Thomas Jefferson: A Small Government President

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president of the United States. If you rank a president's greatness by how much he increased the scope and size of government, Jefferson was not your man.  However, if you rank a president's greatness by his ability to defend and protect the Constitution, then Jefferson ranks among the better presidents.

The election of 1800 had Jefferson running against incumbent John Adams.  It was among the most bitter campaigns ever, and saw Federalists and Democratic-Republicans tossing vitriol violently back and forth. Keep in mind, however, that neither Jefferson nor Adams participated in the campaigning, as presidential candidates at this time thought that doing so would be seen as immodest.

Aaron Burr

The results of the election were that Jefferson received 73 electoral votes and Adams received 65.  A problem ensued as every one of Jefferson's electors were so loyal to the party that they each cast a vote for vice president Aaron Burr as well.  This meant that Jefferson was tied with Burr for the presidency.  This meant that the House had to decide who would be president.

Federalists made trouble by voting for Burr, and after 35 ballots no decision had been made.  However, on the 36th ballot, Hamilton abstained.  This time ten states voted for Jefferson and only four voted for Burr. This made Thomas Jefferson our third President and Burr our third Vice President.

Jefferson referred to the campaign as "The Revolution of 1800."  He said this because it was the first time in the new nation that power was transferred from one party to another.  During his inaugural speech on March 4, 1801, he said, "We are all Republicans -- We are all Federalists."  Such words were needed, or so he thought, to allay tensions created during the campaigning.

During the remainder of his speech he promised to govern under the following principles of government:

1. Strict Construction of the Constitution. He promised to protect and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability.  In other words, he promised to rule by limited government actions, and therefore to protect and defend state's rights.  
2. Decentralized Government.  Jefferson trusted the people to make the right decisions for themselves, and therefore, he would not use the government actions to intrude into the lives of citizens. He believed this would empower the individual to make the decisions necessary to improve their lots in life and to feed their own families.  In other words, he believed people were smart, and that the government could not solve problems better than the individual; that to improve society you must first improve the individual.

These have since become known as Jeffersonian Principles. During his first term he would live up to his own Jeffersonian Principles, as he would.

1. Champion Congress to repeal all the Alien and Sedition Acts, or allow them to expire
2. Pardoned those who had been imprisoned under the Sedition Acts
3. He cut federal policies set by Federalists, included some heavy taxes.
4. He cut federal actions to allow the states to govern without federal intrusion
5. He reduced federal expenditures and personnel
6. He reduced the national debt, and doubled the size of the Federal Treasury
7. He rejected the federalist idea of selling federal land at high prices to pay for government projects that would have improved infrastructure.  
8. Instead, by cutting the size of government, and cutting taxes, he doubled the size of the treasury, and doles out this money equally among the states for local improvement projects (see below)
9. He also sold land to ordinary Americans at modest prices, believing this would empower individual farmers in the west to prosper.
10. He empowered Americans to build up from below, rather than having the federal elites build up from above.  

He was also a good foreign policy president.  When the pasha of Tripoli began firing on U.S. merchant ships and demanded large sums of money.  When they refused to pay, the pasha declared war on the U.S. Jefferson responded by sending the USS Constitution and other warships to open fire on Tripoli.  

Several weeks later the fighting was over and the city surrendered.  A treaty was then signed that provided some protection for U.S. merchant ships in the Mediterranean. The battles "on the shores of Tripoli" are remembered in the current U.S. Marines' Anthem. 

Spain owned New Orleans, and allowed American trappers to transport their goods to the rest of the world through their ports.  When Spain ceded the city to the French, Jefferson became concerned for the trappers. He believed the French might cut off the ports to the Americans as he built a French colony in the huge Louisiana Territory.  After all, French Emperor Bonaparte Napoleon was an empire builder.

So, in the spring of 1803, Jefferson sent James Monroe to France to offer to purchase the ports of New Orleans.  Monroe was surprised to learn that the French would not only sell New Orleans to the Americans, but the entire Louisiana Territory.  The reason was probably because French needed money to pay for their costly wars in Europe.  

Monroe and Robert R. Livingston (the U.S. minister to France) agreed on April 30 to accept the offer. In this way, the Jefferson administration succeeded in doubling the size of the young nation for only 15 million dollars, or three cents an acre. 

Jefferson, as well as other Americans, had already been curious what this vast land contained, and so he met with his secretary, Meriwether Lewis, to discuss this topic.  After the purchase, Jefferson was given the funds he needed for an expedition.  Lewis, along with Captain William Clark, were sent to search for a water route to the Pacific Ocean and to record anything about the land, and the people they found, along their journey.  

Jefferson wanted badly to retire after only one term.  However, he knew the Federalists wanted to regain power badly, and they wanted to reverse many of the things Jefferson had accomplished.  So he was convinced to run for a second term.

The first order of business was to choose a new vice president.  He did not much like Aaron Burr, so he did not include him in much decision making.  In fact, Burr turned out to be a horrible vice president.  In 1804 he ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York and was so heavily criticized by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, that Burr Challenged Alexander to a duel to defend his honor.  Hamilton shot and missed, but Burr's bullet killed Alexander, who died days later of his wounds.  Hamilton's death meant the Federalist party lost it's leader, and so this pretty much sealed the fate of the Federalist party.

George Clinton

So Jefferson chose George Clinton from New York to be his vice president.

During his first term he succeeded in expanding the U.S. Treasury, so during his second term he decided to divide this money equally among the states (which was what the constitution allowed) so the states could decide how the money was spent.  However, Jefferson wanted the money to be spent on projects that would improve rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufacturers, education, and other great projects that would improve the nation.

The military also swallowed up large portions of the excess.  The most famous war at this time was the war between Britain and France.  Napoleon threatened to invade Britain, and so blockades were set up, and so French and British warships were also stopping American merchant ships, thus preventing them from delivering American goods to Europe.

Jefferson knew the American economy depended on trade with both Britain and France.  While Jefferson tended to side with the French, he also knew it was important to keep the peace with the British.  While others wanted America to side with France, others wanted it to side with the British.  Jefferson, on the other hand, believed war might weaken, or even destroy the young nation, so he did everything in his power to keep the peace with both nations.

While Jefferson worked to avoid war overseas, Aaron Burr was stirring up trouble at home.  Perhaps bitter from his fall from grace, he surreptitiously planned to raise an army of westerners who were unhappy with the new government.  He planned to drive out the Spanish from the Louisiana Territory and then move into the Spanish colony of Mexico.  He would then conquer some western states.  He would then, perhaps, name himself as leader of the new Empire.

Of course Burr's secret was revealed to Jefferson, and Burr was considered as a traitor and tried for treason.  However, even though most people considered Burr guilty, not enough evidence to convict him was available.  So he was acquitted by Chief Justice Marshall.

So the British and French had set up blockades to stop merchandise from getting to the other nation. However, the British had lost many sailors to war, so when they stopped American merchant ships, they forced American sailors to work for the British.  This greatly diminished American morale, especially considering the blockades were severely impacting the American economy.

In June of 1807, the American warship was stopped by the British warship Leopard off the coast of Virginia. The British insisted upon boarding the American ship, claiming the Americans were harboring a British deserter.  When the Americans refused, the British fired upon the American ship.  The British then boarded the American ship, and took two American sailors.

When news of this arrived in America, calls were rampant for war against Britain.  Jefferson still aimed to avoid war, and so he tried to broker a settlement, but it failed.  He then did something that was ahead of his time, and he prepared for war.  He had American businesses construct submarines with torpedoes to destroy British ships.  This was another of Jefferson's brilliant ideas, although it was not taken seriously at this time.

In December 1807 he attempted another strategy: he proposed an Embargo Act, and Congress passed it. This essentially created a ban on all trade with France or Britain.  His belief was that this would force these nations to deal more fairly with American merchant ships.

But the embargo also failed.  The only thing it succeeded at was causing thousands of American merchants and sailors to lose their jobs.  Farm prices dropped, and many farmers went bankrupt because they could not sell their crops at a profit.  In fact, the embargo hurt the U.S. more than either Britain or France.

In March 1809 he repealed the Embargo Act.

At the age of 66, Jefferson was tired.  He decided to follow in the footsteps of George Washington and retire from office after serving two terms.  His longtime friend, James Madison, would succeed him in office.

In the end, Jefferson believed in the power of the people.  He believed people were smart, and left to their own devices would solve problems better than government.  It was this approach which allowed any individual with a dream to prosper.  His system of limited government and strict constitutionalism would be used by most presidents who followed him, and with great success.

He made great strides to prevent war, even at the cost of his own legacy. He Jeffersonian Principles would create the cornerstone for a majority of presidents who succeeded him to the office.  He therefore should go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

His party would dominate politics for the next 24 years. But eventually it would split into two factions that would become the Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Henry Clay Whig Party.

4 differences between liberals and conservatives

Dennis Prager recently wrote a series of columns, beginning with "To Defend a Position, You Must Understand Both Sides," explaining the differences between conservatives and liberals.  He said, and correctly so, that "At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

Difference #1: Liberals Believe Man is basically good.  That's what liberals think.  Since everybody is already innately good, there is no need for religion to teach people how to be just and moral. Since they believe all people are innately good, when people do something bad it's because they were influenced by outside forces, such as poverty, despair, and hopelessness.  When black people riot and commit crimes it's because they live in poor communities.

Democrats often excuse violent crimes by saying things like, "It's the fault of society," or "It's our fault because we didn't help them."  This is why liberals tend to feel guilty when crimes occur, because they feel there might have been something they could have done.  If a teenager goes on a rampage with an assault rifle, they may say something like, "This happened because of republicans."  Meaning that republicans oppose bans on such guns.

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the undeniable truth that people are born morally flawed. This is why conservatives believe religion, and the morals and values it teaches, is important to a functioning society.  Lacking a good religious upbringing, children are more likely to commit crimes and less likely to succeed in life.  When a person commits a crime it's because that person made a bad choice.  Religion essentially teaches people how to be good, and it teaches personal responsibility.  If you make bad choices, it's your fault, not the fault of society or anyone else.

Of course, the idea that poverty causes people to commit crime doesn't make sense when you consider that the vast majority of people who are equally poor do not commit crimes.  Many liberals explain radical Muslim behaviors by saying these people come from impoverished nations.  The fact that most radical Muslims come from middle class families, and Osama Bin Laden was a billionaire, seems to elude them.

Difference #2: The Left Rejects Many Basic Facts of Life.  Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the basic fats of life, and base many of their beliefs on them.  For instance, conservatives understand that man is inherently flawed, and therefore needs religion to learn how to become good.  The left doesn't understand this fact, so liberals are are more likely to lose their religion, or at least not see the importance of learning about religion at school.  This is why conservatives are more likely to appreciate religion, and liberals more likely to be secular.

Conservatives understand that poor choices result in people committing crimes, and so they enforce laws to make people responsible for their own actions.  Liberals think things beyond a person's control lead them to commit crimes, and so they may be more lenient toward them, and feel bad for them.  They may blame republicans.

Conservatives are more likely to acknowledge what has become known as politically incorrect truths, but what they refer to as facts.  For instance, blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to commit crimes than whites.  Indians are the only people to have lost a war yet are treated as the victors.  They are more likely to display confederate flags as symbols of southern life, or to support teams using Indian names such as the Redskins and using Indian war chants to rev up crowds.

Liberals don't see these undeniable truths, and so they see it as offensive to blacks to say them.  Liberals think it's offensive when whites name their teams after Indians and use Indian war chants.  Liberals think it's offensive to blacks to say that blacks commit most crimes.  The undeniable truths that conservatives see are elusive to liberals.  This was how the political correct movement was formed.

Liberals don't like to hear undeniable truths, so they come up with speech codes at school.  If you speak certain truths you are punished, or called a race baiter, homophobes, bigot, inconsiderate, or some other offensive name.

Liberals want to avoid pain at all costs, and so nothing offensive can be said.  This also explains why they use bumper stickers like, "War is not the answer."  They do not understand the undeniable fact that wars are won with guns and tanks, not with pens and good wishes.  For instance, the Nazi's did not voluntarily stop slaughtering Jews, the Allies came in with guns and tanks and bombs and forced them to stop.

Conservatives understand that the only way to peace is through strength.  This explains why conservatives like Ronald Reagan believe it's important to build up our military.  Yet liberals don't understand this undeniable fact, and they believe strength on our side can be seen as offensive by the other.  So if they get mad at us and hate us and want to kill us, then it's our fault.

Conservatives understand the undeniable truth that marriage means something; it is necessary to hold the fabric of society together; it brings with it culture; it teaches culture; it teaches morals; it teaches right from wrong.  Liberals don't see this, and so they don't see a problem with changing the definition of marriage to include men marrying men.

Difference #3: Liberals believe the way to a better world is by doing battle with society's moral defects (real or perceived).  This makes sense, considering they believe people are morally good, so if there is a problem with a person, it's societies fault.  So, the way to make the person better is by improving society.  Unlike conservatives, they believe a perfect society is possible, and so they are continuously aiming for this goal by championing for laws to direct people in one direction or another.

This explains why those on the left are more involved with politics.  They must make laws in order to get people to act the way they want them to.  This explains why when you hear the terms "activist" or "social activist" you are usually referring to a liberal.  They want to change society so that it is constantly "moving forward," as they like to say.  And their efforts to perfect society is called "social justice."

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the way to a better society is with the moral improvement of the individual.  They believe the person must constantly do battle against inner forces to make himself or herself morally better.  They are less concerned with politics.  They don't want to change American politics, they aim to preserve tradition.  They are, in essence, trying to preserve the religious fabric of a society.  They are the defenders of religion.  They are the defenders of traditional marriage in order to preserve culture.  They understand that culture is important in order to improve the moral character of each person.

Conservatives believe improving moral character is important, although this culture must be taught one generation after another; it must be taught by mothers and fathers.  This is why conservatives tend to believe that poverty in impoverished inner city areas is caused by the break down of culture.  For instance, the fact that 9 in 10 black children are born to unwed mothers explains why crime and poverty is so high among the black population.  So they believe the way to end black poverty is to find ways to teach these people better morals and values.

Prager wrote:

The noblest generation ever born still has to teach its children how to battle their natures. If it doesn't, even the best society will begin to rapidly devolve, which is exactly what conservatives believe has been happening to America since the end of World War II.

Liberals believe the way to improve poverty is to create "social justice" programs that provide welfare and food stamps to these people.  They believe the state can make their lives better, and thus make the world a better place.  Yet conservatives understand the basic fact that the state cannot teach morals and values, only culture can do that, and (again) culture is taught by churches and families.  But the build-up of culture, and making the world good, takes time, and so is a slow process. It must be taught by each generation.

Liberals believe they can fix culture fast simply by making laws.  Or, in the case of the United States, where they cannot force people to act a certain way, they create "negative incentives."  Negative incentives means that you tell someone they have to act a certain way, or do a certain thing, or they will not receive government funding.  For instance, hospitals won't receive funding unless they go to paperless charting, or schools won't receive funding if they don't meat government set goals.

Prager wrote:

The Left does not focus on individual character development. Rather, it has always and everywhere focused on social revolution. The most revealing statement of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, the most committed leftist ever elected president of the United States, was made just days before the 2008 election: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," he told a large rapturous audience.

Furthermore, he added:

Conservatives not only have no interest in fundamentally transforming the United States, but they are passionately opposed to doing so. Fundamentally transforming any but the worst society -- not to mention transforming what is probably the most decent society in history -- can only make the society worse. Of course, conservatives believe that America can be improved, but not transformed, let alone fundamentally transformed... The Founders all understood that the transformation that every generation must work on is the moral transformation of each citizen. Thus, character development was at the core of both childrearing and of young people's education at school... As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."... And in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. Why is that? Because freedom requires self-control. Otherwise, external controls -- which means an ever more powerful government -- would have to be imposed."

He said that the old adage "You must fix yourself before you can fix society" holds true for conservatives but not liberals.

Difference #4: Liberals Ask the Question: Does it feel good? On the contrary, conservatives ask: does it do any good?"  Prager uses affirmative action as an example.  In 1987 a conservative New York Times editorial asked the question: Does a minimum wage do any good?" The answer was this:

"Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market . … More important, it would increase unemployment. … The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed.”

So the answer was: no!  So the editorial suggested that the best minimum wage was $0.00.

A more recent post by a now liberal editorial staff at the New York Times championed for a rise in the minimum wage.  They did not pose the question: "Does it do any good?"  Instead, as liberals, they asked the question: "Does it make me feel good?"  The answer was yes.  It makes me feel good that I'm helping my fellow man by allowing them to make a better wage.  It makes the worker feel better because he is making more money.  The fact that my raise may cause my boss to go out of business, or to at least not hire any one new, or lay off one of my coworkers so I can get my raise doesn't matter.  Does it make me feel good about myself is all that matters to a liberal.

Another example Prager used was peace activism.  Does it do any good? No.  In fact, it actually makes matters worse.  If you get rid of all our weapons, and bad guys learn about this, then the bad guys will know that he can have his way with us.  During WWII the Nazis were killing Jews, and it wasn't a peace activist that got them to stop.  In fact, sending a peace activist to talk to Hitler would have gotten the peace activist killed.  So, does peace activism do any good?  No.  So conservatives won't do it.

However, the liberal asks, "Will it make me feel better?"  Well sure it will.  It will make me feel like I'm helping.  The fact that I'm making matters worse doesn't matter: I feel good about myself.  Does leaving Iraq do any good.  No, it only made ISIS.  But does it make Obama feel good about himself? Yes.

Prager concludes by saying:

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”

There you go.

Further Reading:

• Differences between right and lift: part I
• Differences between right and left: part 2
• Differences between right and left: part 3
• Differences between right and left: part 4

The true story of Thanksgiving

There was no freedom of religion in the early 1600s. If you did not believe in the same religion that King James I wanted, and you worshiped God in the way you wanted instead of what King James wanted, you were treated as a common criminal. You were hunted down, put in prison, or even killed.

These individuals wanted to be left alone to worship the way they wanted, and in 1608 they moved out of their homeland of England to Holland. But there was much hardship in Holland too, so the Pilgrims decided to leave England for America. But they stopped back in England first to receive funding from the Virginia Company. Then in August of 1620, 102 Pilgrims set out for America in a ship called the Mayflower.

During the ride across the ocean much discussion ensued as to what form of government to create. While still on the Mayflower in 1620, the Mayflower Compact was signed, and one of the signers was William Bradford. The Pact said that all goods and services, and all land, would be owned by the mass community, and the profits would be doled out equally among the masses.

When they landed in November they found a land that was cold, shelter less, and not very welcoming. In fact, in that first harsh winter over half of the Pilgrims died. When Spring finally arrived, the Indians taught them how to build shelters and to plant corn, fish for cod, and skin beavers to be used as coats.

The fact that an Indian tribe, lead by Massosoit, was a blessing from God in itself, because without his blessing the other Indian tribes would have pulverised the Pilgrims. This was also a blessing because a pirate named black took advantage of his friendship and took many of his people.

They did better at this point, but things did not go as well as Bradford, the original governor of the community, had expected. He decided that while the Mayflower Pact sounded like a good idea, since no one owned anything, and there was no incentive to work more than the minimum, there were many crops that went unplanted, and much that wasn't taken care of, and productivity was very poor. People did whatever the minimum was needed of them, and then they quit. What the Pilgrims had created here was an early form of socialism.

By 1623 the harvest was so poor that starvation and death became a problem almost as bad as when the colonists first arrived. They had the know how and the potential for having good crops, but this wasn't happening.

Bradford realized this pact was not working. He wrote: "The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God." Yet he realized it did not work as expected.

Bradford decided to take an idea from the Bible. He gave every person a plot of land to take care of as their own. If they did well, they were able to keep part of the profits as an incentive to work hard. They were allowed to market and profit from what they sold. In effect, he turned loose the power of the marketplace. He created the worlds first capitalistic government.

The following harvest was abounding. It was not abounding because of help from the Indians, but because a socialistic government was replaced by a capitalistic one. On this, Bradford wrote: "This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

The Pilgrims did so well that they set up stands where they exchanged goods and services with the Indians, and they used profits from this to pay back their debt in England. In fact, the colony started to do so well economically that many Pilgrims decided to migrate to the colonies. This was called the Great Puritan Migration.

For helping them come up with a new system that worked to produce the bountiful crops, they decided to have a roast to give thanks to the Lord. There were some Indians at this celebration, but not as many as we and are kids are taught in school.

Now the Pilgrims were also thankful for the Indians for helping them and even protecting them. Yet that was not the main Intent of that celebration. The main intent was to thank God for teaching them an effective government.

The history books tell us that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated to give thanks to the Indians for helping the Pilgrims survive after that first hard winter. Sure the crops were improved that second November, but there was no celebration. There was no celebration until socialism was quashed and a capitalistic government was formed and the economy of the colony prospered. This is what the colonists celebrated on that first Thanksgiving. The date was August 9th.

However, since William Bradford's original notes were lost for many years, the story of  Indians saving colonists and this being the reason for the first Thanksgiving became common. And when Thanksgiving was made a national holiday by Congress in George Washington's first year in office, November 26 was selected as the day. And even while Bradford's journals were discovered, this false date and the false story of the first Thanksgiving were not corrected.

The unfortunate result of this fallacy not being corrected is that the lessons of Bradford were not learned. Carl Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Hitler, Mussolini, all played with various forms of socialism, and none of them worked.  Even today, in both the Europe and the United States, forms of socialism continue to exist. Perhaps if the true story of Thanksgiving were known, the failures of the past would not be repeated over and over again.

Further reading:

• Smithsonian: What as on the menu at the first Thanksgiving?

What candidate should be chosen

When choosing a candidate to vote for, we must not choose candidates just to limit the criticism of the media. We must not choose a woman just because feminists think republicans have a war on women.  We must not choose a black candidate just because most blacks vote democrat.

Those are things we should avoid doing.  If we choose candidates that they want, candidates who might support a few things we are opposed to, such as the pro-choice movement, then all we are doing then is playing right into their agenda.  We don't want to do that.  That will get us nowhere.  

What we need to do is choose the best man or woman, black or white, yellow or red, Catholic or Jew, who is the best conservative for the job.  We must choose the most conservative candidate (The Bill Buckley Rule).  

We need to pick someone who can campaign well. We need to pick someone who can get votes. We need to pick someone who can speak well and articulate conservatism, like Ronald Reagan.  We need to pick someone who is a true conservative, not just someone who claims to be, like John McCain or Mitt Romney. We need to pick someone who truly believes what he or she is saying. 

Don't pick someone who is going to undercut the conservative agenda. Don't pick someone who disagrees with the cause on "just a few issues."  Don't pick someone just to satisfy a particular constituency that's more aligned with the democratic party. 

That's identity politics.  That's the wrong thing to do.  That's the opposite of the conservative cause.  The conservative cause is doing things, believing in things, that will lift the entire nation; that will benefit everyone.  We must not choose a candidate who caters to one cause or one group, but someone who is for lifting up the entire ship. 

We do not want gender politics.  We don't endorse that kind of planning.  What we want is to vote for the best person for the job.  We want only the best speaker, the best communicator, and the person with the best conservative agenda getting elected. It is this person who comprises the general classical liberal views of the majority of the people who live in this country. 

We want leaders who the most qualified to inspire and motivate all the people of this great nation, people who are right on the issues and policies. This is why it is important who you vote for, and why elections matter.  

Think of it this way. Here's a good idea of what I'm saying here. Every time the republican establishment nominates a candidate for president who is supposed to cater to the left on certain issues, we lose.  

I'll rattle off some names here: Gerald R. Ford, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (1992), John McCain, and Mitt Romney. These are all candidates who were moderate republicans, or those who catered to a certain group of people instead of the nation as a whole.  

When people see that the republican candidate is just as liberal as the democrat, they think that republicans are no better than democrats.  They might as well vote for the democrat and let them get blamed for advancing the progressive agenda, an agenda that creates nothing but chaos and failure. 

We need to vote for the best conservative candidates, and it does not matter what race, color, sex, creed, or even political affiliation.  What matters is that these men and women understand that it was classical liberalism, now called conservatism and libertarianism and constitutionalism) that made this country great, and this is what will make this country great once again.  

Progressives stole the name liberal, we want it back

The progressives took the word liberalism and claimed it for themselves. Liberalism is the choice that unites most of us. That's the one where we all come down together and say, "Look, we can live with each other."

From the time of the founders to the 1940s liberalism was most people were called.  Liberalism stood for limited government to protect and defend liberty.  Progressives stole that term and claimed it for themselves to shed a positive light on their agenda of creating a large government that tramples on liberty. 

Why did our "classical liberal" ancestors allow this to happen? We need to take it back.  We need to start calling liberals progressives again.  And we need to call conservatives and libertarians liberals again.  This makes sense, because progressive and liberal are opposites.  

We need to take the term liberal back and allow the people to see progressives for what they really are: people who think they know what's best for you, so they create laws to force their agenda on you.  But this requires you to sacrifice your freedom and liberties."

You can't say to people, "Marijuana is bad for you, so we need to create a law banning you from manufacturing and selling it, without taking away their liberty to choose.  You are basically deciding for them what is good for them, and forcing them to be perfect.  What this does is create a dark market for marijuana."

For crying out loud, did we learn nothing from prohibition.  During prohibition it was illegal to import, transport, produce or sell alcohol in the U.S. What resulted was an underworld that made men like Al Capone rich.  It showed on a full scale level that governmental attempts to perfect the world create nothing but chaos.  

Yet we continue to allow it.  We continue to let progressives win at every level in the country.  We continue to let it continue even though only 14 percent of Americans admit to supporting their agenda.  They have infiltrated our nation. They have made it acceptable to allow government officials to say things like, "Hey, you should wear a seat belt.  So let's make a law that will fine you if you don't." 

"Hey, we feel that throwing more money at education will make it better.  Why don't we put the federal government in charge of it and throw lots of money at it." That happened in the 1960s and all it did was make education in the U.S. worse. They create regulations and programs aimed at fixing things because it sounds like a good idea, people buy into it, and then they make them worse. 

The same thing with the war on poverty. Trillions of dollars have been thrown into entitlement programs in this country aimed at ending poverty since Johnson's War on Poverty began in the 1960s, and all it resulted in was more people in poverty. 

If you need a good example just look at Detroit.  

These are the same progressives who stole the name liberal and claimed it for themselves.  We need to take it back and let them wallow in their progressivism. We need to let people see them for what they are: people who want to create big government at the expense of liberty. 

Liberalism is the exact opposite of what they are. We are liberals.  But we will be satisfied with people calling us classical liberals.  That's what we are.  That's what I am.  

As it is, we settle for the name conservative, constitutional conservative, liberatarian conservative, or simply libertarian.  That is what we are.  But what we really are is classical liberals, or simply liberals.  But we can't call ourselves what we really are, because progressives stole and obliterated the meaning of it. 

The reason this is important is because you have about 20 percent of people in the democratic party who don't want to be conservatives, and so they stay in the democratic party. 

They may not agree with us on everything, but they think like we do.  But they don't want to become conservatives because they think that's what Ronald Reagan was and they don't want to be that. But if we call ourselves classical liberals, we can draw all of them together.  They may not agree with us on everything, but all classical liberals believe liberty should come before state, and people should not be allowed to vote their freedoms away, regardless what the cause or belief or theory.

Most people understand classical liberalism.  They see progressives calling themselves liberals and they say, "I'm a liberal just like them."  But what they don't understand is that what they are championing for is not what they think it is. 

They have no clue they are championing for progressivism, which is a sister of socialism, communism, Fascism, Fascist Socialism, and all those types of governments.  Yet what they truly yearn for is classical liberalism.  

People in Europe think of Conservatives as the opposite of classical liberalism, or the opposite of freedom.  They think of us as Nazis and Fascist.  Yet this is not true, because we are the true liberals.  We are the classical liberals.  But because the progressive movement stole our name, they have succeeded at re-branding themselves in a better light. They have pulled the wool over the eyes of the world, so to speak.  

We need to recreate the image of freedom in the world.  We need to recreate what we are, we need to call ourselves classical liberals.  This way we can collect all the classical liberals into one party and take our country back.  

Obtaining a colorblind society for everyone

I live in a colorblind society. That means that where I live you don't notice people's race. It doesn't matter. It doesn't trigger things. There is no automatic bias or prejudice. When people are hired, it's "assumed" they were hired on merit, and are treated as just another peer.

In a colorblind society, people are treated according to how they treat you, or how good they perform their work. They are treated accordingly, with race not even being a factor.

That's not to say racism doesn't exist in the minds of some of my peers, although if it exists I do not see it.  If any of my peers are racist, they do not let it show.  And that's also not to say racism doesn't exist to a greater extend in other areas of the world, because Lord knows it does.

That said, there are some who just assume people are racist without just cause.  For instance, I have been called a racist just because of my conservative views, and because I'm a Christian.  Some say I'm a racist on the grounds that I usually vote republican.

To them I say that it is conservatism that has championed for a colorblind society, while liberals have championed for treating different groups of people differently.  Republicans want to create an environment where every person has an opportunity to rise up, while democrats only want certain groups to rise up.  Democrats have created entitlements that have trapped many black people in poverty (and trapped them in a political party), and 30 years of democrat control of Detroit, New York, California, and Baltimore has pretty much proved this.

You have groups of people sitting around and waiting for any excuse to riot. They broke out in Ferguson based on the myth of "Stop!  Don't Shoot!"  Now they started a riot in Baltimore because a black man died under police custody, although we still don't know why he died.

Yet these groups of people just assume it was racism, while most of the reasons for the riots are written off as mere myths.  For instance, half of the city council in Baltimore consists of blacks, and half of the police force consists of blacks, and the Mayor of Baltimore is black and so too is the Baltimore police chief.

Speaking of the Mayor of Baltimore, her name is Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  In response to the race riots she said:

I've made it very clear that I, um, work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their, uh, right to free speech. It's a very delicate balancing act because while we, uh, try to make that they were protected from the cars and the other, y'know, things that were going on. We also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well.

She did call a state of emergency and did call in the national guard, yet why in the world would she give rioters space to destroy things?  That's just crazy.  She didn't make effort to try to stop them, just gave them space to destroy.

Obama has blamed the riots on a republican Congress not willing to invest in urban cities, although Obama's party had complete control of Congress for more than a few years and he didn't solve the problems of urban cities.  Likewise, every single member of the Baltimore Council is a democrat, so there is plenty of government involvement.  This proves that government is not the solution.  In fact, it proves that government is the antithesis of the solution.

You see, you have to realize that it was republicans who worked hard to free the slaves, while democrats opposed it. It was republicans who worked hard to get the Civil Rights Act passed in 1962, while democrats opposed it.  It was republicans by opposed affirmative action so that black people could be hired based on the merit of their knowledge, and the content of their skills, and not by the color of their skin, while democrats opposed it.

While the people on the left say they want a colorblind society, they don't want it.  What they want is for people to see people by the color of their skin, to trap them in poverty, and to use them as pawns in their efforts to get elected over and over again. And their strategy has worked, as a stunning majority of blacks continue to vote democrat.

Yet has this solved any of their problems.  Democrats started the war on poverty in the 1960s, and after 50 years of spending money to help end poverty, there are more people in poverty today as there were then.
If you add all the money spend on the War on Poverty, Great Society, and food stamps, $22 trillion worth of tax dollars* have been spend on ending poverty, and yet it still exists.  African-Americans are stuck in inner cities like Baltimore and Detroit, and they see no way out.

So then Obama was elected, and they started salivating. There must have been so much hope among the African-American community when Obama was elected.  Yet now that Obama has had six years to work his magic, nothing has improved for African-Americans, unless you consider more on food stamps, and more on welfare, as progress.  And many of these African-Americans are not working, and it's for this reason they have time for peaceful protests that turn into riots.  People who are working have better things to do that loot and riot.

Yet conservatives don't measure progress by how how many people are on the government dole, they measure it by how many are able to get off the government dole and find success on their own. Conservatives measure success by how many African-Americans are able to get jobs that pay well so they can choose where they want to live, and choose the schools their kids go to, and so on and so forth.

So now African-Americans have an African American president who was supposed to end racism in America, he was supposed to make things better for them, and he's made it worse. Yet rather than blaming him and his political views, they blame republicans.  Rather than blaming failed government programs, they blame capitalism.

These groups of people waiting for excuses to riot are angrier than ever, and they have everything they ever wanted.  They have complete democrat control of their city, and they have Obama.  Yet they are angrier than ever.  This is more proof that government is not the solution.

It's time for African-Americans to stop voting for people who say they have empathy for them, and create programs that the hard working people in this country are forced to pay for even though they know they won't work.  It's time to stop voting for people who take from the rich to give to the needy.  Instead of calling the rich greedy and punishing them with high taxes, we need to teach people to become rich.  Instead of creating programs to trap people in poverty, we need to get them out of the way so that there are no obstacles in the road to succeeding in life.

The time is now for blacks to start voting for republican solutions to establish the colorblind society I live in for everyone.  It's time to elect people who yearn to create an economic environment where everyone can rise into a better economic status. It's time to elect people who offer better solutions that the same ones that keep failing.

*That $22 trillion is three times more than all the wars in this country, and yet democrats continue to say we need to cut the defense budget to gain control of the out of control national debt.

Further reading:

• Baltimore riots explode left race myths
• Republican Congress won't invest in urban communities
• Is it time for Black Americans to vote republican?
• The war on poverty after 50 years
• Not news: Baltimore mayor says 'protesters' who wish to can have 'space to destroy'

Conservative -vs- Liberal: Which one is best?

The liberal said: "It's terrible that we live in a country where so many people have to live paycheck to paycheck."

The conservative said, "I see it turning around soon."

Liberal: "Really."  

Conservative: "Sure.  I believe in American Exceptionalism.  We are Americans.  We can make anything happen."

Liberal: "There are countries where new mothers get to take a year off after they have a baby.  There are countries where everyone has healthcare and is taken care of.  That's what we need here. I think we have too many greedy people"

Conservative:  "I agree."

Liberal: "You do?"  

Conservative: "That's why I think we should hire a conservative to be our next president to get government out of the way so that both businesses and individuals could prospers.  Then everyone who wanted one would have a job, and they could choose the healthcare program of their choice."

Liberal: "I think there are too many greedy people in this country, and that's why it doesn't work."

Conservative: "How do you define greed? 

Liberal: "People making more money than they deserve."

Conservative: "How do you define how much money they deserve?"

Liberal: "If people weren't so greedy we would have enough money so that everyone would have a job, and everyone would have healthcare, and everyone would have food on the table."

Conservative, "Isn't that what caused our current situation in the first place, thinking we could provide all this free stuff for people and solve all their problems?  It hasn't worked.  It has never worked.  It never will work.  Yet they keep trying, and they keep failing."  

The liberal looked at the conservative dumbfounded, got all mad, and trumped off.  I mean, the conservative didn't intend on getting his liberal friend upset. After all, they were just having a friendly discussion.

I keep rolling this discussion over and over in my mind.  Each time I watch it play out it causes the voices in my mind to go into a discussion of conservatism versus liberalism.  

What is conservatism? Conservatism is all about everybody's life getting better. Conservatism is all about everybody being respected. Conservatism is colorblind. Conservatism has nothing to do with identity politics. Conservatism is rooted in love of people and high expectations of everyone. Conservatism believes that everybody, if things are moved out of their way, can be much better, can accomplish more than they think they can. 

Conservatism believes people are smart, and when given the opportunity, when all obstacles are out of the way (regulations, taxes, what have you), people make the most of it, maybe even exceed theirs and our expectations.  Surely there might be a few choices that result in chaos, but that's just the nature of the world we live in.  That's what a justice system is for.

Conservatism doesn't divide people based color, creed, nationality, or sex.  Conservatism don't take someone else's money and spend it on things they don't want to spend money on.  Conservatives don't need to do this, because, under full fledged conservatism, people make plenty of money to buy whatever they need and want.  This was best proven in the 1920s under the Calvin Coolidge economic system.  

Conservatives believe in creating a strong national defense to keep people safe, and getting government out of the way to create a good economic environment that will allow every American -- regardless of nationality, color, sex, or creed -- to move up and make as much money as they are motivated to make.  

Conservatives believe there is plenty of money in this world whereby everyone who is motivated have have a piece of the pie.  And they believe the fact that some people in this country make more money than others assures other people of the greatness that can be achieved because of our Constitution.  The fact that some people are rich is an incentive; it creates a "I can do that too" attitude.

The left is the exact opposite. The left doesn't believe any of this about people. The left believes the worst of people. They believe people are stupid, and left to their own devices will make poor choices.  That's why they like to hire experts in Washington (preferably fellow liberals) who make decisions for people. That's why we end up with a one-size-fits-all healthcare system and educational systems that fail year after year regardless of how much money is thrown their way.  

And therefore they put themselves in this equation where they are needed to in order to help people even survive.  They lump people in groups, and instead of lifting everyone up like conservatives do, they cater to groups of people.  They put minorities, gays, and women before white Americans.  They put the poor before the middle class, and the middle class before the rich.  

And they hate the rich, and think they are greedy. That is what my friend meant when he said we have too many greedy people.  They believe there is only so much money to go around, and so they think it is "unfair" when one person makes more than another.  They think the money you spend on luxury items is money that could have put food on the table of the poor, or put Obama phones in the hands of the people who only have enough money to purchase cigarettes and $80 a month cable and phone service bills.  

So what happens when liberals get their "Utopian" world where everyone has a job, and everyone has healthcare, and everyone has an Obama phone, and everyone can take a year off every time a baby is born. If there are no rich people, that will mean that everyone will be poor.  Since everyone has healthcare, there will be no incentive to find anything better.  People will be having babies left and right, and no one will be motivated to do the work.

This has already been proven.  Liberalism has been tried and failed so many times in our history that I cannot even start to count.  Liberalism is the cowardly solution.  All you have to do to be a liberal is is to say you care for someone or something and come up with a solution that someone else pays for.  This often results in forcing people to do things they don't want to do, and just creates more chaos.  Then when their solution fails, they call the critics hate mongers, Nazis, idiots, and doom and gloomers.  

Conservatives believe people will thrive on their own if obstacles are cleared out of the way and they are motivated and inspired with high expectations. And it's all rooted in love of people.  They believe people are smart and will thrive under the ideal conditions that have been achieved only in this country.  It's called American exceptionalism; the American dream.

Further reading:

• Calvin Coolidge and the Roaring 20s
• What is American Exceptionalism?
• Why I am a Libertarian Conservative

Netanyahu looked very presidential before Congress

Benjamin Netanyahu looked and sounded very presidential during his speech to Congress today. He said, "America's founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad, and states are collapsing across the Middle East."

Yes, he sounded very presidential. He sounded like a person who is making a last minute plea to save Western Civilization; to convince Congress to thwart any plan to give the leading terrorist nation in the world (Iran) a clear path to nuclear methods. He reminded Congress that we must not forget Iran is the world's leading exporter of terrorism.

He reminded Congress of the failures of Neville Chamberlain in his efforts to negotiate with a thug named Hitler. He reminded Congress of the failure of inspectors in Iraq to realize the artful BS Saddam was using to fool the world about his nuclear arms program. He reminded Congress that inspectors in North Korea failed to stop North Korea form getting the Bomb.

He said we need to be aggressive toward Iran and do whatever it takes to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. He said, "Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem anymore than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. ... the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. ... Many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations... We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror."

Now Obama and Kerry and other democrats believe they do not have the right to tell other nations what to do, regardless that they are lead by a totalitarian dictator thus or not. So they are trying to negotiate with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program for ten years. They believe that will give them ten years to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

To this, Netanyahu said, "This deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb, it paves Iran's path to the bomb." To this he got a standing ovation. "So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years. Or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal."

He got a standing ovation because he is right: all that ten years would do is buy them time. While we are busy negotiating, while inspectors are in and out of their nation, Iran's leaders will lead them in one direction with one hand, while leading their nuclear program in another direction with the other.

He offered one final promise: “I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

Yes indeed!  Netanyahu looked very presidential.

Further reading:

• Netanyahu Courts Congress
• Netanyahu is everything Obama is not
• Netanyahu to Congress: 'We are better off without the emerging U.S. deal with Iran'
• Video: BiBi Speach

Capitalism creates success, progressivism creates chaos

Wherever liberalism has been tried it has failed. On the other hand, wherever conservatism has been tried it has succeeded. In fact, conservatism has made life so great in America that many people take it for granted; they have little concept of how hard life was before it existed.

By the way, the liberal movement in the U.S. used to be called the progressive movement. Of course a name is just a name. They'd probably use Communism or Socialism if those names weren't already tarnished. For the sake of simplicity, we'll simply refer to them all as progressives.

On a similar note, conservatism is the same as capitalism. So, for the sake of simplicity, we'll just refer to it as capitalism. So we have capitalism verses progressivism.

Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, gave us the following quote: 

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."

I love that quote.   It explains why countries that embrace capitalism prosper, because people have freedom and liberty.  It explains why countries that embrace progressivism fail, because no one can get anywhere.

In progressive nations you have to be a member of the party, and the party steals and loots what you earn in order to redistribute it.  By taking your money, you become imprisoned in the system.  You are forced to stay in poverty.  In order to gain anything you are forced to steal and loot, just as the system does to you.

Capitalism frees people to provide services and products people are willing to pay for, and if you hit it big, you get really wealthy. If you don't hit it big but do reasonably well, you'll do reasonably well.  Countries that exist under unfettered capitalism prosper, and examples of this are the Harding/ Coolidge economy of the 1920s, the Kennedy economy of the 1960s, the Reagan economy of the 1980s, the W. Bush economy of the 2000s, and the current Chinese economy.

Capitalism is made up of people who are forever dreaming about coming up with ways to make life better. Capitalism is about improving the quality of life, improving the standard of living for as many people as possible.

Progressives try to make everyone the same, and when everyone is the same, you have no wealthy people.  When you have no wealthy people, you have no incentive to improve your lot in life.

Lacking the opportunity to improve your life, people become lazy.  No new jobs are created, and therefore everyone is equally poor.  That's fine, because the goal of progressivism is equality for everyone.  In other words, progressivism creates poverty.  Poverty creates desperation, and desperate people loot and steal.  

Capitalists know it's impossible for everybody to be the same. It creates an environment for, if you are willing to take risks, you may become wealthy. When you have people with money, they will take risks that create jobs. When people are working and making money, they are happy and content. When people are happy and content, they are not desperate and do not have a need to loot and steal.

Progressives create an environment that stakes one group of people against the other, and it is from here that class envy develops: the rich hate the poor who are stealing from them, and the poor think the rich are making money at their expense. The poor think it's unfair the rich have all that money, so they devise ways to steal it from the rich. So the government solves this problem by trying to create an idealist world where everyone is the same, and where they all make the same amount of money. But all this does is force people to steal and loot in order to survive.

Socialism is a never ending cycle.  They say they are doing it "for your own good."  They assume people are too stupid to make wise decisions with their money, so they devise ways to take it from you and spend it for you.  Yet since they are paying your bills, they believe they can tell you what you can eat so you can stay healthy.  They say they are doing this "for your own good," but it's really to keep their costs down.  

Progressivism sounds good to the people; it feels good.  But when it's put into place, all it does is create little train wrecks wherever it is instigated.  They take over healthcare so more people can have it, but in return healthcare gets worse. They take over economies to redistribute wealth, and all they do is create an environment where groups of people hate each other.  

Progressives never elevate the people at the bottom.  They always try to penalize the people at the top and take away from them and blame them for the inequities and the problems in society.

But it doesn't stop with economics. They go after what people say. You can't say things that hurt people's feelings, and you definitely can't judge people for bad behavior.  

They have to make sure that anything that creates human triumph is discredited, because that sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government. You can't have exceptions on the plus side.  You can't earn wealth while there are still people in poverty.  You simply can't.

They hate God, because God is the antithesis of their form of government.  God teaches freedom, liberty, personal choice, individualism, and conservatism. They can't have that; God sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government 

They also try to keep people uneducated and lie to people . They twist history to suit their own agenda.  They create medial fairness laws, and never allow conservative voices to be heard.  And, most important, they don't want their people to see how well people live in other nations, because that would make them want capitalism for themselves.  

That's why the Chinese Government controls the media and the Internet.  Once people see freedom their whole system will be defeated, it will crumble to the ground, so they keep people stupid by lying to them and preventing them from becoming educated. If a person learns too much he is thrown in prison or murdered. A good example of this is the Tienanmen Square masacre. 

In Russia, under the Soviet leadership, Russians were told how bad it was in America, and because they had no way of learning the truth, they believed it. People who became educated, or who learned how well Americans really had it, were murdered amid what the government would chime as a mass epidemic of disease.  They were able to mask the truth because there was no world media.

Some actually even credit, along with the arms movement, Hollywood for the fall of the Soviet Union. Hollywood showed the Soviets how well Americans had it under this thing called "capitalism." 

When there wasn't television Stalin could simply murder people and get away with it, but because he couldn't do that anymore, there was no way to stop Russians from watching TV and seeing what Hollywood offered.  Of course, when watching TV, they also saw American news, and were alerted of what was really going on in America; that Americans weren't evil and wicked, their own government was. So the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Another thing that helped Stalin's movement was the fact that the progressivess in the U.S. controlled the media, and so they were able ignore the failures of the same movement in Russia.  Yet advancements in technology made it so the media became worldwide, and so the modern media made it so Russian leaders could no longer hide the failures of communism, the progressive movement in Russia.

Progressive leaders can no longer kill to get their way.  They can no longer control the media to get their way.  So the only method left is to make it so people don't make much money.  If you take away their money you take away their freedom. They accomplish this by by taking from anyone who makes money and redistribute it to the poor.  

It's for this reason socialist/ progressive/ liberal leaders constantly attack the rich, and it's for this reason they encourage class warfare and envy for achievers.  They attack corporations, and they attack rich people (except rich people who donate to their causes like George Soros). 

Capitalists make it so people can make money serving other people. Serving means making iPhones, televisions, cable TV, Internet, fast food, medicine, cars, etc. It means easy access to food and other essentials of life.

In socialist nations the food is aplenty, but no one wants to harvest it, so the people go hungry.  Hungry people are forced to steal and loot in order to satisfy basic needs.  

When socialists see something needs to be done, the government has to force people to do it.  Because the government takes any money people make, no one wants to do it.  

In a capitalist society, when someone has an idea, a product or service that will benefit others, he he has incentive to make it work because he knows he will get to keep any money he makes, or donate it to charities of his choice.  

Capitalism allows people to harness creativity.  It encourages creativity. Creativity is the main source of productivity.  All the good in the world today, therefore, was caused by capitalism/ conservatism.  

Despite this, too many people are tricked into believing the cause of it all is government.  Yet all government does is take away prosperity.  All government does is destroy wealth.  The only time the government rewards you with wealth, the only time it lets you keep your money, is when you use it to support the cause. 

Capitalism is always evaluated against dreams. Progressives/ Socialists/ Liberals/ believe that, if you do as they say, they can create a Utopia.  Utopia is a dream. It's a fantasy where everything's perfect; where there's no pain; where there's no suffering; where everybody has whatever the socialists/ liberals/ progressives think is important today.  In their Utopia, in their dream world, everybody's got health care. Everybody has a house, has an electric car. It's a dream. It doesn't exist. It's an idealistic dream.  

Capitalism is hard, cold reality. There's no question it is by far and away the best economic organizing system of human beings there's ever been.

So capitalism, which is a proven, demonstrable, there hasn't been any other legitimate world superpower, economic and everything combined, except the United States of America. Although some people in America today, the progressives, the liberals, are trying to make it so America no longer is a superpower.  They think this will help them create their perfect world.

There have been wealthy societies before America, but very few people participated in that. The rest were slaves or common, ordinary, everyday nothings who made all the wealth possible but never shared in it. There's been wealthy places but there's never been a wealthy superpower.

The United States developed, fed, clothed, protected, defended, provided for, took care of disasters, the world over. No other country has ever been able to do that.

And yet there's this constant battle in this country. The United States is unfair, it's unjust, it's racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, it's immoral, it's run by white guys. None of that has ever been true.

But let me ask you a question. What else has a chance when evaluated against a fantasy or a dream? Let's say, for example, you have this fantasy of the perfect woman or man, and you really think she or he exists. I mean, every aspect of your dream, every aspect of your fantasy, you hold out for it. Guess what? Your life is going to be miserable because it doesn't exist.

Take any other fantasy, any other dream, any other figment of your imagination where there is perfection and then evaluate that against reality, and I guarantee you reality is gonna lose every time.

Capitalism is reality and it's got more to recommend it than any other way or system. But compared to the Utopian dreams of liberalism and socialism and communism, it is always going to come up short with the dreamers and the fantasizers. And when those people end up in power, like now, then you end up with real problems. And we have them. But we'll come out of it.

So capitalism, the very idea that created this superpower, is said to be a failure because it's evaluated against fantasies. There never has been a successful socialist country. There's never been a successful communist country.

So when progressives talk to the people, they always talk in terms of "what will happen" if we continue charging "forward." In fact, "Forward," was Obama's campaign slogan in 2012, the same slogan that was used by another famous progressive by the name of Mussolini.  It was also used by a famous evil progressive in Germany in the 1930s.

Anyway, they keep talking about how, if we continue to do what they say, we will eventually get to, move forward to, this Euphoric world they always talk about. But we keep doing what they say, keep being tricked into believing it, and all that happens is chaos.

Yet that doesn't matter.  Progressives continue saying things like, "The only reason progressive ideas have failed in the past is because of capitalism." But when they are in charge, when they get their way, they destroy everything they touch.

The bottom line is, no progressive nation has ever succeeded.  The only thing progressivism succeeds at is failing and creating chaos.

In fact, you can always tell when progressives are in charge because of the chaos they create.  While the progressive agenda aims for a euphoric world, the only euphoria ever seen is when conservatives are in charge. 

Here is why progressives want to get rid of God in society?

In order to understand any argument for or against the Bible, there are only four elements you need to know: 

1. The Christian Bible teaches conservatism
2. The founding fathers were all conservatives
3. Conservatism is capitalism
4. Capitalism is individualism

Knowing this will help you understand why the Bible is essential to the conservative movement, and why the Bible is the antithesis of the progressive movement.  

For the sake of simplicity here, any movement that teaches that redistribution of wealth is essential for a functioning society is progressive.  So, therefore, all of the following movements are, in essence, progressive.

1. Liberal
2. Progressive
3. Socialist
4. Communist
5. Collectivism
6. Fascist
7. Totalitarian

So, for now on, for the sake of simplicity, I will simply refer to any of these as progressive.  Since the Bible teaches conservatism, it, therefore, is the enemy and must be eliminated.  

Now, with that understood, can tackle some of the greater questions, such as: 

• Why are progressives always trying to get rid of God in our lives? 
• Why do secularists care that non-secularists share God's word? 
• Why is it so important to get God out of schools? 
• Why can't we have Nativity scenes in public places? 
• Why did Stalin say getting rid of God was the most important part of advancing Communism?
• Why do progressives say Thomas Jefferson wanted a huge government

To answer these questions all you have to do is understand that the Bible teaches conservatism.  What is conservatism?  It's capitalism and individualism.  It's limited government and free choice.  It's personal responsibility and accountability.  It's values and virtues.  

Through His Bible, God teaches that those who believe, those who work hard, will reap the rewards of their crops.  That they can keep what they need to feed their families, and decide for themselves what to share with others.  The Bible teaches love, hope and charity, so people learn the importance of taking care of their neighbors. 

A good example of this is the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. Progressives teach in schools that the first Thanksgiving was all about Thanking the Indians for helping the Pilgrims grow crops.  They teach this because if people knew the true story they fear they would become conservatives. 

Conservatives teach the complete, and true story.  They teach that the purpose of the first t thanksgiving was because the Pilgrims tried socialism for the first few years they were on American soil, and it failed. It failed because even those who did no work got the same amount of profit and the same amount of food on their tables. It failed because there was no incentive for people to work.

So the Pilgrims ultimately decided to try what the Bible preaches: hard work, i.e. capitalism. Under this new system, crops flourished. So after abundant crops were harvested that year, they decided to throw a huge party to offer thanks to God and his Bible; they wanted to thank got for teaching conservatism.  

Of course there were Indians there, Indians who taught the Pilgrims how to manage the land.  The Pilgrims appreciated the Indians and knew that God had sent them to help.  Yet thanking the Indians was not the only reason for the great celebration: the reason was to give thanks to the Lord, God. 

It's understandable that progressives would want to teach their own version.  It's essential to advance their agenda.  They know that in order to make the progressive movement look good they must tell their own version of history; they must lie. 

Since most kids are taught the progressive version of the first Thanksgiving, kids do not learn the failure of socialism and the success of capitalism.  They do not learn this great lesson.  Progressives do not want you to know that Progressivism has been tried again and again and again throughout history, and it has failed every time.  They do not want you to know that, so they rewrite history.  

Think about it.  This is exactly the same reason why communist nations do not allow people to do to church, because God teaches capitalism, the antithesis of communism.  This is why Stalin got rid of all the churches in Russia.  He knew that the lessons of capitalism taught in the Bible could not co-exist with communism; that you cannot have both.  

By understanding the four elements, you can also understand why progressives in the U.S. consistently talk bad about the founding fathers, and want to change the three original documents, all of which mention God. 

So, why is it that progressives work so hard, so adamantly, to prevent children from learning about God?  It's because what God teaches is conservatism, the antithesis of liberalism.