The New World Order: The Progressive Dream

If we pay attention to what our leaders say we can figure out their true intentions. For instance, John Kerry recently implied that we should get ready for a borderless world. If this comes to fruition, and we have no borders, then we have no states, and we have no United States. There has to be some form of government in this new borderless world, and this preludes to the New World Order.

During a commencement speech in at Northeastern University, Kerry said:

“I think that everything that we’ve lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on Earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt. The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of a past that did not really exist in any case... You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.”

This goes back to the liberal belief that individuals are flawed, and tend to making decisions that benefit the individual at the expense of the whole. This refers to individual people and individual states. So liberals believes experts on the national stage should make decisions for them. At the very least, make regulations to nudge individuals and individual states in the right direction. Hence the need for a large governmental body of progressive experts in Washington, and a Super Government somewhere in Europe that many refer to as the New World Order.

So, they do not see America as the leader of the free world. They do not see that 99.9% of individuals lived under totalitarian governments that absconded freedom and liberty prior to the existence of the United States. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism. They believe that America exemplifies everything that is wrong with the world. They see the American Constitution as creating an environment that encourages individuals to make selfish decisions, and so their aim is to "change it" and move it "forward" so that they can "fundamentally transform America."

They believe that an American Superpower creates unbalance in the world. They believe if America has nuclear weapons, that someone else (i.e. the Soviet Union) must have nuclear weapons to balance the power in the world. They believe if America is the wealthiest nation in the world, that it has accumulated its wealth at the expense of the rest of the world, i.e. third world nations. They believe America steals the world's resources. So they believe America makes people poor and enslaved. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism.

They believe America is arrogant and selfish, and this works to the disadvantage of the rest of the world. They believe the American system is flawed from the beginning, and therefore it must be taken away.

This explains why Obama has depleted our military and ended the NASA programs. This explains why Obama keeps our borders porous, because he believes we are responsible for the poverty of those coming in. This explains why Obama supported the KYOTO protocol, which allows the United Nations to create regulations requiring industries to cut green house gases, even though this would supersede Constitutional protections.

This explains why liberals create programs allowing illegal aliens access to social security, welfare, and medicine. It's only fair that we give them the same opportunity that we give our own people, because we absconded that opportunity from them in the first place.

So, borderless, by John Kerry's definition, by Obama's definition, by the liberal definition, means that we hve to cut America down to size. This explains the open border policy that does not require those those entering be assimilated into the American way of life. It explains economic policies that do not make the American economy better. It explains a healthcare system designed to wreck the American economic system from the inside out.

Lacking borders, we will need a Super Government. This was the purpose of the United Nations. It was supposed to be this super power government. This is a place where experts, preferably liberal experts (all the experts of the world), take the most popular theories and force everyone else to believe them.

They will be seated in Brussels or Hague. They create regulations that require all world factories to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or else. Of course the smaller industries won't be able to afford to comply with the regulations, so this will force them to go out of business or merge with larger conglomerate industries, trusts, or monopolies. This will make it easier to form a universal, socialistic world economy.

They do not want borders. They do not want states. They do not want sovereignty. They want a world ruled by progressive experts who, so it may be assumed, know what's best for all of us. This, they believe, will result in a euphoric world where everyone has a job, a house, food, healthcare, free education, a retirement, etc. And, of course, there will be no bad guys. They are naive enough to think this world is possible outside of Heaven. This is all possible by destroying America first, eliminating borders, and creating a New World Order.

The one thing that all of us will be forced to sacrifice for this euphoria is our freedom and our liberty.  You will still get to choose, but it will be a choice between two options that the smartest progressives in the world want you to choose from. That will be the end of your liberty. They will promote what they want to promote, and shut down what they want to shut down. And, before they get there, they have to change the constitution, fundamentally transform America, shut down its sovereignty, and eliminate its borders. 

Senator Albert J. Beveridge: Buddies with Teddy Roosevelt?

Senator Albert J. Beveridge is a name all school children should become aware of, because he was one of the leading Senate progressives responsible for helping Roosevelt champion and pass much of his progressive agenda.

He was the main ally of Teddy Roosevelt against his own party, mainly the classical liberals, or the conservative wing. By today's standards, Teddy Roosevelt was the John McCain, while William Howard Taft was the traditionalist like Sarah Palin (although it's not actually fair to compare Taft with Palin, but for this example it's fitting).

The following are some of the things Beveridge helped make possible for the progressives:

• Reform of the meat packing industry (with the help of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle) by the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 
• Child labor laws 
• 8 hour work day 

He was the friend of the following:

• The special interests 
• Conservationists 
• Reformers 
• Railroad magnates 
• Trusts 

He once noted, "The opposition tells us we ought not to rule a people without their consent. I answer, the rule of liberty, that all just governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government."

It's should also be noted he was a Republican from Indiana, a historian, and the keynote speaker for the progressive party when Roosevelt ran for President in 1912.

He served as Senator from 1899 to 1911. He ran for the senate one more time in 1922 and lost, and dedicated the rest of his life to writing literature. He actually won the Pulitzer prize for his book, "The Life of John Marshal."

Why socialism, liberalism and progressivism always fails

One of the biggests myths that liberals believe is that there's only so much money to go around. They believe that people who make lots of money do so at the expense of others. This explains why rich people are so often referred to as "greedy" and "selfish" and "materialistic" by the left.  And it's so not true.

Now, surely, in some cases it might be true.  But in most cases, just because someone is well off does not make them greedy.

This also explains why the left constantly barrages people who succeed.  They do not like it when companies make profits.  Instead, they believe any money over what is needed to make a living should be spread out among all the other people equally.

This explains why they want taxes for the rich and not for the middle class and poor.  They want to punish those who succeed by taking the money they worked so hard to earn and doling it out to the poor.  In other words, they believe they know how to spend other people's money better than they do.

Actually, liberals believe that, left to their own devices, that people who succeed are naturally greedy, selfish, and materialistic; that they will naturally put themselves before the state, And, they believe, this is wrong.

This is why they hate capitalism so much, because capitalistic societies create opportunities for the few to benefit off the many, or so they falsely believe.

A perfect example to help me make my point is Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments.  He read somewhere that $70,000 was an ideal salary.  If you earn this salary you can have a nice house and car and have plenty of money left over to live a good life.  There's no need to make more than that.

Here's a guy who made over a million a year.  He decided to give himself a huge pay cut to $70,000 a year, and he gave this same salary to all his workers.  In other words, he decided, as so many on the left do, that it's unfair that one person makes millions of dollars while all the people who are the workers make so much less.  So he redistributed the money among all who work for him.

Guess what?  This happened back in April.  Not even four months later he announced that it was an utter failure. He had people who worked for the company for many years, were very loyal to the company, and they were upset that people who were newly hired were making as much as they were. Some of them -- some of his best employees -- quit.  It was a devastating blow to his company.

When you dole out money equally you expect that every person will do an equal amount of work.  In the ideal world, this might happen.  But in the real world this is impossible.  In the real world you are always going to have people say: "I'm going to make $70,000 no matter what I do, so I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything."

Why did this system fail? Because it assumes that everyone is equal.  Dan Price assumed that if everyone else made the same money he did that they would have the same passion that he does.  He believed the liberal myth that equality would bring fairness and happiness.  And he was wrong.

The fallacy here is that if everyone was equal, if everyone made the same amount of money, that everyone would do the same amount of work, and everyone would be equally happy.  This is the euphoria liberals think they can create. This is the biggest myth of liberalism that exists out there.

Sure, in their ideal world everyone is equal.  But in the real world people know that no two people are alike.  We are all unique. We all have our own goals, desires, and ambitions.  Some of us naturally work harder than others.  Some of us are early to work every day, and others are late no matter how hard they try.

Not only that, contrary to what the left tries to force on us, no one wants to be the same as someone else. We all yearn to be individuals; we all yearn to be unique.  Surely I might want to be like my dad, and I might want to be like the CEO running my company, or I might like to emulate one of my better coworkers.  Still, I don't want to be considered the same as everyone else. We all want to be unique.  We all want to be missed when we are gone because no one else can do what we do.

That reminds me of a sign I saw in the nursing report room a while back: "No one notices what you do until you are gone."  This means that when you are no longer here, people realize how valuable you were.  All these years, for instance, they just assumed the storage room miraculously was stocked every day.  Now that you aren't around they see that it was you, all along, who stocked.

When my grandma passed away, the general consensus among us grandkids was that this was a woman who could never be replaced. If you are healthy psychologically, then you are special to the world in this way too. You cannot be replaced.  You are unique, You are an individual.  You don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of slackers, half-baked, half-caring people. You want to be thought of as the cream of the crop, and you can't be if everybody's making 70 grand.

Worded another way, if we all make the same income(a so called fair wage), and we all have the same healthcare, and we all have the same education, and we all have the same everything else, then we are nothing more than sheep.  We are herded by the great big Sheppard who lives in Washington D.C. who goes by the name of Uncle Sam.

The problem with this analogy is people are not sheep.  We all yearn to be unique We all yearn to be special. We all yearn to offer some special gift. We all offer a special gift. If everyone is the same, then we are no longer needed. To assume we are all the same is to assume we are all easily replaceable, and that goes against nature

It is for this reason that liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Lenonism, Marxism... always fails.

There are many people in this world that are so special that they will never be replaced.  This is human nature.  We are not the same, and cannot be treated the same. So any attempt to make us the same assumes that we all produce the same, and that's simply not true. It's human nature. To try to perfect human nature will always lead to chaos.

And that's exactly what happened at Gravity Payments after Dan Price decided to give everyone who worked for the company the same wage of $70,000.  Because there are so many different levels of talent and ability, the system set in place never had a chance. It was socialism pure and simple. Everyone was treated the same. Nobody was considered more important than anyone else. They are interchangeable. When one person retires or quits or dies, another can simply fit in to fill the empty pair of shoes, or so the

Marxist assumes.  Such a system is doomed to fail no matter how many times it is tried.Sure it might sound good and make you feel good, but it never works. It has never worked.

The main problem with socialism is best summed up by Rush Limbaugh:

The main policy or main flaw with socialism side from run out of somebody else's money at some point is that we're not the same and we are not equal. There is no such thing as fairness. Fairness is always arbitrary depending on who has the power to define it, and there certainly is no equality. There's equality of opportunity, equality of chance, equality before the law, but these people talk about equality in terms of outcomes, and there's no such thing.

You put a system of socialism in place where you have equality of outcome, and you're always gonna have some renegades, some entrepreneurs who are gonna say, "Screw this," and they're gonna bust out, and they're gonna do what they do, and they're not going to be shackled by silly rules like this. And then you have, on the other end of it, people who are gonna say, "I'm gonna get 70 grand a year, man, and I don't have to do anything special? I just have to show up?" and that's all they're gonna do. Because slackers are everywhere.

If you're not going to be compensated or rewarded for merit-based behavior, then there's no reason to be concerned about merit-based behavior. So that goes out the window, too.

Why did Dan Price's system fail? Because it was pure, unadulterated socialism. Call it liberalism or progressivism or whatever you want, it has failed every single time it has been tried. Yet because it smells good and sounds good, the best and brightest among us will continue to fall for it.

Further reading:

• Articulating Ideas: Idealism versus Realism
• Articulating Ideas: What is Fascism?
• Washington Times: Dan Price, Seattle CEO Who Set Company Minimum Wage at $70K, Now Struggles to Make Ends Meet
• Hot Air: CEO Who Raised Workers’ Minimum Pay to $70K Hits Predictable Problems
• National Review: It Turns Out That Equality Can Feel a Lot Like Unfairness
• Rush Limbaugh: CEO Who Made $70K His Company's Minimum Wage Admits It's a Disaster

What is fascism?

Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men.

The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has healthcare, and there is world peace.

Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.

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. 

FDR's policies prolong the great depression

FDR was Time man of the year in 1933

In 1932 Franklin Deleno Roosevelt was elected in a Landslide. While he was never able to end the Great Depression, he, via his great speaking ability, managed to restore confidence in the American people.

A theory by a great economist and thinker by the name of Maynard Keynes was growing in popularity at this time, and it was termed Keynesian Economics. He believed an economy becomes depressed because people stop spending money. Thus, there is no demand for the goods and services.

Since people stop spending, businesses and industries don’t make a profit. Many of them will lay off workers, many others will close their doors altogether.

To solve this problem, Keynes proposed that it was the role of government to increase demand for these goods and services. It was in this spirit that he believed it was acceptable to return to pre-Roaring 20s tax and spend policies (he created many government programs, and raised the top marginal tax rate back up to 90 percent during his term in office).

FDR, desperate to end the Great Depression, adapted Keynes economic policy. Thus, with the New Deal, he proposed several government programs that would increase government spending. In essence, FDR created Big Government. (He did not, however, intend on it becoming the beast it is today.)

The Great Depression dragged on for years until it ran out its course by the end of WWII. Some experts say it was FDRs policies, coupled with increased spending during WWII, that caused it to come to an end.  But others argue with this theory, noting that, had WWII ended it, then why did the government resort to rations and forcing people to sell their gold to the government.

A better argument is that the depression continued through WWII, only to come to an end as later presidents reduced taxes to encourage savings and investment.  Those who support this argument believe that Roosevelt's tax and spend policies are what turned a regular depression into the Great Depression.

Consider, for a moment, that there were many recessions and depressions prior to the one FDR inherited, and all of those lasted only a few years.  The reason they were short lived was because presidents prior to FDR believed it was the role of government to make minor tweaks to create a stable economic environment, but it was the role of individual businesses to fix the unemployment rate.

Two examples here are Grover Cleveland and the depression of 1893-95, and Warren G. Harding and the depression of 1920-21.  Grover Cleveland believed his role was to stay out of the way, and Warren G. Harding cut spending and taxes to get government out of the way.  In both these instances the depressions were short lived.

Despite this evidence, FDR (along with Herbert Hoover) chose to do the opposite.  He increased the scope and size of government, and to pay for these programs he raised tripled taxes.  While his programs may have helped the poor, they did little to spur economic growth.  By doing so, the argument is that FDR did nothing to end the depression, instead he prolonged it.

So, while Herbert Hoover's policies may have caused the Great Depression, FDR's policies prolonged it.  Yet considering the people were so desperate, and believed (or felt) that doing something (even something stupid) was better than doing nothing, FDR as a hero, and Time Magazine even named him Man of the Year in 1933.

USDA wants us to eat stale food

The Obama Administration's United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has now started an initiative to encourage people to stop wasting food.  The goal is to get people toughen up, even if it requires holding their noses, and eat expired and stale food.  In other words, they want us to be just like cows and horses who are often forced to eat months-old bales of hay.

The initiative was started because the USDA claims that as much as 36 pounds of food is wasted per month. While we are wasting food, there are people who are starving in the world.  While we are wasting food, there are entire nations -- like Ethiopia -- that are starving.  So the solution to this, rather than teaching these people how to get food, is to tell us that we are spoiled, rich, greedy people who eat more than our fair share and waste too much.

Have you ever made macaroni and cheese for kids?  That stuff tastes good, and so that's what kids want to eat.  So you make a box, and then your kids eat two bites and decide they are done.  When I was a kid my parents would make me sit at the table until my food was eaten.  But I don't do this, because I think all that does is encourage poor eating habits.

So then you have leftovers.  But have you ever eaten leftover macaroni and cheese?  My kids hardly ever do, and I never do. Why? Because it tastes terrible.  So now you have this new Obama initiative that wants us to grin and bear the nasty taste of food, regardless of the expiration date; regardless of taste.

What good does this do anyway?  What does it accomplish?  How many starving kids are going to be fed by me not wasting food?  How many degrees of global temperatures are going to be cut by me eating yucky food that I don't want to eat?

Look, there is plenty of food in this world for every person to eat twice over. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food, it's that people don't know how to access the food.  For instance, in the United States, where capitalism exists, people have an incentive to grow and produce foods. The incentive is they can make a profit helping others.

Then you take a country like Ethiopia that is run by a totalitarian dictatorship, and most of the people are starving.  It's not that there isn't enough food in that country, it's because they don't know how to gain access to it, or they can't afford to grow it.

Liberals like Obama see the solution to this kind of problem as blaming the spoiled rich people of the world who eat more than their fair share and waste it.  But if I eat all my food, what good does that do the people of Ethiopia?  What good does it do for the hungry anywhere?

The real solution is to teach capitalism.  Where capitalism exists people don't go hungry.  Where capitalism exists people have an incentive to grow and manufacture food, and they can afford to gain access to it and to get it to the people.  Where capitalism exists people can afford to buy food.

The real solution is to get rid of Michelle Obama's school lunch program, which feeds kids food that looks and tastes terrible, causing kids to just toss it in the trash and go hungry.

Surely, even in the world's richest nations, people are still going to be poor and go hungry.  There is never going to be this euphoric world where poverty and hunger are all conquered.  That kind of stuff only happens in progressive dreams.

Still, where capitalism exists, when government removes obstacles -- such as high taxes and regulations -- from their paths, the greatness of people shows.  Right here in Ludington, Michigan, food is collected every day from good people to help feed the hungry at food shelters.  So no one should go hungry in Ludington.

But that's not good enough for the Obama Administration.  They saw a problem of hunger, said they had empathy for the hungry, and then came up with a solution that involved their experts telling average Americans how to run their lives.

The truth is that it is not a solution.  This is just another way for them to micromanage people's lives.  It is just another way for them to feel good about themselves while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

You see, this is the kind of stuff that just makes people mad.  We don't want to be told what to do.  But you have people in Washington, mostly progressives, whether they be republicans or democrats, who think they know what's best for us.

So they come up with these ideas whereby we are told what we have to do because we are too stupid, or to insensitive, or too greedy.  They say we are profligate wasters, and so we need to be told by the government to eat all our food, even if it is expired, stale, tasteless and gross.

So, what comes next?  I mean, this is the nanny state who decides they know what's best for us.  In California they are telling people already how long they can take showers.  The goal is to do this for all of us. The goal is to force us to live the way they want us to live, whether we believe in their theories or not.

It's already started.  They want to ration healthcare, ration medicine, ration water, ration food, ration gas, and force you to eat stale food (mush).  This goes right along with forcing people to comply with rules and regulations in the name of man made climate change because we're too stupid to see it as a fact.

And you wonder why kids in this country are sad and depressed.  They are told what to believe, and how to act.  They are forced to eat food they don't want.  And told if they don't do as they are told, they too will be contributing to the destruction of the planet.

They've even created an app that helps people better calculate how long after the expiration date food can still be safely eaten.  I mean, this is all fine and dandy if it's something you want to do.  If you want to save money on food by making your food last longer, so be it.  I'm a free choice guy.

Other than that, there is no benefit to eating mush.

McDonald's tanking, and it's their own fault

This is what kids want in a Happy Meal

McDonald's sales have been tanking of late.  There have now been 14 straight months of flat or declining sales in the U.S., five straight quarters of negative growth, and stocks are falling. This resulted in the announcement that the companies 51 year old CEO, Donald Thompson, will retire.

It makes sense they should blame him, because it is his fault.  He was the leader of the company when it faced challenges from progressives who wanted to limit choices and make food healthy, boring, and un-fun.

Not this crap.

Vegans complained that they were making french fries with beef tallow, and so they caved and came up with other ingredients.  But the beef tallow was what made McDonald's french fries so great. And now no one wants to eat them. They do not taste the same.

McDonald's also caved on the issue of healthy Happy Meals.  They took out the fries, or made the size smaller, and inserted healthy apples instead.  They took out the pop and give parents a choice of chocolate milk and juice.  But kids can get apples at home.  Apples are just not fun.  They don't even give kids the choice of caramel to dip them in anymore either.  

This decision sealed their doom.  Sales have tanked ever since. I mean, who does McDonald's spend millions of dollars every year catering to? Yes, it's children. Studies show more kids recognize Ronald McDonald than Jesus.  Sad to say, but it's true. 

But not even a popular clown can sell food that is boring.  

Look! People don't go to McDonald's Restaurants to eat healthy.  I had a friend of mine who said to me once, "When you are dieting and you go to McDonald's, what do you eat?"  My answer was, "A Big Mac." 

There's nothing wrong with a fatty burger and french fries once in a while.  Plus it's a free country, and we have the natural right to eat unhealthy if we want.  We even have a natural right to make stupid choices, if that's what you think such choices are.

There are also other reasons for the demise of McDonald's.  For instance, they have tried to become everything to everybody.  Probably the biggest example of this is their attempt to compete in the coffee market.  But sometimes I go to McDonald's and have to wait for the attendant to make someones special coffee drink.  So all this specialization has compromised the call for speedy service.

But the main culprit is the appeasement of progressive demands to perfect society. When people cave to progressive demands to perfect society, they fail just like progressive programs always do.  Republicans who cave to progressive demands will likewise fail, which should explain why Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are trailing in early republican polls to Scott Walker, who is a fighter and does not compromise on key issues.

I'm no business expert, but I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Advertising/ Marketing.  Yet it takes no such degree to figure out what's wrong with McDonald's, and what they need to do fix the problem: they need to sell food that people want, not food people should eat. 

Everything is a crisis these days

This guy obviously needs the assistance of Big Mother Government

So a snowstorm, or blizzard, was expected to blow through the eastern states, and the media talked about it, even before it happened, as though it were the worst storm ever.  As it turned out, the extent of the storm was blown completely out of proportion.  Yet this comes as no surprise by those of us who already don't trust the media.

It was so overblown that both Connecticut and New Jersey banned road travel, and over 6,000 flights were cancelled. The government told people in many areas not to leave their homes.  It got so bad that in Bound Brook, New Jersey, police stopped teens who were snow shoveling work.  They were told by police that they had to stop.

One elderly person in the neighborhood reported the incident, saying, "Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money.  Here's a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they're told to stop?"

One of the officers later responded, claiming that that the kids weren't ticketed for soliciting work without a license, but were warned about being outdoors in dangerous weather conditions. He said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them," he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. "This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road."

Look, snow is not a death sentence.  We're talking about people who have experienced 5,10,15,20,30, and probably even 40 inches of snow before.  These are not inexperienced dummies we're talking about.

These are people who have lived through short and long winters for their entire lives, generation after generation.  They know how to handle themselves in a snowstorm.  They known when to stay in and when to go out.  They know what is safe and unsafe.  

Yet here you have people in the media, in government agencies, who feel they have to create a panic. And I know the reason for it. It's because when people feel panicked they act panicked. They rush to the stores and buy all the items in them. That's why all the stores shelves in New York are empty today. It's because the media and the government created a panic.  

This is progressivism at full steam.  This is how they get their agendas through to the people: by creating panics and wars.  When the people feel panicked, they call to the government for help.  

And even when they don't, the government assumes the people are stupid and only they know what to do.  So they tell people to stay inside, to not do anything, to shop for food and other materials that aren't needed, and to hoard them for a storm than might not even be close to as bad as expected.  

And even if it is as bad as expected, it's nothing these people haven't experienced before.  They will survive.  A panic is not in order here. But everything to these people is worse than it is, and it's for a reason.  

To make matters worse, weather men and women think that they have to stand outside in the conditions that are supposed to be to cold and dangerous for us just to prove that it really is cold outside.  But all people have to do is look outside and they can see for themselves that it's cold out.

They think they have to tell us when it's safe and when it's not safe to go outside.  Yet any person who lives in cold regions of the U.S., places that get snow every winter, knows when it's too cold to go outside.  We don't need the media, and we don't need Uncle Sam telling us how what we can and cannot do.  We are not stupid.  

Boehner victory good for progressive movement

Sigh!  John Boehner is a good guy, and he's been a good leader of the republican run House of Representatives.  But that's about all the media has gotten right about his victory.

Let's use the Washington Post "Bohner survives leadership challenge from conservative members."

It was the largest rebellion by a party against its incumbent speaker since the Civil War.

Okay, that much they got right.

After he won, Boehner entered to a standing ovation and gave a speech calling this Congress to work together and end its gridlock. He finished with a stirring, though epically mixed, metaphor.

This was an accurate statement by the paper, but proof of what people do not like about Boehner.  The midterm election was a call for republicans to oppose Obama at every front.  Yet instead of opposing him, Boehner is calling for an end to gridlock.   When it comes to stopping Obama and his progressive agenda, gridlock is good.

You see, Boehner, and other members of the republican establishment, and the media, and democrats, think that Boehner should be re-elected easily because he was responsible for the republican landslide.  What they fail to understand is they are wrong.  The reason for the republican landslide was the tea party, or people who oppose the expansion of government.

The paper continues, and this is where it is inaccurate:

The effort to depose Boehner was led by a group of hard-right conservatives and libertarians who did not think the speaker was doing enough to fight Obama over spending and executive power.

The effort was not run by a group of "hard-right conservatives" because there is no such thing.   It was run by traditional conservatives and libertarians who want to prevent government officials from trampling on the constitution.

Either way, the media and democrats are ecstatic the Boehner was re-elected as House Speaker, because he at least will give them a chance to continue moving forth their agenda.

Boehner has a history of being afraid to oppose the Obama agenda on the grounds that he is afraid of offending people and losing votes for his own party, even though the mid-term election gave him the mandate to oppose Obama.

He is a republican in name only (RINO), which essentially means that he is a progressive republican and not a conservative.  This is exactly why the media and democrats are so happy right now.

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.