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were presidents.

But that's not the republican party the rest of us want.  We want the party to be the opposite of what the democrat party has become.  We want the republican party to be the party of the people.  We want the republican party to stand up for the principles that made this nation exceptional once, and what can make this nation exceptional again.

We do not want two parties running whereby the choice, as it was when Obama ran against McCain, is whether you want to spend $200 million on global warming or $200 billion on global warming.  We want one of the choices to represent something other than the liberal values the media and the current White Houses wants.

We do not want republicans to continue to negotiate with democrats in order to soften their image. Most republican voters are adamantly opposed to the rapid influx of immigration in the country, and believe amnesty would simply turn these immigrants into democrats.  Yet the republican leadership is trying to help Obama in order to soften its image and cater to Latinos.  This, in my view, is political suicide.

If Jeb Bush wants to give up on principles to win in 2016, he's going to be met with a lot of opposition within his own party.  So, in this way, the media is once again wrong.  This is another reason why the media cannot be trusted. 

Amtrak tragedy: Will It Become Political?

Prayers are headed to Philadelphia to the the victims of the Amtrak train that crashed.  It was a tragedy. And with every tragedy there is someone who tries to take advantage of it to advance a political agenda.  My guess is it will be to call for more spending on infrastructure.

And it wouldn't be the first time either, as in May of 2013 the Washington Post ran an article suggesting that more money should be spent on infrastructure after the collapse of a bridge along Interstate 5 in Washington. So, every tragedy has to be taken advantage of politically by someone.  I mean, it shouldn't, but it usually is.

So, who's going to be the first to take advantage of this tragedy?

I didn't have to work today, and it's rather cool outside, so I spent quality time listening to accounts of the crash.  And then one commentator said this (paraphrasing):  "It's possible one of the possible causes might be infrastructure.  If, for instance, the track caused this crash, it might indicate the need for more spending."

Aha.  And he wasn't the first.  So that's when it occurred to me that I was on to something.  And then I read the transcripts on the Rush Limbaugh show and that's what he talked about.  He said that over a trillion dollars has been allocated to infrastructure since 2008.

He said:

"It's predictable as easily as the sun coming up in the morning. We're gonna hear that we need to really ramp up infrastructure spending. We're gonna hear hand-wringing, see hand-wringing and complaints, "How could this have happened? We are letting our country just become dilapidated right in front of our eyes. Where is all the infrastructure spending?" And at that point somebody needs to say, "You have asked for over a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending since 2008, and we'd like to see where the money already allocated for infrastructure spending has actually gone."

 According to newsbusters.org, the efforts to do this have already begun by the NBC network.

Since when does throwing more money at something ever solve a problem? We increase education spending every year, and our national ranking continues to plummet.  We allocate a trillion dollars for infrastructure, and people complain about it now more than ever.

Further reading:

• U.S. Infrastructure Spending Has Plummeted Since 2008
• Democrats Blame Amtrak Crash on Infrastructure Spending
• Scandal: Less Than 7% of Trillion Dollar 'Stimulus' Spent on Infrastructure
• CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC Push Infrastructure Spending After Amtrak Accident

Benjamin Harrison: a protectionist republican

Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901)
President (1889-1893)

Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of former president William Henry Harrison, and in 1888 became the 23rd president of the United States when he defeated Grover Cleveland in the electoral college (although he would lose the popular vote).

He was a republican and a protectionist, meaning he was an advocate of restraining international trade in order to protect American businesses and jobs from foreign intervention.

As a protectionist he would sign the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which raised the tariff (taxes) on foreign goods imported into the U.S. so their prices were competitive with American goods.  Republicans at the time believed this protected American industries and workers by encouraging people to buy products made at home.

Yet despite his pro-business stance, he was a supporter of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890 that was designed to allow the government to break up new business organizations called trusts.  Trusts are when many similar companies band together to form monopolies that allow them to lower prices and put competitors out of business.

Harrison believed monopolies were unfair for consumers.  Yet despite signing the law, only one monopoly was broken up during Harrison's term in office.  The real stance against such monopolies would come a decade later when progressive republican Theodore Roosevelt was elected President.

Roosevelt in mind, many republicans did not like him because he was a progressive. Yet the man who was responsible for his first job on the national level was Harrison, who appointed him to the U.S. Civil Service Commission.  Roosevelt would prove to be a thorn in Harrison's side, as Harrison refused to accept many of his progressive recommendations.

Harrison was also a supporter of protecting the voting rights of African Americans.  This came to the forefront of his agenda because many southern states had created laws raising requirements for voters that essentially prevented African Americans from voting in the south.

No one knows whether Harrison was truly concerned about African Americans, or if he was doing this for political gain, for it was almost guaranteed that African Americans would vote republican. However, in the end, he did not have enough support in congress (mainly due to a democratic filibuster), and such noble efforts to protect African American voting rights did not gain steam for another 70 years.

Many western states met requirements for statehood when Cleveland was president, but he and his administration dragged their feet on this issue mainly because those states would shift the balance of power in Congress in favor of republicans.

Yet when Harrison was elected, the republican controlled congress took swift action to see to it that Washington (1889), Montana (1889), Idaho (1890), Wyoming (1890), North Dakota (1889) and South Dakota (1889) were admitted as new states.  As expected, the six new states elected 12 new senators, greatly enhancing the republican majority in the senate.

In 1878 Congress succeeded in passing the Bland Allison Act, which required the U.S. Treasury to buy between $2 million and $4 million in silver each month. This was a response to pressure by some Congressmen to purchase from minors some of the surplus of silver in order to back the dollar not just with gold (as was traditionally the case) but also with silver. The bill also allowed for the coinage of silver.

The 12 new western senators once again reinvigorated talk about the surplus silver supply in western states.  They tried to push through congress bills to increase federal dollars spent each month on silver and allow the U.S. to coin silver.

Former president Grover Cleveland was watching these actions closely.  As an ardent opponent of the U.S. purchasing silver, he was very concerned.  While his political advisors recommended he stay silent on the issue as to not offend potential voters, he said, "I am supposed to be a leader of my party.  If any word of mine can check these dangerous fallacies, it is my duty to give that word, whatever the cost may be to me."

So Cleveland published a letter in opposition to the coinage of money, and it became known as the "Silver Letter."  While Harrison signed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act in 1890.  Yet the bill to allow the U.S. to coin silver failed to make it out of congress, and Cleveland was happy about this. But his political aspirations were reinvigorated, and he decided he wanted to run again for president.

The Congress of 1889-90 created bills that appropriated so much money to unworthy causes that it was often referred to as the "billion-dollar Congress."  It appropriated money to steamship companies and new railroads, and spent large sums for the construction of new U.S. navy ships.  This soured voter opinion of Congress.

While the Sherman Silver Purchase Act resulted in an economic boom (it was short lived, but lasted through the end of Harrison's term), but the McKinley Tariff Act was seen as a boon to wealthy industrialists.  Such displeasure was revealed at the midterm election of 1890 when House Republicans lost 93 seats that lead democrats to a commanding majority.

Harrison faced strong opposition from William McKinley and James G. Blaine at the republican convention, and even though Harrison won the nomination on the first ballot, the party was not united.

So, Harrison ran for re-election in 1892, and this time he once again faced his arch nemesis, Grover Cleveland.  This was the only time in U.S. history a president and a former president were the two main candidates.   Harrison would once again lose the popular vote, only this time he lost the electoral college as well.

The economic boom created by purchase of silver turned out to be short lived, and almost as soon as Harrison was out of office was the  Panic of 1893, which resulted in a major depression.  Both the McKinley Tariff Act and the Sherman Silver Purchase Act were blamed.  This pretty much sealed Benjamin Harrison's legacy as a poor president. 

Sowell explains why racism is rampant in Obama's America

Racism was supposed to end with Obama.  He was supposed to create a better environment for African Americans.  Instead, racism has gotten worse.  Those who champion for equality are angrier than they've ever been.  

Race riots that were rampant during the 1960s have returned.  There have now been 5 Race Riots in Obama's Post Racial America.  If we add the Baltimore riots to this count, there have now been 6 race riots in Obama's Post Racial America.  

Obama blames Inequality facing minority men behind the unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson.  He also blames slavery and Jim crow.  During an interview with David Letterman, he said: 

If you have slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination that built up over time, even if our society has made extraordinary strides -- and I'm a testament to that, and my children are -- (applause) But it's built up over time.

Thomas Sowell, The Inconvenient Truth About Ghetto Communities' Social Breakdown, said Obama is all wrong.  He said:

Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

 He added:

When the recorded fatal shooting of a fleeing man in South Carolina brought instant condemnation by whites and blacks alike, and by the most conservative as well as the most liberal commentators, that moment of mutual understanding was very fleeting, as if mutual understanding were something to be avoided, as a threat to a vision of “us against them” that was more popular.

That vision is nowhere more clearly expressed than in attempts to automatically depict whatever social problems exist in ghetto communities as being caused by the sins or negligence of whites, whether racism in general or a “legacy of slavery” in particular. Like most emotionally powerful visions, it is seldom, if ever, subjected to the test of evidence.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s. 

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. Oh, and if you're keeping track, he's also among the most successful African Americans in the U.S.

Grover Cleveland could have done what FDR did..

Grover Cleveland had to deal with a depression throughout his second term in office. As a classical liberal president he signed a repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which many suspected was the cause of the depression, but this did not cause the depression to end.

The unemployment rate was over 2 million, and there was a lot of pressure on Cleveland to take governmental action to turn the economy around and to help all those who were suffering as a result of the depression.

Yet Cleveland believed it was not the role of government to help the unemployed, that this was the job of businessmen. In other words, while he could have signed laws that violated the constitution yet would have benefited his political career, he chose to veto bills based on principle and principle alone.

In this way, Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal president; he was the last president who did not use executive powers for political gains. Ninety years later, also facing a depression that lingered through his term, Franklin Deleno Roosevelt did the opposite, signing bills that created programs and that also benefited his political career.

And trust me, many of the same programs that FDR signed into law (or tried to sign into law) were thought of during Cleveland's depression. In 1894, Jacob Coxey, a businessman who had been forced to lay off his workers, proposed many programs that would have benefited the underemployed, even going as far to propose a program for creating government jobs for the unemployed.

President Cleveland would have nothing to do with these programs, claiming they were unconstitutional, and they probably were. It would be another 90 years before a president (his name was Franklin Deleno Roosevelt) would have the nerve to step over constitutional bounds to sign programs, many similar to what coxey proposed, into law.

There was a lot of pressure on Cleveland to create programs to help the unemployed, and signing such bills might even have improved Clevelands popularity, and probably would have made him the democratic nominee in 1896 instead of William Jennings Bryan. Chances are he would have gone on to win re-election as FDR did 90 years later.

The truth was that the nation would have benefited from some regulation and monitoring of the economy, and such programs would also have benefited Herbert Hoover as he faced yet another economic down turn three decades later. Such programs might even have prolonged the Roaring 20s, thus preventing an aggressive progressive such as FDR from ever being elected.

But Cleveland was not interested in what might transpire in the future. He was not interested in furthering his political career if it meant violating the Constitution that he respected. He therefore would have no part in any law that violated it, and so he continued making use of his veto pen to veto bill after bill.

Almost every other president after Cleveland, including Bill Clinton, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush signed laws that might infringe on the Constitution simply for the purpose of political gain. Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal, and the last president to vetoe bills based on principle as opposed to signing them based on emotion.

Because of the ongoing depression, Grover Cleveland is often cited as an insignificant president. Yet because of his outright respect for the Constitution even though doing the opposite might have benefited his legacy, he ought to be regarded as one of the great presidents.

FDR created the modern economy

While it is probably true that FDR's policies (referred to as the New Deal) prolonged the Great Depression, many of the programs he created benefited future economies.  In fact, one might argue that some of the programs created by him prevented any future Great Depressions.

The best part about the New Deal, however, was that it dealt with the two main problems that plagued Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and that was lack of regulations to deal with greedy cooks, and insurance programs to insure invested money.*

There were laws that existed prior to FDR, yet most of his predecessors believed it was not the role of government to enforce them.  FDR changed this by creating organizations to act as monitors to assure regulations were being enforced.

For instance, the New Deal created the:

• Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC) which insured money invested in banks up to $100,000.  
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to regulate the stock market
• Social Security Board (SSB) was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 was responsible for monitoring insurance to the elderly, unemployment compensation, and  public assistance. The agency is now called the Social Security Administration (SSA).
• Federal Communication Commission to monitor radio and television
• Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created as part of the Federal Housing Act of 1934 to set standards for construction of homes and to ensure loans made by banks and other lenders for the purpose of building homes.  It is now called Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This assured that even the poorest people could afford a mortgage on a house. 
• Codes for fair competition were created as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933
  including production restrictions, minimum wages, and working conditions in order to limit competition and foster a spirit of teamwork among industry rivals.

While these programs were inherently beneficial to the nation, in order to pay for them he had to push tax hikes through Congress, which ultimately tripled the tax rate during FDRs terms in office, raising the top income tax rate to 90 percent.

*By saying greedy crooks, I am not referring to people who are rich, as liberals do.  I'm referring to people who actually violate the law for their own personal gain.