• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Intentional Destruction of America

TexasBred

Well-known member
It's time for Americans to consider a very scary possibility – that the president of the United States and the Congress are actually embarked on an intentional plan to destroy most everything that throughout history made the country great and unique.
Could it be that the sweeping, wholesale policy changes we have seen implemented and begun in the last six months are not just "mistakes" or the results of miscalculations? Could it be that the clear intent is to bring America down – and that those controlling America 's political future know exactly what they are doing? Could it be that those holding the levers of power in Washington are not just ill-equipped for their jobs and making bad choices, but that they are determined to destroy America 's economy and culture because they don't like it, never liked it and wish to see our nation operate more like the rest of the world?
Personally, I'm there. I've been there. There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison– not to mention me.
The contrast in worldviews couldn't be any more striking.
Statism's illogic exposed for all to see in F.A. Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism"
The Founding Fathers, who gave us the greatest experiment in liberty the world has ever known did so by removing the shackles from the people and placing them on the government. They did so because they believed human beings are accountable ultimately to God, from whom our natural rights and responsibilities descended. They sought to strictly limit the powers of government, which had, just as they had throughout history and just as God told us they would in the book of Samuel, result in the oppression of the people.
Meanwhile, what do Obama and company offerr? They offer servitude to the state under the guise of "security."
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are being actively and openly dismantled as the guiding principles of American government.
Sovereignty and independence? We're told today by Obama and company that we live in an "interdependent" world and that we need to be accountable to "the community of nations." That's just a euphemism for dependence and life in an unaccountable global tyranny – where what you think is not nearly as important as what their elite friends think.
The rule of law? We're told today by Obama and company that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. It's a "living document" that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in different times. That's not the rule of law. That's the rule of men – or, more precisely, the rule of high priests in black robes who are not accountable to either the will of the people or the rule of law.
Are your shackles being removed by Obama and company? Are you more or less free today than you were before the massive debt burden was placed on you and your descendants? Are you more of less prosperous? Ask yourself if government has been more empowered or less empowered by their actions? Is there any doubt?
Maybe most Americans don't realize this simple equation: That when government gains power, the people lose liberty. But there is not a doubt in my mind that Obama and company understand that principle very well – even if they don't articulate it openly.
What we are witnessing today is perhaps the greatest power grab in the history of America – where power is being taken from the people and usurped by government.
Are we to assume that this is the result of miscalculation or ignorance? That would be even more insulting to Obama and company than the simple recognition that they actually believe in what they are doing – that their actions are intentional, that they are actively and with forethought and planning dismantling the institutions and ideas that made American great and unique.

But as OT would say "to the victor go the spoils".
so I guess that makes it all ok.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison– not to mention me. The contrast in worldviews couldn't be any more striking. "

Now that is an understatement. I happen to think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc.... GOT IT RIGHT. Those men were political geniuses. And now we've got the polar opposite in charge. Those poor men have got to be rolling in their graves.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison– not to mention me. The contrast in worldviews couldn't be any more striking. "

Now that is an understatement. I happen to think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc.... GOT IT RIGHT. Those men were political geniuses. And now we've got the polar opposite in charge. Those poor men have got to be rolling in their graves.

YOU are claiming Jefferson?

Good one!

http://www.liepie.com/grannys-blog/148-thomas-jefferson-liberal-menace
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
"There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison– not to mention me. The contrast in worldviews couldn't be any more striking. "

Now that is an understatement. I happen to think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc.... GOT IT RIGHT. Those men were political geniuses. And now we've got the polar opposite in charge. Those poor men have got to be rolling in their graves.

YOU are claiming Jefferson?

Good one!

http://www.liepie.com/grannys-blog/148-thomas-jefferson-liberal-menace

So, do you think Jefferson was a socialist?
 

Ben H

Well-known member
The closest comparison you can make to Jefferson being a socialist was the name of his party, Democratic-Republican.

Just recently Biden said something about the "progress" that has been made the last few decades and that we are so close to being "there". The finish line is in sight for them, the temptation to make an even bigger power grab is very real. The balance in Congress is dangerous. We are coming closer to an America that we can not turn around and fix. The intentions may be good, but what they fail to understand is that the Constitution was not just some ideas hashed out by our fathers. It was not any new ideas at all, nor are what they are trying to do now. Our founders looked at thousands of years of history, rises and falls of civilizations. What worked, what didn't. They came up with our constitution. It is based on core principles and is TIMELESS, it is as important now as it was then.

One of the many problems with the Progressive cancer is that it sounds like a good idea, the name "progressive", sounds like progress. But you have to think, progress towards what? The answer is a progress to a much stronger State. It is dissolving individual freedom to benefit the collective. The progressive left wants to answer to the world, the progressive right wants to answer to the federal government. Neither want to protect state rights.

For the history on the principles that created the constitutions read The 5000 Year Leap, you can also download the MP3 audio files for free on the net somewhere.

To get a real good history lesson for the last 100 years, read Liberal Fascism, just finished it.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Ben H said:
The closest comparison you can make to Jefferson being a socialist was the name of his party, Democratic-Republican.

Just recently Biden said something about the "progress" that has been made the last few decades and that we are so close to being "there". The finish line is in sight for them, the temptation to make an even bigger power grab is very real.

Bear in mind a Democrat (in my lifetime) said, "Aks not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Now they all want to line up at the welfare feed trough and drink kool aid from the water spigot.

The terrorists took out the World Trade Center in hopes of bankrupting the U.S. Obama is doing it without a plane.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

The man who said that and Barry can't be in the same party.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Yes they certainly can, JFK's quote is about not being an individual, doing things for the collective. We exceed in this country by being individuals and doing things that benefit each other. I agree with JFK that you shouldn't ask what your country can do for you, but you need to be careful about the second part. It's opening the door to Nationalism. A small amount may be OK, but history has shown what too much can do.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
"There is not a doubt in my mind that people like Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the like just plain think differently than, say, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison– not to mention me. The contrast in worldviews couldn't be any more striking. "

Now that is an understatement. I happen to think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc.... GOT IT RIGHT. Those men were political geniuses. And now we've got the polar opposite in charge. Those poor men have got to be rolling in their graves.

YOU are claiming Jefferson?

Good one!

http://www.liepie.com/grannys-blog/148-thomas-jefferson-liberal-menace

From the home page of badaxe's blog!!!
Lie pie: n. A factually inaccurate viral email from a sender who believes it to be true.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Since you boys are so upset with the way things are run.....Mike, jigs, Husker, Ben and TB....why don't yall just go off somewhere and create your OWN country.

I'm sure there some patch of ground not too far from WTF, Neb. you could use.

Heck, I bet Soapweek would even let ya have an acre of two if you'd make him the official photog of the crew. :wink: :wink:

Make sure you put a BIG TALL fence around it....ya know....to keep us other folks...... out!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben H said:
The closest comparison you can make to Jefferson being a socialist was the name of his party, Democratic-Republican.

Just recently Biden said something about the "progress" that has been made the last few decades and that we are so close to being "there". The finish line is in sight for them, the temptation to make an even bigger power grab is very real. The balance in Congress is dangerous. We are coming closer to an America that we can not turn around and fix. The intentions may be good, but what they fail to understand is that the Constitution was not just some ideas hashed out by our fathers. It was not any new ideas at all, nor are what they are trying to do now. Our founders looked at thousands of years of history, rises and falls of civilizations. What worked, what didn't. They came up with our constitution. It is based on core principles and is TIMELESS, it is as important now as it was then.

One of the many problems with the Progressive cancer is that it sounds like a good idea, the name "progressive", sounds like progress. But you have to think, progress towards what? The answer is a progress to a much stronger State. It is dissolving individual freedom to benefit the collective. The progressive left wants to answer to the world, the progressive right wants to answer to the federal government. Neither want to protect state rights.

For the history on the principles that created the constitutions read The 5000 Year Leap, you can also download the MP3 audio files for free on the net somewhere.

To get a real good history lesson for the last 100 years, read Liberal Fascism, just finished it.


Ben, you and I have been in an argument over the term "progressive" before. Just what are you talking about when you say "progressive"?

Are you talking about a progressive tax or something else?

I believe you are putting terminology into a meaning that doesn't exist, except from the propaganda that is pushed.

For instance, are you saying that there should be no SEC or other federal agency that enforces laws? Do you believe that it is the golden rule of the world that rules in place of the golden rule of Christianity?

For example, are you saying that progressives believe in enforcing things like the Geneva Convention treaty and that it should not be enforced because it is a liberal progressive move that doesn't serve the interests of Americans and instead looks toward the world to answer?

I believe that to put some of these terms to use as you have suggested is nothing more than an abuse of the terms themselves. Personally I don't think any of these labels should take the place of knowing what you are talking about on a particular issue or generalizing it in such a way that is not only not accurate but misleading as well. It is about as intelligent as allowing corruption to hide behind the choice of democrat or republican. Both choices or generalizations would allow corruption to flourish as it has. Sometimes wrong is just wrong regardless of the label it tries to hide behind.

I believe you are getting the term progressive left and progressive right mixed up with a lot of baggage that is just made up junk. The founders sought to have one answer to the law in both federal and state courts and that was a court that was staffed with citizens, not an elite group of people in only the judiciary.

I will agree with you that businesses have tried to out wit the penalties law by asking Congress to make them only answerable to federal laws, federal regulatory agencies, and the federal judiciary. It is an attempt to make the justice system small enough for them to continue to manipulate it for their own purposes with well placed judges and people in the regulatory agencies (also called captive agencies). They have succeeded largely as evidenced by the utter failure of our federal regulatory agencies regulating Wall Street, the USDA regulating agriculture, and many other agencies that cater to those they are supposed to regulate. The health industry is paying a reported 1.4 million dollars per day to get politicians to not regulate their industry and make such shallow arguments on tv to sway the populace and scare them out of doing anything that gets in the way of their profit machine just like the financial industry has done.

Tex
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Since you boys are so upset with the way things are run.....Mike, jigs, Husker, Ben and TB....why don't yall just go off somewhere and create your OWN country.

I'm sure there some patch of ground not too far from WTF, Neb. you could use.

Heck, I bet Soapweek would even let ya have an acre of two if you'd make him the official photog of the crew. :wink: :wink:

Make sure you put a BIG TALL fence around it....ya know....to keep us other folks...... out!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

I'm about to give up on Texas doing just that.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
By Randy Taylor

This has taken some time to put together, yet once you read this piece in its entirety, hopefully the puzzle of Obama will come into clear focus. I’ve been puzzled by his very presence, by his quick, unexplained rise to power, his predetermined placement in the mass of confusion we are experiencing.

The last eight years under Bush created great divides in this country on both sides of the American political spectrum. Most everyone was in favor of war in 2001 especially after we suffered the attacks of 9/11. Yet, as usual, America was quick to forget their initial reactions to 9/11 and as the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq waged on without measurable results, their interest in war diminished. This is understandable, as we are a results oriented society and culture and the results still aren’t clearly visible. We still have not killed or captured Osama bin Laden nor have we put much of a dent in the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world. Any claimable results we may have in Afghanistan and Iraq are overshadowed by the massive spread of Islamic terrorism in other regions of the world, which at best makes these wars a loss with the cost of trillions of dollars and the massive loss of life on US forces, Canadian forces, other coalition forces as well as civilian casualties. The Islamic terrorist are still very active and their presence is growing in Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Somalia, Yemen, Algeria and other countries in Africa and the Middle East. This is where we are today and this is where we stood on November 4, 2008. The entire world blamed Bush for this mess. It was time to put the George W. Bush puppet away and dig out a new one for the White House. Let’s see, the black one, controversial, hint of Muslim loyalty, birth certificate issues, and the polar opposite of Bush on campaign trail. Yep, that’ll work.

Out of obscurity a young, black politician emerges. He was completely opposite of George Bush and John McCain in all his campaign rhetoric. He made promise after promise to his ever growing voting base. He says the wars will be ended, the troops will come home, promises no more big government, says he believes in government transparency, etc. He woos the young voters like a rock star, uses the internet to secure votes and spread his lies. He makes promise after promise, knowing he will not keep any of them.

People were so upset with George Bush, they would have voted for Bozo the Clown if he had run against the Republican Party. This helps insure victory for this young unheard of politician. He takes the election with an estimated 51% of the nation’s vote, which even if the results weren’t exactly accurate; it doesn’t matter as Presidents aren’t elected anymore. They are chosen and the Electoral College insures this. The election process is a dog and pony show, as these decisions are made long before November 4 each election cycle. Even so, there still has to be the appearance that the “most popular” candidate wins so there isn’t an investigative review of the electoral process.

So why was Barack Hussein Obama chosen? This is actually quite obvious when you examine the case. The fact that he is a Muslim was hinted at during the elections yet never proven. This drew the support of the ever growing Muslim population in the US. Groups like CAIR and other Muslim groups very quickly threw their Saudi dollars into campaign support to sell Obama to the US voters. The very fact that he may not have even been born in America, but instead Kenya made him even more popular with Muslims.

The Muslim connection was the key in this process. George Bush wasn’t very popular with Muslims around the world and John McCain was viewed as an extension of George Bush and his policies. McCain never had a chance. Actually most of America was surprised when McCain was placed on the ticket as the Republican nominee. We all asked “Out of all the Republicans available to run, why McCain?” McCain was chosen because McCain would not win. This was predetermined.

Obama was brought in for one reason and one reason only. The scope of work for Obama is make friends with key powers in the Muslim world while crippling America into economic depression to the point that a one world government will appeal to the people. The powers that be, the ones that are behind the scenes and dictate to the White House need to insure the support of all major Muslim countries, except for Iran. He United States is intent on seeing Iran brought down whether by the US or Israel, but brought down either way. The problem with attacking Iran though is the lack of support by the other key nations in the Muslim world. I’ll explain the necessity of either disarming or destroying Iran a bit later.

Bush used to dance around the subject of Islam and made feeble attempts at gaining support of the key Muslim countries by saying that Muslims were a peaceful people and that the religion had been hijacked by a few bad people. However, he was the one that initiated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so his credibility was severely damaged in that regard. He could say what he wanted but the bottom line is he signed the orders for war.

Obama on the other hand campaigned against the war. This made him a hopeful in the eyes of the Muslims from the onset. Since he took office he has bent over backwards to appeal to the Muslim world as an ally. Obama is appointing Muslims into key positions within the US government, is speaking out against Israel, is sympathetic to Palestinians and is pulling troops out of Iraq. Why? It is simply to look sympathetic to Muslims and as a gesture to show tolerance and gain their support. Classic bait and switch in progress.

Barack Hussein Obama is a plant, a Manchurian candidate of sorts. He was chosen by the architects and designers of this New World Government. I’m not 100% entirely sure who these people are but there is a group behind the scenes that are orchestrating key governments with the end result being a one world government. George Bush Sr. spoke of this new world government, Bill Clinton spoke of it and George W. Bush spoke of it and even the Pope states that this is the way to save the world economically. It’s not a conspiracy theory anymore, it is fact. The only question is exactly who is running the show. Many speak of the Bilderberg Group as the group behind the scenes and granted, they are behind the scenes but they are a distraction, a decoy. They are too obvious and too easily seen. The Bilderberg Group keeps the conspiracy theorists busy while the real powers operate without an audience. They are the front men for the real powers pulling strings.

Anyone who has studied Islam at all knows that Iran, the seat of hardcore Islam will never agree to a New World Government that isn’t 100% Islamic and under Sharia law. Islam is a religious system that encompasses government and every detail of life. It isn’t just a religion. Their entire political system is built around it. This does not fit in with the New World Government that is planned for us. But if we want to eliminate or disarm Iran, we will need the support of the other key Muslim countries in the Middle East. The countries that we are attempting to gain support from are all recipients of Western dollars and are interested in economic growth for their countries. They would entertain a world government as they would benefit from it. Iran has no interest in this plan. Not that it was ever presented to them, it is a given that they will not accept it. They would push the world into World War III before they would surrender their sovereignty to a New World Government run by non-Muslims.

Iran is a threat to the western world and Israel, make no mistake. The al Qaeda movement and militant Islam are extensions of this Islamic threat. Yet we have a unique situation where we have two huge threats to our freedom and our way of life. We have Iran, the seat of Islamic terrorism worldwide that would like to see us destroyed and at the same time, we have our own government stripping away our rights, systematically destroying our economy and rapidly surrendering our sovereignty as a nation in favor of a New World Government. The other threat is indeed our own government. The worst part is that our western leaders have taken the Islamic threat to western civilization and used it in their favor as a method of stripping away our rights, invading our privacy and surrendering our sovereignty to this New World Government, all under the guise of improving our security. Security at the sacrifice of basic freedoms isn’t really security. Placing Muslims into key government positions doesn’t exhibit clear thinking on security matters either, but it is a measured risk in the eyes of the powers that be.

All the focus is on Iran right now as it has been for the last seven years, immediately after we invaded Iraq. Obama keeps the focus on Iran too, offering to have dialogue with them, yet knowing they won’t accept. But to the Muslim nations, it looks as though Obama is trying. That is why he was brought in. To make the US look Muslim friendly to the Muslim countries that are not as hard core as Iran. He wants to see us merged with these “friendly” Muslim countries under a one world government. He is selling us out to our enemies.

We moved into Afghanistan and Iraq to gain strategic positions on Iran. This was obvious. Iraq didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction to the extent that we claimed. Bush even made several jokes about WMD’s at a speaking engagement when he was President as he knew damn good and well that Iraq wasn’t the threat he made it out to be. But Saddam had to go as he would have never subscribed to a new world government either. We now have airbases in both countries which allows for ground or air movement against Iran when the time comes. Even if we withdraw, we will never fully leave these countries. We will maintain a military presence there just as we have done with every other country we have “withdrawn” from.

Barack Hussein Obama has not kept a single campaign promise and his supporters should take note of this. We are withdrawing some troops from Iraq yet we are beefing up in Afghanistan. He hasn’t done squat for the economy and is instead installing a Socialist agenda within our country. He is signing us up for Cap and Trade Agreements which has Americans being set up to pay taxes or penalties to a central world government body, which is obviously part of this new world government being imposed on us. He doesn’t place any value on any human life that is viewed as a burden or a mistake. He is manipulating the media ferociously and is censoring press conferences at the White House while saying he believes in government transparency. He is a liar and a fraud. That isn’t just my opinion, no, that is fact (it is certainly fact). Do the research. Go back and look at his campaign and then look at what he has done since he has been in office.

Beware of this person. Beware of all that agree with him or speak in a like manner of a one world government. They are a detriment to mankind as a whole.

Be safe. Stay vigilant.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
kolanuraven said:
Since you boys are so upset with the way things are run.....Mike, jigs, Husker, Ben and TB....why don't yall just go off somewhere and create your OWN country.

I'm sure there some patch of ground not too far from WTF, Neb. you could use.

Heck, I bet Soapweek would even let ya have an acre of two if you'd make him the official photog of the crew. :wink: :wink:

Make sure you put a BIG TALL fence around it....ya know....to keep us other folks...... out!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

I'm about to give up on Texas doing just that.




Well...to that, all I can say is, if you've given up on your own country..."don't let the door hit you in the azz on the way out"
 

Ben H

Well-known member
Tex said:
Ben H said:
The closest comparison you can make to Jefferson being a socialist was the name of his party, Democratic-Republican.

Just recently Biden said something about the "progress" that has been made the last few decades and that we are so close to being "there". The finish line is in sight for them, the temptation to make an even bigger power grab is very real. The balance in Congress is dangerous. We are coming closer to an America that we can not turn around and fix. The intentions may be good, but what they fail to understand is that the Constitution was not just some ideas hashed out by our fathers. It was not any new ideas at all, nor are what they are trying to do now. Our founders looked at thousands of years of history, rises and falls of civilizations. What worked, what didn't. They came up with our constitution. It is based on core principles and is TIMELESS, it is as important now as it was then.

One of the many problems with the Progressive cancer is that it sounds like a good idea, the name "progressive", sounds like progress. But you have to think, progress towards what? The answer is a progress to a much stronger State. It is dissolving individual freedom to benefit the collective. The progressive left wants to answer to the world, the progressive right wants to answer to the federal government. Neither want to protect state rights.

For the history on the principles that created the constitutions read The 5000 Year Leap, you can also download the MP3 audio files for free on the net somewhere.

To get a real good history lesson for the last 100 years, read Liberal Fascism, just finished it.


Ben, you and I have been in an argument over the term "progressive" before. Just what are you talking about when you say "progressive"?

Are you talking about a progressive tax or something else?

I believe you are putting terminology into a meaning that doesn't exist, except from the propaganda that is pushed.

For instance, are you saying that there should be no SEC or other federal agency that enforces laws? Do you believe that it is the golden rule of the world that rules in place of the golden rule of Christianity?

For example, are you saying that progressives believe in enforcing things like the Geneva Convention treaty and that it should not be enforced because it is a liberal progressive move that doesn't serve the interests of Americans and instead looks toward the world to answer?

I believe that to put some of these terms to use as you have suggested is nothing more than an abuse of the terms themselves. Personally I don't think any of these labels should take the place of knowing what you are talking about on a particular issue or generalizing it in such a way that is not only not accurate but misleading as well. It is about as intelligent as allowing corruption to hide behind the choice of democrat or republican. Both choices or generalizations would allow corruption to flourish as it has. Sometimes wrong is just wrong regardless of the label it tries to hide behind.

I believe you are getting the term progressive left and progressive right mixed up with a lot of baggage that is just made up junk. The founders sought to have one answer to the law in both federal and state courts and that was a court that was staffed with citizens, not an elite group of people in only the judiciary.

I will agree with you that businesses have tried to out wit the penalties law by asking Congress to make them only answerable to federal laws, federal regulatory agencies, and the federal judiciary. It is an attempt to make the justice system small enough for them to continue to manipulate it for their own purposes with well placed judges and people in the regulatory agencies (also called captive agencies). They have succeeded largely as evidenced by the utter failure of our federal regulatory agencies regulating Wall Street, the USDA regulating agriculture, and many other agencies that cater to those they are supposed to regulate. The health industry is paying a reported 1.4 million dollars per day to get politicians to not regulate their industry and make such shallow arguments on tv to sway the populace and scare them out of doing anything that gets in the way of their profit machine just like the financial industry has done.

Tex

By Progressive I am referring to the political mindset of growing the size and power of government to benefit the "collective". This is not some new label, it's a re-emergence of an old one that never really went away. Teddy Roosevelt, the Bull Moose, ran for the Progressive Party in 1912. I have a problem with Progressive's seeing the constitution as a guideline and a "living document". During the 1902 Coal strike Teddy Roosevelt said ""to hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!".

Woodrow Wilson took the reins of the progressive movement bringing us the League of Nations which got replaced with the U.N. He brought us the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve. What are some of the other things brought to us under the Progressive Era? Prohibition and Eugenics. Eugenics never went away, it is alive and well today with Planned Parenthood. See their history with Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League.

FDR pushed The New Deal and extended the Depression in doing so, we only got out of the Great Depression because of the war, not the policies of The New Deal. One of the worst things the Progressive movement did, that is starting to be fought back at as we speak, was Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial. ~Wikipedia

political_spectrum.jpg


This is the Political Spectrum I see as the most accurate. The articles of confederation brought us out of anarchy but they didn't work. The Constitution brought us just a little further left to hold us together and keep the states from cutting each others throats, economically. The problem we are facing is both parties are so close together to the left of the center of this spectrum, the Progressives keep trying to move us further to the left when the Constitution is further to the right.

I swore an oath to protect the Constitution, I intend to do just that. The Constitution will prevail in the end, the question is what will have to happen to get back there. We are a republic ruled by law, we are not a democracy.

This is probably the best video I have seen on what we are supposed to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ben H said:
Tex said:
Ben H said:
The closest comparison you can make to Jefferson being a socialist was the name of his party, Democratic-Republican.

Just recently Biden said something about the "progress" that has been made the last few decades and that we are so close to being "there". The finish line is in sight for them, the temptation to make an even bigger power grab is very real. The balance in Congress is dangerous. We are coming closer to an America that we can not turn around and fix. The intentions may be good, but what they fail to understand is that the Constitution was not just some ideas hashed out by our fathers. It was not any new ideas at all, nor are what they are trying to do now. Our founders looked at thousands of years of history, rises and falls of civilizations. What worked, what didn't. They came up with our constitution. It is based on core principles and is TIMELESS, it is as important now as it was then.

One of the many problems with the Progressive cancer is that it sounds like a good idea, the name "progressive", sounds like progress. But you have to think, progress towards what? The answer is a progress to a much stronger State. It is dissolving individual freedom to benefit the collective. The progressive left wants to answer to the world, the progressive right wants to answer to the federal government. Neither want to protect state rights.

For the history on the principles that created the constitutions read The 5000 Year Leap, you can also download the MP3 audio files for free on the net somewhere.

To get a real good history lesson for the last 100 years, read Liberal Fascism, just finished it.


Ben, you and I have been in an argument over the term "progressive" before. Just what are you talking about when you say "progressive"?

Are you talking about a progressive tax or something else?

I believe you are putting terminology into a meaning that doesn't exist, except from the propaganda that is pushed.

For instance, are you saying that there should be no SEC or other federal agency that enforces laws? Do you believe that it is the golden rule of the world that rules in place of the golden rule of Christianity?

For example, are you saying that progressives believe in enforcing things like the Geneva Convention treaty and that it should not be enforced because it is a liberal progressive move that doesn't serve the interests of Americans and instead looks toward the world to answer?

I believe that to put some of these terms to use as you have suggested is nothing more than an abuse of the terms themselves. Personally I don't think any of these labels should take the place of knowing what you are talking about on a particular issue or generalizing it in such a way that is not only not accurate but misleading as well. It is about as intelligent as allowing corruption to hide behind the choice of democrat or republican. Both choices or generalizations would allow corruption to flourish as it has. Sometimes wrong is just wrong regardless of the label it tries to hide behind.

I believe you are getting the term progressive left and progressive right mixed up with a lot of baggage that is just made up junk. The founders sought to have one answer to the law in both federal and state courts and that was a court that was staffed with citizens, not an elite group of people in only the judiciary.

I will agree with you that businesses have tried to out wit the penalties law by asking Congress to make them only answerable to federal laws, federal regulatory agencies, and the federal judiciary. It is an attempt to make the justice system small enough for them to continue to manipulate it for their own purposes with well placed judges and people in the regulatory agencies (also called captive agencies). They have succeeded largely as evidenced by the utter failure of our federal regulatory agencies regulating Wall Street, the USDA regulating agriculture, and many other agencies that cater to those they are supposed to regulate. The health industry is paying a reported 1.4 million dollars per day to get politicians to not regulate their industry and make such shallow arguments on tv to sway the populace and scare them out of doing anything that gets in the way of their profit machine just like the financial industry has done.

Tex

By Progressive I am referring to the political mindset of growing the size and power of government to benefit the "collective". This is not some new label, it's a re-emergence of an old one that never really went away. Teddy Roosevelt, the Bull Moose, ran for the Progressive Party in 1912. I have a problem with Progressive's seeing the constitution as a guideline and a "living document". During the 1902 Coal strike Teddy Roosevelt said ""to hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!".

Woodrow Wilson took the reins of the progressive movement bringing us the League of Nations which got replaced with the U.N. He brought us the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve. What are some of the other things brought to us under the Progressive Era? Prohibition and Eugenics. Eugenics never went away, it is alive and well today with Planned Parenthood. See their history with Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League.

FDR pushed The New Deal and extended the Depression in doing so, we only got out of the Great Depression because of the war, not the policies of The New Deal. One of the worst things the Progressive movement did, that is starting to be fought back at as we speak, was Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial. ~Wikipedia

political_spectrum.jpg


This is the Political Spectrum I see as the most accurate. The articles of confederation brought us out of anarchy but they didn't work. The Constitution brought us just a little further left to hold us together and keep the states from cutting each others throats, economically. The problem we are facing is both parties are so close together to the left of the center of this spectrum, the Progressives keep trying to move us further to the left when the Constitution is further to the right.

I swore an oath to protect the Constitution, I intend to do just that. The Constitution will prevail in the end, the question is what will have to happen to get back there. We are a republic ruled by law, we are not a democracy.

This is probably the best video I have seen on what we are supposed to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

"Justice" is a collective issue and requires a government that exerts its power to achieve it. It is one of the most important things that a government can and has to do or else we will once again be ruled by kings or oligarchs. The presumption of the law is that no one is above the law.

We have seen where the law has not been enforced with our regulatory agencies that are run by the executive branch. Any attempt to call correcting this failure of government by some label like "progressive" that you seem to have a bias against or by calling it over reaching of government will bring on the anarchy that you suggest.

Now I would agree with you that the saving of the financial system and GM has been extraordinary and I don't like it at all. When companies fail, they should lose all their money and have to start over without taxpayers bailing them out. I hope that all tax money spent on Goldman and others is totally recouped and that they don't have access to the discount window to prop up investment banking profits. It is a looting of the people's treasure.

I see the economic reasons for taking extraordinary measures in the short run, but EVERYTHING should be paid back and the rules need to be changed----the sooner the better.

I think you have a good point bringing up the over reaching of the government and its move more towards big money and propping up a system that has broken our system. I have concerns about that too. I just don't put it under a label that you happen to try to make crazy arguments against. Those arguments basically try to redefine the terms midway and are misleading if not outright wrong and based on putting a lot of things together that do not belong together. It is a hijacking of the language so the same old people who got away with not following the law don't have to pay for it.

I will give you another example. Some people would call Phil Gramm a republican. I would just call him a smart political crook who has lead this country into extreme self interest which culminated in government and economic failure. Labeling people progressive or republican or whatever tends to hide the real problems behind some terminology and an attempt to put a lot of baggage on that terminology to hide the real truth.

Growing the size of the government for it to be able to carry out its duties like running the SEC or other governmental functions should not be lumped into "progressives" like to increase the size of the government, which is bad. Personally, I believe there should be a lot of people fired as these agencies (like the USDA) because they have proven they can not do their job. To me that would be progressive.

Tex
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I just got back from getting tires on the truck at BJ's Wholesale Club. While I was waiting I picked up a new book from the Politically Incorrect Guide series, this one is on The Great Depression and The New Deal. I have to correct myself on a statement above, WWII is not what got us out of the Great Depression (neither was the New Deal, that prolonged it), so far it's a good read. I've enjoyed other books in the series such as Islam and The Crusades.

Basically we are making the same mistakes again. We aren't seeing the failure of capitalism, we're seeing what happens when the government attempts to intervene with the marketplace. We have gotten so far from what made the American experiment succeed.

As the government has increased it's regulation on commerce the lobbying power defines the regulation, this in turn hurts the smaller guy. Look at the local butchers who's reputation regulated their business. The lobbying power of the big packers has designed a system that allows them to spread the regulation cost over many units and put a very difficult burden on the smaller processors.

I think trying to be progressive sounds good, but I truly feel that being A progressive is a whole other meaning. It is a movement, as I said, to a stronger, larger, more powerful government. I admit it's a jaw dropping history to look into, it's a lot more complex then I thought it would be. But, I have yet to be convinced otherwise that this movement is massively responsible for todays problems. The next book on my list to purchase is
American Progressivism: A Reader
http://www.amazon.com/American-Progressivism-Ronald-J-Pestritto/dp/0739123041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247427639&sr=1-1

Let me be clear, I do not want Anarchy. As that video I mentioned says, anarchies don't last, they are often nothing more then a tool for a dictator to take power. That brings up a whole other issue, the Cloward-Piven strategy. "seeking "to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." Enter ACORN.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Since you boys are so upset with the way things are run.....Mike, jigs, Husker, Ben and TB....why don't yall just go off somewhere and create your OWN country.

I'm sure there some patch of ground not too far from WTF, Neb. you could use.

Heck, I bet Soapweek would even let ya have an acre of two if you'd make him the official photog of the crew. :wink: :wink:

Make sure you put a BIG TALL fence around it....ya know....to keep us other folks...... out!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

We've got a great country, it's just time to take out the trash.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Since you boys are so upset with the way things are run.....Mike, jigs, Husker, Ben and TB....why don't yall just go off somewhere and create your OWN country.

I'm sure there some patch of ground not too far from WTF, Neb. you could use.

Heck, I bet Soapweek would even let ya have an acre of two if you'd make him the official photog of the crew. :wink: :wink:

Make sure you put a BIG TALL fence around it....ya know....to keep us other folks...... out!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

We've got a great country, it's just time to take out the trash.

Yeah kicking out all of the bankers, lawyers and insurance salesmen would be a good start.
 
Top