Recognizing the Statist Utopian Nightmare

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

The liberal mind may be the most illogical and oxymoronic thing on the planet. They are constantly trying to “improve” the human condition by affecting human nature via legislation and regulation.

 

The problem is that human nature is what it is. Humans aren’t perfect. That’s what God intended and no governmental organization has been or will be able to regulate or legislate that out of us.

 

Oh, they’ll try and for a while it may even appear successful. But eventually that utopian dream will be exposed as the nightmare that it is and come crashing down.

 

The question is: why does it always have to escalate to the point of “crashing”?

 

That, as everything else, always comes down to human nature. Liberals feel, they don’t think. They are also quite myopic, singularly focused, that is, they don’t see the big picture. It may be that they are incapable of doing so, and because of that, they don’t see it as a shortcoming. read more

By Cracky, the Pope is Indeed Catholic!

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The College of Cardinals has chosen a new Pope. Okay, now what? What do those who choose to call themselves Catholic do now?

Evidently the new guy, Pope Francis, is a theological conservative, for want of a better term. I guess we will classify him as a theological traditionalist, that way I won’t offend liberal Catholics.

I am not a Roman Catholic, nor any kind of Catholic. I do know broadly, as do many non-Catholics, a few of the basic tenets, or rules of Catholicism. They are against abortion, Pope-Franciseuthanasia, women priests and homosexual marriage. There are, I’m sure, many more Catholic tenets, but those four are evidently the hot button topics of contention in today’s Catholic Church.

As a non-Catholic, my obvious question to those who are, is why are these contentious issues within the church?

Any traditional religion has a certain set of, carved in stone rules that a practicing member of said religion must follow to remain in that churches good standing.

Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims all have rules that must be followed. So I am both confused and amused at the number of reports asking whether the new pope would be more likely to moderate the church’s views.

Well, as I said, I am not a Catholic, but I do know enough not to ask God to moderate. Why would anyone think that the Pope would come in and just start turning the whole religion upside down? Did anyone really think that the new Pope would get up and announce that the church will now be pro-abortion? Of course any thinking person would never expect such a thing.

But of course we know, at least to my regular readers, that American liberals are liberals first and whatever else after that. Whether they claim to be Catholic or some other religion they are still liberals first. That is why, for example, liberal American Jews will vote in a president and administration that is clearly no friend of Israel. Liberal first, then Jew; easy as that.

As we know, liberals don’t think, tCatholic ruleshey feel. If one doesn’t think about the absurdity of the statement, one could comfortably ask if the church will now support abortion or women priests. It is not a completely ludicrous question, unless you think about it first. But with liberals fairness is everything. It is unfair in these modern times not to allow homosexuals to wed within the church.

That is only a reasonable assumption if you are an à la carte Catholic, or just a liberal who happen to be brought up Catholic. For those who don’t know, an à la carte Catholic is one who feels he or she may pick and choose the rules they wish to adhere to and let the rest go. Some call them cafeteria Catholics.

Now many think liberalism is a political ideology. It is, in a way. But it is also a religion, albeit a warp one. Think about it. Religion is faith; some would say blind faith. Leftists contend that a belief in a higher power, God, defies logic yet their blind faith in the myth of man-made global warming is incontrovertible. They have their own set of unwavering rules. You must be pro-abortion, you must believe in Global Warming, homosexual marriage and wealth distribution.pro-life

So with all their rigid ideology, why do liberals assume the Catholic Church can and will reverse its core principles? Well, that’s easy. Because they want it to and it is unfair not to. It’s all about the fairness.

For more than a century, liberals, progressives, or however you care to classify them, have been changing and usurping the rule of law; the Constitution.

They claim it to be a living document and should now more reflect the modern era. Its rules applied and made sense a few centuries ago but those quaint ideals have hardly kept up with the “progress” and enlightenment of modern man.

So with a belief that the basic tenets that govern our country should and can be changed on a whim, so to it is easy to superimpose that same want to change the church, for it also does not reflect the enlightenment of the modern liberal.

And that is why many today can surmise that a new Pope can and should  alter the Catholic Church tenets.

Real Choice and the Left

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The definition of the prefix pro-: indicating favor for party, system, idea, etc.

The definition of choice: the act of selection, the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option.some choice

The left is said to be all about Pro-Choice. Unfortunately the choice must always agree with their set of beliefs. Choice to the left is also quite myopic. The only choice for the left, is in fact, no choice at all.

I’m speaking of course, of the only pro-choice stance that liberals insist upon, and of course, it is not a choice. The correct terms are, or should be, pro-life and pro-abortion and for the left, the choice must always be abortion.

Let’s take a look at just how pro-choice the left is regarding a couple other hot topics.

The right to work issue has been news for quite a while, but has bolted to the front page with the recent Michigan vote. Unions came out in droves and were bused in by the thousands to rally unsuccessfully against “Right to Work”.

Right-to-Work-Union-Choice-or-NotIs “Right to Work” not just pro-choice? One may “choose” in favor of joining a union, or “choose” not to join. That seems pretty pro-choice to me.

What about the issue of school choice? Liberals are all about the children, or so they say. However, when the matter of parents choosing which school they may send their children to, choice is not an option. Sure the left will argue that there is only so much money to go around and school choice would just further drain funding, but of course that’s a bogus argument that can easily be countered with a voucher system or tax credits. Parents receive their standard per-student funding via a voucher and are then free to “choose” the school of their “choice”. That’s pro-choice, is it not?

Now that I think of it, I guess the left is pro-choice regarding schools. They just happened to choose the teachers unions over the children, 100% of the time.

There are any number of things I would regard myself as being pro-choice, if I had the choice. Here are just a few.

  • I would choose not to fund PBS (kudos to Mitt)
  • I would choose to close the border
  • I would choose to bring our troops homegot-out-free-obamacare-waiver
  • I would choose to allow Israel to defend itself by any means necessary
  • I would choose to drill for oil and gas everywhere there might be some
  • And coming soon, I would choose to opt out of Obamacare, where soon enough, I will not be able to “choose” my own doctor nor make my own health care decisions.

So you see, for the left, being pro-choice isn’t really about choice. It’s just repackaging and marketing. It is a lot more palatable to say one is pro-choice than pro-abortion. It’s like being gay instead of the proper term, homosexual, just as blacks are now all African-Americans, even though most of them are no more African than I am European.

Progressives are good at this sleight-of-hand. If some word, phrase, or thought falls out of favor or develops a neblack-vs-african-americangative connotation, they simply change the name and voilà, it’s magically acceptable and supposed to be somehow, different. The name progressive actually fell out of favor long ago and was changed to liberal, and now we’re back to progressive. Funny the way that works.

These names are just that; names. The ideas or ideals behind them never change. Don’t be fooled by a name.

Whether it be liberal, gay, African-American or pro-choice; with the left it is all about the packaging. What’s inside the package is immaterial.

The New History

The Left Continues to Revise America’s History

by

books

One of the many unfortunate effects of Barack Obama’s re-election is that it will empower the radical left to continue revising America’s history.  The fastest way to undermine a country is to undermine its history, and the best place to bRadical_Left_War_Americaegin is in the nation’s classrooms where pliable young minds are easily influenced.

This is precisely what the left has been doing for decades, and with evident success.  The left has made great strides in undermining the family, taking over the public square, and dominating education at all levels.  But some of its most effective work has been in revising America’s history.

Russian philosopher Alexander Solzhenitzyn said: “To destroy a people you must first sever their roots.” Patrick Buchanan said: “To create a ‘new people,’ the agents of our cultural revolution must first create a new history; and that project is well advanced.”

In 1992 that bastion of liberal thought, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), received a two-million-dollar grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education to develop new standards for history solzhenitsynbooks for grades five through twelve.  UCLA completed this assignment in 1997.  Since that time, its standards have had the intended effect.  UCLA’s standards for history books for public school children have resulted in the following:

No mention in history books of such American luminaries as Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, or the Wright Brothers. It is the lives of exceptional Americans such as these, among many other factors, that validate the concept of American exceptionalism.  Consequently, to undermine the concept, liberals must remove any reference to exceptional acts and exceptional people in American history.  

The founding dates of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are given special significance.  In truth, the only thing that warrants inclusion of these organizations in history books is that they are considered sacred institutions by the left.

Instructions for teachers concerning how to teach the unit which covers the traitor Alger Hiss and the spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg encourages leeway to teach the unit either way.  In other words, teachers are given the leeway to teach the unit as if Hiss was not a traitor and the Rosenbergs were innocent.  This is the rosenbergssame Alger Hiss who was convicted by a jury on the basis of hard evidence, evidence that since his conviction has been validated many times over by further discoveries.  And these are the same Rosenbergs who gave America’s atom-bomb secrets to Joseph Stalin.

The Constitutional Convention is not even mentioned.  One of the reasons for this is that the deliberations of America’s founders as recorded in numerous documents such as the Federalist Papers as well as those of the anti-federalists are clearly at odds with today’s liberal orthodoxy.  The tactic of the left is simple.  If the founder’s views do not reinforce those of the left, eliminate any reference to their views in history books.

George Washington’s presidency is not mentioned nor is his famous farewell address.  Rather than learn about the two terms of our country’s first president—two terms in which everything Washington did was precedent setting—students are encouraged to develop an imaginary dialogue between an Indian Leader and General Washington at the end of the Revolutionary War.  What students are supposed to learn and how students are supposed to benefit from this hypothetical dialogue is not explained.

The Soviet Union is commended for its great strides in space exploration, but America’s moon landing is not mentioned.

Terockefellerachers are urged to have students conduct a mock trial for John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil.  No mention is made of the fact that the homes of most of the students are heated by energy derived from petroleum and the gasoline in the cars driven by teachers comes from petroleum.

The new history standards developed by UCLA have had far-reaching effects.  Look at any history book written for public school students in the K-12 system and you will be appalled at what is included and what is not.

There are now history books being used in America classrooms that give more coverage to Madonna than to George Washington.  Further, America is often portrayed in the way that Barack Obama views it: as a villainous nation bent on world dominance, imperialism, the perpetuation of slavery, and a variety of other evils.

What is less likely to be found is any positive coverage concerning a Constitution that guarantees the rights of everyone, including liberals who are bent on the destruction of America as the founders envisioned it.

Stealth Organizer

How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For The Cities

by: Stanley Kurtz

Political experts left and right agree: the coming election will be decided by America’s suburbanites. From Florida to Virginia on across the country, in every battleground state, they are the key demographic. All of which raises a question that has not been considered as yet, and ought to be: is President Obama’s re-election in the suburbanites’ interest? The answer emphatically is no.

Most Americans do not know, in the eyes of the leftist community organizers who trained Obama, suburbs are instruments of bigotry and greed — a way of selfishly refusing to share tax money with the urban poor. Obama adopted this view early on, and he has never wavered from this ideological commitment, as a review of his actions in office goes to show.

President Obama’s plans for a second-term include an initiative to systematically redistribute the wealth of America’s suburbs to the cities. It’s a transformative idea, and deserves to be fully aired before the election. But like a lot of his major progressive policy innovations, Obama has advanced this one stealthily–mostly through rule-making, appointment, and vague directives. Obama has worked on this project in collaboration with Mike Kruglik, one of his original community organizing mentors. Kruglik’s new group, Building One America, advocates “regional tax-base sharing,” a practice by which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off “inner-ring” suburbs. Kruglik’s group also favors a raft of policies designed to coerce people out of their cars and force suburbanites (with their tax money) back into densely packed cities.

Obama has lent the full weight of his White House to Kruglik’s efforts. A federal program called the Sustainable Communities Initiative, for example, has salted planning commissions across the country with “regional equity” and “smart growth” as goals. These are, of course, code words. “Regional equity” means that, by their mere existence, suburbs cheat the people who live in cities. It means, “Let’s spread the suburbs’ wealth around” – i.e., take from the suburbanites to give to the urban poor. “Smart growth” means, “Quit building sub-divisions and malls, and move back to where mass transit can shuttle you between your 800 square foot apartment in an urban tower and your downtown job.” In all likelihood, these planning commissions will issue “recommendations” which Obama would quickly turn into requirements for further federal aid. In fact, his administration has already used these tactics to impose federal education requirements on reluctant states. Indeed, part of Obama’s assault on the suburbs is his effort to undercut the autonomy of suburban school districts.

Suburbs are for sellouts: That is a large and overlooked theme of Obama’s famous memoir, Dreams from My Father. Few have noticed the little digs at suburban “sprawl” throughout the book, as when Obama decries a Waikiki jammed with “subdivisions marching relentlessly into every fold of green hill.” Dreams actually begins with the tale of an African American couple who’ve come to question their move from city to suburb – the implication clearly being that the city is the moral choice.

Early on in Dreams, Obama tells of how his mother and Indonesian step-father, Lolo Soetoro, were pulled apart by a proxy version of the American dream. Lolo got a job with an American oil company, bought a house in a better neighborhood, and started dining at the company club. Obama’s mother, who had come to Indonesia in search of Third World authenticity, wanted nothing to do with the “ugly American” types who frequented this new world, and she taught her son to disdain them as well. From Obama’s perspective, American-inspired upward mobility had broken his new family in two.

Back in Hawaii after his Indonesian interlude, Obama came to see his grandparents as strangers. The realization dawned as they drove him along a sprawl-filled highway. Obama then threw in his lot with an African-American mentor named Frank Marshall Davis, who lived in a ramshackle pocket of the city called the “Waikiki Jungle” where his home was a gathering place for young leftists and nonconformists. Rejecting assimilation into America’s middle-class, Davis hit on socialist politics and identification with the urban poor as the way to establish his racial credentials.

Dreams from My Father describes Davis’s efforts to pass this stance on to Obama. At Occidental, with Davis’s advice in mind, Obama worried that he was too much like “suburban blacks, students who sit with whites in the cafeteria and refuse to be defined by the color of their skin.” This fear of becoming a middle-class suburban “sellout” is the background to the famous passage of Dreams where Obama explains why he started hanging out with “Marxist professors” and other unconventional types. Recalling Davis’s admonition to reject the standard path to success, “the American way and all that shit,” Obama left Occidental’s suburban campus for Columbia University, “in the heart of a true city.”

After leaving New York for Chicago, Obama met up with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This relationship, too, reflected Obama’s ideological disdain for the suburbs. Obama was distressed, for example, to learn that one of Wright’s assistants planned to move to a suburb for her son’s safety. After confronting Wright with concerns that his congregation was “too upwardly mobile,” Obama was mollified to discover the congregation’s official “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.” The years with Rev. Wright helped Obama solidify the solution to his identity crisis that Frank Marshall Davis had taught him long before: reject the lure of the middle-class suburbia and identify instead with the urban poor.

Simultaneously, Obama joined up with a clutch of leftist community organizers who attributed the troubles of Chicago’s inner cities to the very existence of suburbs. Among this early group of mentors, Obama was personally closest to Mike Kruglik. Kruglik and his fellow organizers noticed that even when their groups succeeded in forcing some local politician to increase government spending, neighborhood conditions failed to improve. Instead of drawing the lesson that big government doesn’t work, Kruglik and his fellow organizers seized upon a different explanation. They discovered the work of Myron Orfield and David Rusk, national leaders of the fight against suburban “sprawl” — and sponsors of a bold plan to redistribute suburban tax money to the cities.

Orfield and Rusk attributed urban decline to taxpayer “flight” to the suburbs. In their eyes, compulsory redistribution of suburban tax money to cities was the only lasting solution to urban decay. Kruglik and Obama’s other community organizing mentors embraced these ideas and have crusaded for them ever since. From his position on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama supported his mentors’ anti-suburban activism for years. Likewise, from the time he entered the Illinois State Senate right through to his service in the U.S. Senate, Obama continued to work closely with Kruglik on his anti-suburban crusade.

To this day, Obama quietly coordinates his administration’s policies on urban/suburban issues with Kruglik, Orfield, and Rusk. Kruglik’s anti-suburban battle is set to become one of the defining themes of Obama’s second term. Although calls for “regional tax-base sharing” will strike the public as something entirely new, the program is the fulfillment of the president’s lifetime ambition. Still trying to avoid being mistaken for a middle-class, suburban “sellout,” Obama has hit upon the ultimate solution: a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to America’s cities.

That would not be in the interests of America’s suburbanites or, ultimately, anyone else. Redistribution kills the growth that benefits everyone. Once voters realize that there has never been a president more ideologically opposed to the suburbs, or more reliant on redistribution as a policy, they should know what to do – especially all those suburbanites on whose judgment the election itself will turn.

Occupy Communism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Diverse: of various kinds or forms; multiform (definition)

Tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit. (definition)

The left and the progressives all claim to love diversity. They have the biggest tent and will welcome all comers for they are the most tolerant. Just witness the Occupy movement.

 All colors of the rainbow are welcomed into the lefts tent. Black, white, red, yellow.

Ones sexual orientation matters not to left. Whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, multisexual, asexueal, transexual, trisexual (did I miss any? I’m truly sorry if I did. I don’t intend to discriminate).

All  true and legitimate forms of thought are tolerated embraced by the ever tolerant and diversity oriented left. Come on into the tent. It’s ok to be different. It doesn’t matter. You can be a communist, a marxist, a Maoist, a black separatist, an anarchist, a radical islamist or just a poor misguided liberal.

Of course, what will not be tolerated is the intolerant right and their hate speech. Their ought to be a law against that.

That well-known anti-American radical, Ted Nugent must be spoken to. He needs to get his mind right (or left). Rush Limbaugh must be dealt with. His sponsors must abandon him immediately. Glenn Beck must be driven from the airwaves for his constant racist hate speech. The ex-marine must be detained (without being read his rights), whisked away to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation and dealt with for his anti-government facebook posts. These folks are all threats to our national security. And because they are such serious security threats, it’s ok to be intolrant of their radical views.

However, those with the same middleclass values as the rest of us should be celebrated for their views, such as the New Black Panthers. So they claim on several occasions to want to kill all the cracker babies. What’s so offensive about that?  That sort of diversity should be celebrated. And how about that apple pie and chevrolet, middle american group, the Muslim Brotherhood. So their charter includes the destruction of the west and rule under Shariah. If those aren’t true american values, I’ll eat my hat.

They should never be questioned, for as everyone knows, conservatives are the only subversives. The left would never conceive of such a thing as subvertion. Certainly not this guy:

Forward Ho!

By: The Common Constitutionalist

Yes, the new Obama campaign slogan, “Forward”. It’s new, it’s innovative, it’s hip. Or is it? It appears quite similar to the MSNBC slogan “Lean Forward”. Funny coincidence, isn’t it.

It evokes movement in a positive direction. Don’t go back. Push on to better times ahead. One has to move”Forward” to make progress. Could that be where the term “Progressive” came from?  Absolutely! The early progressives knew we had to move forward. Cast off the shackles of that stifling old Constitution.

The slogan “Forward” is new and innovative, if you don’t know history. For those who do know their history, the slogan “Forward” is even more foreboding than that of “Progress”.

Wikipedia: The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for ‘Forward’) was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.

Now it’s time for some irony, travelling back in time to find the origins of the slogan, “Forward”.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words (or so they say), we’ll see what history has to offer.

Lenin, Forward for the Motherland, for our victory!

Under the leadership of the great Stalin - forward to Communism!

Young builders of communism! Forward, to the new successes in work and study!

Mao, Strike the battle drum of the Great Leap Forward ever louder

Sing revolutionary war songs with fervor, and move forward in victory.

Notice A common theme, maybe a word that stands out?

Love Him or Hate him, He’s Right

Two Cheers For Glenn Beck, With Some Reservations

By Jerry Bowyer

Glenn Beck’s analyses of the history of authoritarian movements has many people concerned, and justifiably so. Most recently Beck has been laying out the ways in which the progressive movement in the U.S. has been following a three phase strategy to undermine the free-market constitutional order traditional to America.

He has also uncovered ways in which progressive propaganda on behalf of President Obama taps surreptitiously into language of earlier extremist thought, most notably Stuart Chase’s book,” The Road We Are Traveling,” and his invocation of Political System X. Chase was a Fabian socialist who was influential in the left wing of the New Deal, and may have coined the phrase ‘New Deal’.

Beck argues that phase 1 of the program, which focused largely on the institutionalization of the socialist movement and the de-legitimatization of traditional free institutions, has been completed over roughly the past 100 years. Phase 2 of the agenda, largely a matter of creating an escalating series of crises, Beck argues can happen ‘at lightning speed’. Phase 3 refers to a time in which the people, tired of chaos and crisis, permit the Left to grab power and perhaps even to liquidate inconvenient groups of people.

There is a lot to appreciate in Beck’s work, and I do not share the tendency among some in the conservative institutional elite to deride him. When someone like a Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal describes Beck as ‘insane’, she may well be responding more to the social pressures of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit than to anything Beck has actually said. Frankly, I’m tired of conservatives, such as David Frum and others, who have made a career out of appearing in liberal media venues to ritually denounce Beck or Palin or whoever is the liberal hate icon of the month, as beyond the pale.

In fact, I share Beck’s association of Obama with the Fabian socialist movement, and did so very early, perhaps earlier even than Beck did.

Personally, I like Glenn Beck. I appeared as a guest on his TV show when he was on CNN. He did something which TV broadcasters almost never do: he talked to me (through my ear piece) during the break. He told me “You are my absolutely favorite economic commentator,” no doubt in keeping with the well-known Beck hyperbole. I told him that he was something which I’ve found to quite rare in broadcast TV, an actual vulnerable human being.

So, mutual admiration aside, do I agree completely with Beck? No, I do not. I’ve found myself talking with investors often over the last couple of years who need to be coaxed down off the ledge of despair over alleged imminent depressions, hyperinflations, and dollar collapses. I’ve seen analysts on his former Fox show running elaborate scenarios about horrible economic events to unfold in matters of months, if not days or weeks. I am increasingly running into investors, often Beck watchers, who have thrown aside the ancient wisdom of asset diversification in order to jump with both feet into precious metals.

What I think Beck is missing is a sense of depth perception. He sees a danger ahead, but, can’t seem to focus his eyes in order to see how far ahead it is. Taking what he no doubt believes is the safest approach, and one that accords with the emotional intensity of broadcasting, he pronounces the danger to be imminent. Beck’s shows are anxiety-inducing; they’re meant to be. In fact, a colleague of mine was advised by his psychiatrist to stop watching the shows because they were triggering unhealthy anxiety episodes in him. The psychiatrist is an evangelical Christian who is not by nature inclined to be unsympathetic to Beck’s worldview.

I am not the only one who notices Beck’s lack of depth perception and tendency to telescope disastrous events…

“The one thing I always get wrong is timing. I told you three years ago that they were going to print money, that inflation was coming, that trouble was coming, three years ago. Before Bear Stearns collapsed. And I said the stock market was going to crash. I didn’t know when. I used to tell you when things were happening, but I noticed, I see everything as a flat wall. Everything I see in the future is just right here, right now. And it used to give me real high anxiety. ”

So, let’s leave aside for the moment the timing issues, which we as investors must pay close attention to, and take up the issues about the direction of our country, which we as citizens must also pay close attention to.

Beck is right and his critics are wrong about a number of things:

The progressive movement is totalitarian at its core. Whenever it has been allowed free reign, it has become highly repressive, and in some cases, genocidal.

Large swaths of the liberal coalition are, in fact, progressives, especially those in the emotion-forming industries such as film, TV and music.

It can happen here. No nation is immune from the totalitarian impulse and countries which had once been the high water marks of western civilization such as Italy, Greece, Turkey and Germany have all succumbed to totalitarian impulses at one time or another.

American economic hegemony is not inevitable. Every other great nation which has adopted a fiat currency has seen that currency eventually collapse. Every other nation whose currency enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of reserve currency status, has lost that privilege.

Most nations which have reached our level of public indebtedness, eventually suffered severe economic crises.

But, when and how, and most urgently, how quickly do events like this happen to nations such as the U.S.? Yes, Rome fell, and so did Byzantium, Spain, and the British Empires. But how long did it take to fall? How many reprieves did those nations get? How fragile are nations like the United States in terms of culture and political institutions compared the great nations which collapsed in ruin? Only time will tell.

Attribution: Forbes Online

They’re all the Same

The following video is of the famous progressive firebrand, Huey Long. This redistribution speech is from December of 1934, 78 years ago. We all know the old saying, “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. Well, listen carefully to old Huey and tell me it’s not the same speech, with the same villains (new names, but the same villains), such as Big Oil and the rich. Tell me, some 78 years later, this identical speech couldn’t or wouldn’t be given by Obama or any other frothing progressive today. Huey would have received a heros welcome from the ‘Occupy Wallstreet’ crowd.

A Fork in the Road

Stuart Chase was a progressive and Fabian socialist, who wrote a book called “The Road we are Traveling”. He wrote this book in 1942.Chase was a well-known progressive of his era and was part of the Woodrow Wilson administration. He has been credited for the term “The New Deal”.

No one, including me, had heard of this gentleman, until Glenn Beck brought him to light a few days ago. The reason why he brought him to light was the new film, the propaganda film, narrated by Tom Hanks, called “The Road we Traveled”.

When I heard of this book by Stuart Chase, I, like Glenn, thought, what a remarkable coincidence that this progressive book and this new film could be so similarly titled.

Over the past few days Glenn Beck has done some research on this progressive, Stuart Chase and has come up with some remarkable similarities between the book, “The Road we are Traveling” and the situation we find ourselves in now.

As Glenn Beck has stated, when Barack Obama said five days before the election in 2008 that he wanted to fundamentally transform America and the world, no one listened. We should have.

As many people say, words mean things. It’s no different for progressives. Words mean things to them also. Progressive’s words are always carefully crafted. We should realize that they do in fact mean what they say and say what they mean. They are not just hollow words nor campaign rhetoric.

Knowing now whom Barack Obama is and the people that he has surrounded himself with are, we must surely take him at his word that he and they wish to change the entire structure of America and the world.

Most of us today would consider this progressive march to be a march toward socialism communism or fascism. Once again we go back to, words mean things.

Stuart Chase was smart enough to realize that, in 1942 no one wanted to hear about socialism or fascism or communism. Instead he called his proposed fundamental transformation, simply “Political System X”. Chase claimed, in his book; once you have enough pieces of the society fundamentally transformed, you will not be able to turn the ship around, as it were. In other words, there will be no turning back to capitalism or the free market.

So now let’s juxtapose what Stuart Chase had in mind and just how far Barack Obama has come.

As we go through this list just keep in mind that Barack Obama and his ilk are not the first to attempt to transform this country. It has been a progressive project for 100 years. These are patient lot.

In his book Chase describes his political system X as the following [Chase’s words will be italicized]: You will need a strong centralized government. I think we can all agree that we have a strong and ever stronger centralized government. I guess we can check that one off.

You will need an Executive arm growing at the expense of the Legislative and Judicial arm. I think we can all agree that this is happening right under our noses. President Obama and his administration appear to be doing whatever they want whether they have the constitutional authority to do so or not, simply brushing aside the legislature as they go. I suppose we can give him a big thumbs up for this one.

You will need to have control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government. The tarp bailouts pretty much took care of the control of banking issue. As far as credit goes, try getting a student loan or purchasing a house without having the government involved in the financing. Let’s check that one off.

Seems they are doing rather well with their fundamental transformation project so far.

You will need underwriting of employment through armaments or by public works. This sounds a lot like the stimulus package. I guess we’ll check this one off also, at least partially.

You will need underwriting of Social Security by the government, underwriting of food, housing and medical care by the government. Social Security, that’s a given. Underwriting of food is certainly being taken care of with the FDA, the USDA and Michelle Obama with the rest of her food Nazis telling us what we can and can’t eat. And let us not forget the foodstamp program. Housing is certainly being taken care of through Fannie and Freddie and all the other government organizations controlling loans and whatnot. Of course, Obamacare will take care of medical care. That’s check, check, check and check.

The use of deficit spending to finance underwriting is essential. This one is fairly obvious. We’ll give them a big checkmark.

There must be an abandonment of gold in lieu of managed currency. The Fed accomplished this during the Nixon administration in the 1970s. Check that one off.

You will need government control over trade, natural resources, transportation, agricultural production, organize labor unions and youth corps. You will need a youth and people dedicated to the ideology of government authorities. What part of trade doesn’t the government already control? That is of course a rhetorical question. They are certainly busy trying to control natural resources, coal, oil and natural gas; the air we breathe and the water we drink, etc. as far as labor unions are concerned I’m not sure who controls whom? Is it the government that controls labor unions or vice versa. I guess they are actually one in the same. Glenn Beck contends, and I agree, the youth and people dedicated to the ideology of government authority is Occupy Wall Street. They are the youth corps.

Heavy taxation of Estates and incomes of the wealthy is essential. Gee, who has been pushing for that for as long as I’ve been alive? I’d give that a half a checkmark, but it seems they will eventually achieve this.

There must be state control over communications and propaganda. It appears they’re well on their way to achieving this goal. We don’t call them the state-controlled media for nothing. Let’s give them a big checkmark for that.

Well now. Can I get a holy crap?!

I think it might’ve been easier to compile a list of what they haven’t accomplished instead of what they have. I guess the old saying “Ignorance is Bliss” really does apply in this case. Maybe we should all just go back to sleep and allow the government to take complete control of our lives.

By the way, Glenn Beck believes, as do I, that the reason this new propaganda film is titled “The Road We’ve Traveled”, is that these progressives believe that the journey is virtually completed. As I’ve stated before, these progressives choose their words very carefully. They did not choose this title by accident.

I truly hope that Stuart Chase is wrong and that we will be able to turn this ship around, or at least slow it long enough for a majority of our citizens to wake up.

Attribution: I would like to thank Glenn Beck for compiling this list. He and his staff are an invaluable resource.