I do not want republicans to move to center and negotiate with the party that lost, as Obama suggested to Jimmy Fallon

So, Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States. Hillary Clinton lost. Obama's agenda was repudiated. Still, there are those who champion for the Trump administration to move to the center and to negotiate with democrats.

Before the election a democratic friend of mine wanted me to watch a video of Obama on the Jimmy Fallon show.

Fallon: "Do you think the republicans are happy with their choice? 

Obama:  "Um, we are! But I don't know how they're feeling.  That was too easy. But, the truth is, actually, I am worried about the republican party... But democracy works, this country works, when you have two parties that are serious and trying to solve problems. And they've got philosophical differences, and they have fierce debates, and they argue, and they contest elections. But, at the end of the day, what you want is a healthy two-party system. And you want the republican nominee to be somebody who could do the job if they win. And you want folks who understand the issues, and where you can sit across the table from them and you can have a principled argument and ultimately can still move the country forward. So, I actually am not enjoying, and I haven't been enjoying over the last seven years, watching some of the things that have happened to the Republican party, 'cause there's some good people in the Republican party. There are wonderful Republicans out in the country who want what's best for the country and may disagree with me on some things, but are good, decent people. But what's happend in that party, culminating in this current nomination, I think, is not actually good for the country as a whole. It's not something Democrats should with for. And my hope is that, once we get through this cycle, there's some corrective action, and they get back to being a center-right party and the Democrat party being a center-left party, and we start figuring out how to work together. 

As soon as the video was over, I said to my friend:

"That's exactly what I don't want. I don't want more government. I want them to oppose democrats. I want them to reject their agenda. I don't want every time there's a problem to solve it with more government. More government is the antithesis of what the founders wanted. They wanted limited government. More government takes away liberties. I want republicans to oppose new laws, new regulations, and new taxes. I don't want more regulations. I want to get rid of the department of education, not add to its power. I want to give education back to the states so that parents and teachers can decide what kids learn, as opposed to eight liberals sitting in a room in Washington. I want to get rid of the IRS. I want to take power away from government agencies like the EPA so we can get rid of regulations based on global warming hoax that is burdensome to the economy. I don't want to move the liberal agenda forward, I want to stop it. I voted for republicans to stop Obamacare, not negotiate with democrats so it can keep functioning. I want them to cut funding for it. I want them to place bills on his desk repealing Obamacare. I want them to place bills on his desk getting rid of global warming regulations. But they don't do that. They do move to the center. Rather than opposing amnesty, they come up with their own amnesty program. The bottom line: I'm tired of that. I want them to oppose the party whose agenda has caused all the problems our country faces. So having someone like Trump IS actually good for the country as a whole, someone who calls a liberal a liberal and a liar a liar and who wants to stop the liberal agenda at all costs to make America great again... to take it back to where it was before Obama succeeded in fundamentally transforming it, moving it forward from a capitalistic nation to a socialistic-like nation."

I was on a roll. And as I went on my friend sat stiffly on the couch, crossed his arms, puckered his lips, and pretended to ignore me. I guess I offended him, as he was convinced I would agree with Obama about moving to the Center.

New World Order: What would it mean for us?

So, there are talks that the goal of progressives is to downsize America, and get rid of it's borders and sovereignty, with the ultimate goal of creating a New World Order. If they got their way, what would this mean for those who currently consider themselves America -- or us? 

If a NWO were created, it would mean that a Super Government would probably be created somewhere in Europe, such as Brussels or Prague. Or, I suppose, it could be head quartered by the United Nations in New York.

The people running this Super Government would be considered the smartest people in the world. Whatever they believed would be forced on the rest of us. Considering they are the experts, they know what's best for us. So, it wouldn't matter what we thought, we would be forced to accept the edicts, the regulations, the laws they set forth. 

It wouldn't matter if you didn't believe that the theory that man is the cause of global warming was a hoax. You wouldn't even be able to state your opinion, because you would probably be put in prison if you insisted on stating it. Or, at the vary least, your opinion would be minimized. There would only be three or four TV stations, and all of them would be run by the state. The government would be able to promote what it wants, and put down whatever it wants. 

This Super Government would set up a World Court, and this court would supersede anything written in the U.S. Constitution. This would mean that you are not necessarily proven innocent until proven guilty. It would mean whatever the justice experts decided it meant. And you can imagine that these experts would all be progressives and not conservatives. Conservatives would all be silenced or killed. They would be the majority who sit in prisons. Or they would just be killed if they continued to act out. This would be similar to how it was prior the the United States. 

A Security Council would be created by the defense experts. They would decide who went to war and with whom and when. They would decide the rules of war. They would decide who won the war. They would decide who had what weapons. They probably would decide to take all the weapons from the people to make sure there was not public revolution against the desires of the state. A state militia would control the people and keep the peace. It would also take care of anyone who spoke out against the Super Government. 

But this would be their Euphoria. This would be the world where everyone has a job, a home, a car, an iphone, the Internet, cable television (or whatever was made available), food, and healthcare. And you can easily see what we would be giving up in order to enjoy life in this so called euphoria -- our liberties. 

In the past, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were willing to wage war against the United Nations when they decided to create a World Court, on the grounds that they were not willing to have rights currently protected under the U.S. Constitution absconded by government. However, Obama doesn't seem to have such qualms. 

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. 

Teddy Roosevelt: The first progressive president

Teddy Roosevelt's administration marked a shift in American politics toward a more active president with greater powers.  In essence, he turned the executive into the "bully pulpit."

Most presidents from Thomas Jefferson to William McKinley believed the role of government was limited, and that individuals were better at making decisions than government.  This all changed with the death of William McKinley.  Teddy Roosevelt became president, and he used his energy to increase the powers of the executive, making it possible for future presidents to allow government to intercede in nearly every aspect of our daily lives.

In August of 1898 he returned home from Cuba the most popular man in the United States, and it was mainly for this reason that republican leaders in New York asked him to run for governor.  He was young had tons of energy, and turned out to be a brilliant politician.  It was hear he is thought to have said," said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."  His campaign used his war heroics, even going as far as to have Rough Riders speaking on his behalf, to help his chances.

He was 25-years-old when he was inaugurated as governor of New York in January of 1901.  He became an ardent reformer, or what later would be called "progressive," and later "liberal."  He called for:

• Laws limiting the long working hours of children
• Better conditions for workers in factories (sometimes called sweatshops)
• Signed a law imposing taxes on corporations

William Plat was a former U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate member from New York who was considered the "Political Boss" of the republican party.  He helped Roosevelt gain the governorship, and by 1900 he was tired of him.  He said, "I don't want him raising hell in my state any longer."  

Roosevelt was up for reelection.  The Boss came up with the perfect solution: he began a campaign to have Roosevelt nominated as William McKinley's vice president.  This would turn out to be perhaps the biggest blunder in the history of American politics.  McKinley, with Roosevelt riding on the ticket, easily defeated William Jennings Bryan.

Okay, so I alluded to the fact that Roosevelt would "fundamentally transform" the republican party into a progressive party.  Well, the same was true of the democratic party. It is probably for this reason that Grover Cleveland is often considered as the last classical liberal.  William Jennings Bryan had transformed the democratic party to becoming more progressive (big government) party.  So perhaps the transition was inevitable.  

Regardless, McKinley was now president.  But not for long.  On September 6, 1901, McKinley was shot by an anarchist and by September 13 the president was dead.  This officially made Roosevelt the "Accidental President."

The irony of this news was that, along with the death of McKinley, so too was the death of limited government.  Roosevelt proceeded to fundamentally transform the executive.  He gave it powers that previous presidents believed were unconstitutional (and rightly so). 

Yet because of books like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," the American people came to realize (or at least to figure) that individual corporations were not going to regulate themselves, and the state's could not be trusted to create regulations fast enough.  So men like Roosevelt believed this was the job of the federal government.

His progressive agenda became known as the "Square Deal."  It incorporated three core principles that are still staunchly used by liberals today.  

1. Regulating Corporations
2. Protecting Consumers from the Free Market
3. Safeguarding Natural Resources from Overuse

To accomplish these, he increased the powers of the executive by becoming the first president to create agencies that would be given the authority to regulate, or make rules or laws for individuals and individual corporations, without the approval of Congress.  The first of these was the establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, which gave consumers a voice in Washington. 

He distrusted wealthy business owners, and so he started by breaking up monopolies that were created by the formation of trusts. These monopolies were formed when stockholders from various companies turned their stock over to a trustee in exchange for a trust certificate guaranteeing them a dividend.  The companies were run as though they were one company, and therefore this allowed them to set prices as high or low as needed to drive the competition out of business.  

The test case for Roosevelt was J.P. Morgan's attempt to combine three railroads and to combine them into a single corporation called Northern Securities Company.  Roosevelt had attorney general Philander Knox bring suit charging that this was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.  The Supreme Court decided in Roosevelt's favor, thus giving the government the authority to break up other trusts, such as those in the beef, cattle, and oil industries. 

Roosevelt said he was only out to get trusts that he saw were abusing workers or overcharging customers. So, essentially, the federal government decided what trusts could continue to exist.  During Roosevelt's eight years 40 trusts were dissolved. He became known as the "trust buster." 

In 1902 he used what was now referred to as the "bully pulpit" to settle a dispute between business and labor.  In May, 15,000 workers went on strike to protest low wages and unsafe working conditions in coal mines. The mine owners hired non-union replacement workers.  Ticked off, the striking workers terrorized the replacement workers.  

Since coal was a essential for a functioning economy -- it was used to generate electricity, heat, power railroads, and heat homes, businesses, and schools -- the strike caused schools to close, coal prices to quadruple, and families to freeze during the winter.  It also resulted in riots as people fought to obtain coal from the few remaining locomotives that carried it.  

Previous presidents supported state's rights, and the rights of individual corporations, and therefore, if they got involved, they would support the corporations.  Roosevelt decided to take a different approach.  Even though he had no legal right to interfere, he invited both sides to Washington.  An arbitrator came up with a plan the strikers accepted but the mine owners rejected. 

So he tried speaking softly, now he got out his big stick.  He unconstitutionally ordered U.S. troops to prepare to take over the mines.  Workers were allowed to go back to work, and an arbitrator worked out an agreement that required a 10 percent wage increase, reduction in workday hours, and safer working conditions. Of course in order to do this coal prices were raised 10 percent.  

The people were happy that the president took away some of the liberties of the coal operators to the benefit of the common worker.  Roosevelt's popularity skyrocketed.

Modern libertarians won't like his next move, but many conservatives would.  For years people had wanted to create a channel across Panama so ships wouldn't have to travel thousands of miles around the tip of South America.  The Colombian government had rejected this idea.

However, a group in Panama had wanted to break away from Columbia and form their own government. Roosevelt decided he would support these radicals obtain their independence in exchange for the right to a Canal Zone where a canal could be dug out.  After ten years of construction, the Panama Canal opened in 1914.

Did Roosevelt have the Constitutional right to tinker in national affairs for his own personal gain the way he did? This is a question that made Roosevelt's actions so controversial.  The answer is still debated to this day.  However, this action created a precedent for future presidents to act upon.

During the 1904 election, Alton B. Parker, a judge from New York, ran as a conservative against liberal William Randolph Hearst for the democratic nomination.  Parker won the nomination, although was no match against the popular Roosevelt.  Parker received only 140 electoral votes to Roosevelt's 336.

Roosevelt would gloat about the results: "I have the greatest popular majority and the greatest electoral majority ever given a candidate for president."  But then he went on to say that he would not run for reelection in 1908.  This was a decision he would come to regret.

By 1906 various investigative reporters were reporting on abuses in the workplace. Roosevelt often responded to these reporters, calling them "Muckrakers."  One example of such "muckraking" was the book "The Jungle," by Upton Sinclair, which reported on the unfair and uncleanly working conditions in the meat packing industry.

They also gave Roosevelt an opportunity to solve more problems, and buy more votes for his party (or for the progressive cause, if you will).  He acted by creating regulations that would create more consumer protections and better working conditions.  Keep in mind here that Sinclair was a socialist, and he was after the workers more so than the consumers.

To get started, he encouraged Congress to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act in June of 1906.  This act mandated that food prepared in factories be properly labeled and and safely produced.  It lead to the formation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which had the ability to set regulations on the workplace without the permission of Congress.

The FDA went on to:

• Ban foreign and interstate traffic in adulterated or mislabeled food and drug products
• Direct the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry to inspect products and refer offenders to prosecuters
• Required active ingredients be placed on the label of a drug's packaging 
• It required that drugs could not fall below purity levels established b the U.S. Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary.

The actions of Roosevelt here were very popular. However, how good were they actually in retrospect? Conservatives would argue that cleaning up the meat packing industry should have been left to the states, not the federal government.  Likewise, creating laws and regulations is the job of Congress, not the executive branch.

By the turn of the century many railroad owners recognized their costs were increasing, so they decided to take advantage of the increased demand for their services by increasing their rates.  Passengers and shippers were unhappy with this, and the fact that railroads were giving free passes to loyal shippers.

So in 1903 he signed the Elkins Act, named for Senator Steven B. Elkins.  It strengthened the Interstate Commerce Committee (ICC) that was created in 1887 when Grover Cleveland signed the Interstate Commerce Act.  Now the ICC had the ability to impose fines on railroads for offering rebates, and punish shippers who accepted the rebates.

In 1906 he signed the Hepburn Act, named after its sponsor, republican William Peters Hepburn.  This act fortified the Interstate Commerce Committee, giving it the authority to set maximum rates, to restrict use of free passes, and the ability to enforce the regulations it created.  It also brought other businesses that transport goods and services under the control of the ICC, including terminals, storage facilities, pipelines, ferries, and trucking.

Both of these acts benefited consumers at the expense of the railroads. These Acts were justified under the false pretense that railroads were rich and could afford it. What the new laws did was retard the growth of the south, which the railroads could no longer afford to subsidize.  This was one of the unintended consequences of government interventions into the marketplace "with good intentions."

In essence, Roosevelt did something that would cause many of the founding fathers, and most of the previous presidents, roll over in their graves: he turned the government into a giant watchdog. Many people were fearful of what a large central government might do to personal liberties.  One newspaper wrote that Roosevelt's programs were "the most amazing program of centralization that any President of the United States has ever accomplished."

History would show that they were justified in their fear.  Roosevelt, in essence, opened a Pandora's Box, setting precedents that nearly every president after him used to their advantage to push forth an agenda and to obtain votes. Before Roosevelt, this was never done out of fear of what might happen if they did.

Fearing that Roosevelt's agenda might harm the country, conservatives decided to take Roosevelt's promise not to run for reelection to heart.  They started to work to delay his agenda any way they could, hoping that the next president wouldn't be so "progressive."

Congress was successful, although the president sometimes found ways to push forth his agenda (similar to what Obama would later do) to push forth his agenda anyway: by using executive orders.  One of his executive orders blocked the misuse of natural resources (forests, wildlife areas, vital waterways, natural wonders like the Grand Canyon).  He also assembled a conference of state and territorial governors to discuss conservation.

Surely these are all nice things.  Surely it's great to see the federal government preserving natural resources.  it's great to see all the natural parks and forests from being destroyed.  Still, many wondered if this was proper use of the executive branch.

All of Roosevelt's actions were noble, but they all increased the power and scope of government.  They created regulations, each of which took away another personal liberty.  Plus they were expensive, and would require sacrifices by the populace.

This was one of the reasons tariffs stayed generally high during his term in office, and he refused to even hear arguments about tariffs while he was president. This was also the reason why Roosevelt became the first president to push for a progressive income tax system.

Among his last actions was to utilize the precedent created by the McKinley administration (a time when he was vice president) to show the mite of the U.S. military, and the ability of the U.S. to be a world power. Japanese immigrants in California were the subject of discrimination.  Leaders in Japan made clear their disappointment.  Roosevelt responded by sending 16 battle ships (The Great White Fleet) on a goodwill cruise around the world.  This would be the "greatest display of naval power ever brought together in one squadron."

While protectionists would consider this a bad move on his part, I think it was good.  It, along with the actions of Mckinley, helped clear the path to the United States becoming a Superpower.

During his last two years in office Roosevelt worked hard to push forth more progressive programs, but Congress decided not to act on any of them because they knew Roosevelt would be out of office in 2008. They figured his successor wouldn't be so progressive, or at least have the energy, and things would return to normal.

Roosevelt personally selected his secretary of war, his friend William Howard Taft, to be the leader of the next administration.  Roosevelt believed Taft was the best person to continue on pushing forth the progressive agenda.  Little did he know that Taft was not a supporter of the progressive agenda at all, and was actually a conservative.

So, while many today associate the democratic party with the progressive movement, the father of the movement was actually Teddy Roosevelt -- a republican.  He is the father of modern liberalism.  He created the "activist president," thereby setting the precedent for the president to be active during times of peace as well as times of war. 

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 social justice?

It seems we are forced to do a lot of things we don't want to do, and it's always in the name of "social justice." So what is social justice, and how does it effect us as individuals?

Well, to begin with, social justice is not about individuals, it is about society as a whole. To understand it, we first need a definition, so hear goes.

Social Justice:  Sacrificing personal or individual liberties and justice for the benefit of the whole of society.

Let me put it this way: Social Justice teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible, the Gospel, preaches rule of man or individual rights. It preaches individual choices and taking accountability for the individual choices we make. This is what lead up to capitalism, and is how Christianity has lead to a capitalistic system of government.

Social Justices is the opposite of this.  Social Justice teaches that, if you are better than someone else, then you have to have something taken from you to make you equal to everyone else.  If you are worse than everyone else, then you are given something that you did not earn to make you equal.

So, social justice is taking from those who have, giving to those who have not, in order so that all people are equal.  The problem with this is that if everyone is equal, there can be no rich and no poor.  If there are no rich, then there is nothing to shoot for.

In essence, everyone is poor.

Since everyone is taken care of regardless of effort, then no one makes an effort improve things.  The bottom line here is that everyone remains poor.  There is plenty of supply (such as food), but no one willing to pick it.  This is one of the reasons the former Soviet Union failed, because no one was willing to do any of the work.

Under the American version social justice (aptly called either progressivism or liberalism), if you earn more than "your fair share," your taxes are raised to make you equal.  If you make less than your fair share, social justice programs will help make you equal.  Social justice programs include welfare, social security, healthcare, and so forth.

They also include regulations to make sure you comply with the will of whatever modern fad is ongoing, such as regulations to prevent global warming. This is another excuse they use to raise your taxes, which is essentially what regulations are.

Yet since average working people are now poor, taxes are raised on the rich even higher so they continue to pay their fair share.  Yet they find ways to dodge taxes, or they themselves run out of money and become equal citizens.

Now, since there are fewer rich people, or (ideally) no rich people, this means that a euphoric world has been created where everyone is equal.  The aspect of this that so many on the left fail to understand is that if there are no rich people, than everyone is poor.  If everyone is equal, everyone is poor.

So, since there are no rich people, and the people are now all equally poor, there isn't enough money to sustain the system.  So it all comes tumbling down.

This is the fear of the people who oppose social justice.  It is the reason the Bible preaches individualism, because social justice fails every time.  In fact, Social Justice is only a happier term for socialism, liberalism, progressivism, and fascism.

The ideal goal of social justice is to create an ideal world, a euphoric world, where everyone works, everyone has a working wage, everyone has healthcare, everyone is taken care of in every way you can think of.  Yet it is never obtainable and never sustainable.  It is a system that fails every time it has been tried.

So, social justice is a system where those who have sacrifice what they earn for the benefit of the society as a whole.  But there is another aspect of social justice, and this is the sacrificing of individual justice for the good of the whole.  A quintessential example of this is the 2015 Baltimore Race Riots following the death of a black man in police custody.

In order to quell the riots, in order to generate peace, in order to create calm, Al Sharpton called for a Nationalization of the police force (social justice).  Less than 24 hours later, Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, threw the book at the police officers involved, indicting them on every charge they could think of.

The justice system is thereby ignored, and the individual rights of these men are sacrificed, for the good of society as a whole.  It does not matter if these men, these police officers, were guilty or innocent.  Their liberties are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And it's obvious these charges were made based on social justice, because the legal system was not followed.  For Ferguson, Michael Brown was shot on August 9, 2014.  A grand jury took 108 days to review the case before returning a no indictment.  Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014, and a grand jury took 140 days to get a ruling against indicting. Freddie Gray died April 19, 2015, and he was indicted by Mayor Mosby without even consulting a grand jury, in less than 24 hours after receiving police department investigation results.

Is this justice? Or social justice?  Justice means the system of laws is followed to assure individual rights are not violated.  Social justice means personal rights take a back seat to good of society.

To me this system of social justice doesn't even sound good on the surface.  Yet because social justice sounds good on the surface, many people fall for it.

Further reading:

• Glenn Beck: What is social justice?

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.  

Why I'm a Classical Liberal

Classical liberalism (what used to be called liberalism) is what made America Unique. It's pretty much what every democrat president was from Thomas Jefferson down to Grover Cleveland.  Then progressivism happened, and the democratic party turned progressive.  When the term progressive became unpopular, they stole the term liberal to make their game look good.

So now we have to call what we are classical liberal, a.k.a. libertarian conservatism.  It's limited government, strict constitutionalism, and following the rule of law.

Here's why I am a classical liberal.

1. You can't spy on me
2. We can't have these never ending wars
3. You can't just throw me in jail without a trial
4. You cant kill me without a trial
5. You can't make laws that fine me for not doing something, such as not wearing my seat belt, or not eating the foods you think I should be eating, or not living a healthy enough lifestyle.  
6. You can't make me buy health insurance, or car insurance, or any insurance
7. You can't force me to participate in a social security program
8. You can't tell me I can't smoke cigarettes or sell marijuana or take hormone pills or experimental medicine 
9. You can't tell my kids they can't pray in school
10. You can't take away our public nativity scenes if that's what we choose to display at our courthouses or schools.

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.