Just thinkin’ about
Tomorrow
Clears away the Congress,
And the borrow
‘Til there’s none!

When we’re stuck with no way
To pay,
our loans off,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!

The Gov. will shutdown
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
‘Til tomorrow
Come, let’s pray!
Tomorrow! No borrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You’re always
A day
Away!

Every year, around Christmas time, the networks replay the classic Laurel and Hardy film “Babes in Toyland”. Though as a child I found most of the movie to be fairly boring, I watched every year for one reason: to see the army of wooden soldiers activated and sent out after the “bogeymen” lead by the evil Silas Barnaby. A feeling of excitement and pride washed over me when Laurel and Hardy, seemingly outmatched by Barnaby’s troupe, discovered that they too could call upon an organized force in order to save themselves and their community. As you get older you come to understand, that there isn’t always an overwhelming force for good that comes to your rescue and the movie loses a bit of magic.

I am reminded of this movie now, strangely enough, because of the goings on in Congress, Wisconsin and in similar outbursts throughout the country. In the case of Wisconsin, Silas Barnaby is played by the Union leaders and the bogeymen would be portrayed by the protesters. They have unleashed their army of ignorance on the State house which they occupied for several days, leaving a multi-million dollar cleanup bill in their wake.

Through the democratic process, the republicans in WI voted to remove certain collective bargaining abilities from public employee unions. Something they were never intended to have in the first place as they are “bargaining” for more of our money. They are organized and have strong and influential leadership. Recently, they announced their intention to use that influence and organization to initiate a recall action against a handful of republican legislators.

We are also facing a back and forth with democrats and republican leadership in congress on the budget. Some “Tea Party” representatives and Senators like Rand and Ron Paul are standing firm for deep cuts in spending. Party establishment types like Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell are content with dragging cuts out in small increments over time. As has been stated by countless others: now is not the time for half measures. These little cuts would have been novel 5-10 years ago; today they are a joke and we are the butt of it.

Where is the Tea party?

Sure, there was a mildly inspiring showing at one point early on during the protests, but it was hardly noticeable. If Glenn Beck was able to call hundreds of thousands of us to rally on the mall in D.C for nothing more than “Honor”, a noble if somewhat vague rallying cry, it should be a no-brainer that the Tea Party descend in similar numbers on Madison, Wisconsin.

Governor Scott Walker is in the political fight of a lifetime. The outcome will shape the future of Union power in this country. If the unions succeed in recalling and replacing the targeted republicans, their power and influence will grow exponentially. Politicians will bend to their will every chance they get, out of fear that they may be next on the hit list. If the unions lose this battle, it would be a severe blow to them. Those same cowardly politicians who have for years kowtowed under union pressure will immediately be free to oppose poorly considered union demands. Once it is proven that Unions can be beat, they will cease to be an overwhelming power in government.

The Tea Party may never face a more important challenge than this. It is time for someone to push the button and activate that army of good. We have proven that when we are motivated into action we are an unstoppable force. As of late however, it seems that we are doing a lot of talking and little walking. Where are we on Wisconsin? Where are we on the budget battle? Why are we not demanding more of the new republican house and members of the senate that we helped to get elected? Was Harry Reid right when he said that we would eventually disappear?

If we were to mobilize hundreds of thousands more to Madison in order to work against the recall measure, we would be successful. If we were to mobilize again to D.C in order to remind the republican leadership that we are still watching and waiting for results, we would be successful. Our numbers cannot be ignored and we should not ignore our own influence.

As a movement, the Tea Party was formed with the goal of cutting spending, cutting taxes, limiting the scope of government and restoring Constitutional principles. If we choose to exercise our hard-earned influence only once every two years or so during an election cycle, we will find that power quickly diminished and that which we have fought for will be destroyed. We promised the American people and congress that we would remain vigilant. We must keep that promise now or renege and lose all credibility.

]]>

Every year, around Christmas time, the networks replay the classic Laurel and Hardy film “Babes in Toyland”. Though as a child I found most of the movie to be fairly boring, I watched every year for one reason: to see the army of wooden soldiers activated and sent out after the “bogeymen” lead by the evil Silas Barnaby. A feeling of excitement and pride washed over me when Laurel and Hardy, seemingly outmatched by Barnaby’s troupe, discovered that they too could call upon an organized force in order to save themselves and their community. As you get older you come to understand, that there isn’t always an overwhelming force for good that comes to your rescue and the movie loses a bit of magic.

I am reminded of this movie now, strangely enough, because of the goings on in Congress, Wisconsin and in similar outbursts throughout the country. In the case of Wisconsin, Silas Barnaby is played by the Union leaders and the bogeymen would be portrayed by the protesters. They have unleashed their army of ignorance on the State house which they occupied for several days, leaving a multi-million dollar cleanup bill in their wake.

Through the democratic process, the republicans in WI voted to remove certain collective bargaining abilities from public employee unions. Something they were never intended to have in the first place as they are “bargaining” for more of our money. They are organized and have strong and influential leadership. Recently, they announced their intention to use that influence and organization to initiate a recall action against a handful of republican legislators.

We are also facing a back and forth with democrats and republican leadership in congress on the budget. Some “Tea Party” representatives and Senators like Rand and Ron Paul are standing firm for deep cuts in spending. Party establishment types like Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell are content with dragging cuts out in small increments over time. As has been stated by countless others: now is not the time for half measures. These little cuts would have been novel 5-10 years ago; today they are a joke and we are the butt of it.

Where is the Tea party?

Sure, there was a mildly inspiring showing at one point early on during the protests, but it was hardly noticeable. If Glenn Beck was able to call hundreds of thousands of us to rally on the mall in D.C for nothing more than “Honor”, a noble if somewhat vague rallying cry, it should be a no-brainer that the Tea Party descend in similar numbers on Madison, Wisconsin.

Governor Scott Walker is in the political fight of a lifetime. The outcome will shape the future of Union power in this country. If the unions succeed in recalling and replacing the targeted republicans, their power and influence will grow exponentially. Politicians will bend to their will every chance they get, out of fear that they may be next on the hit list. If the unions lose this battle, it would be a severe blow to them. Those same cowardly politicians who have for years kowtowed under union pressure will immediately be free to oppose poorly considered union demands. Once it is proven that Unions can be beat, they will cease to be an overwhelming power in government.

The Tea Party may never face a more important challenge than this. It is time for someone to push the button and activate that army of good. We have proven that when we are motivated into action we are an unstoppable force. As of late however, it seems that we are doing a lot of talking and little walking. Where are we on Wisconsin? Where are we on the budget battle? Why are we not demanding more of the new republican house and members of the senate that we helped to get elected? Was Harry Reid right when he said that we would eventually disappear?

If we were to mobilize hundreds of thousands more to Madison in order to work against the recall measure, we would be successful. If we were to mobilize again to D.C in order to remind the republican leadership that we are still watching and waiting for results, we would be successful. Our numbers cannot be ignored and we should not ignore our own influence.

As a movement, the Tea Party was formed with the goal of cutting spending, cutting taxes, limiting the scope of government and restoring Constitutional principles. If we choose to exercise our hard-earned influence only once every two years or so during an election cycle, we will find that power quickly diminished and that which we have fought for will be destroyed. We promised the American people and congress that we would remain vigilant. We must keep that promise now or renege and lose all credibility.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/thomasnash1027/2011/03/17/where-is-the-tea-party/feed/ 0 http://www.redstate.com/thomasnash1027/2011/03/14/why-the-tea-party-should-endorse-ron-paul-in-2012/ http://www.redstate.com/thomasnash1027/2011/03/14/why-the-tea-party-should-endorse-ron-paul-in-2012/#comments Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:36:09 +0000 Restorationary (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/thomasnash1027/?p=11

There is no debating that the Tea Party has had an enormous effect on the political landscape since its first rally in February of 2009. With the Democrat take-over of Congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008, we suffered a one-two punch that many believed would end in the K.O of conservative influence in America. Enter the Tea Party.

Two years ago there was no telling how this nascent movement would impact government. We were merely a mash up of conservative groups and individuals that ran the spectrum from democrat to republican and everything in between. Without a formerly stated agenda and without leadership, the Tea Party burst on to the scene with calls for reduced government spending, lower taxes and more individual liberty . It was a rally cry that shook a nation and united a people. From small, local groups who attended town halls and forced their representatives to address the tough issues, to an historic gathering at the Lincoln Memorial on 8/28/2010 and ultimately to a record mid-term election victory, the Tea Party became arguably the most powerful group of citizens amassed in decades.

While we were busy working to reverse Obama’s “Fundamental transformation” of America, the pundits were equally busy looking for ways to stop us. Accusations of racism, violence and extremism were leveled against us. The lack of evidence quickly put those claims to rest. The Tea Party was clearly not any of those things. No, as a movement we were anything but. We were families, moms and dads, children, grandparents, friends and neighbors. We were rich and poor, working and unemployed. Tea Party rally attendance ranged in age, color, sex and background, but we were united in our love of freedom as our Founders prescribed it in the Constitution.

Coming off of our tremendous victories relatively unscathed, we must now look to our future both as a movement and a country. There is another election, perhaps the most important of our lives, on the horizon. This election will seal our nation’s fate for decades to come. Will we go the route of the failed states of Europe by allowing President Obama another four years or will we once again rally and support a candidate who will restore our founding principles to ensure a prosperous future?

In order to win, we need to support a candidate who has been consistently on the side of Constitution. We need to support someone who is passionate about liberty; someone who articulates that passion with ease and clarity; someone who appeals to a wide audience which includes classic liberals, independents, libertarians and conservatives; someone with experience in the private and the public sectors. Finally, someone who has a revolutionary ground game that can be used to rally the support and money needed to win in 2012. While there are many good potential candidates for the Republican nomination, only one fits that description perfectly – Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul has never wavered from the values that have made this country great. His voting record can be traced clear through to the Constitution. Both his domestic and his foreign policies most nearly emulate that of our Founders. One could examine his record on taxes, spending, defense, entitlements, war, treaties, or social issues and would find a man who believes in what he says and proves it on the floor of congress week in and week out. In 1998, the American Journal of Political Science published a study which reported that Paul had the most conservative voting record since 1937.

Ron Paul is often a lone dissenter, a “maverick” if you will, in an ever-growing crop of big government conservatives. While others in the republican field are grappling to claim the mantle of the “Reagan Conservative”, Dr. Paul has firm claim to that of the “George Washington Conservative”- a title to which we can be certain Reagan himself aspired.

As a movement that clings to America’s original passion for liberty, we cannot afford to ignore him. Congressman Paul is the only potential candidate who has never shied away from citing our founders and did so with an apparent and deep understanding of their words and deeds. He is a student of history and an inspiring teacher of it as well.

This country has never needed an ideological purist with wide ranging support like Ron Paul more than it does right now. While his political experience and record are praiseworthy, and his military service in the United States Air Force was honorable, he also spent years as a highly respected medical doctor. He has special insight into the current healthcare debate and unique free-market solutions that others have been too timid to promote. He is a firm believer in the Austrian school of economics which has produced such free-market titans as F.A Hayek and Milton Friedman.

If the Tea Party is looking for a standard-bearer who not only listens to and understands the people, but can lead and speak with us, we need look no further. Our champion for Constitutional values has arrived. While there are even members of the conservative bloc who are prone to bend the Constitution every now and then, Congressman Paul has not and writes this in his NYT Best Selling book, The Revolution, “A ‘living’ Constitution is just the thing that any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they’ve simply misunderstood: the Constitution you see has merely evolved with the times.”; a refreshing statement in an age that seems to be straining to resuscitate the “living” Constitution.

Fellow Tea Partiers, fellow Americans, we only have one shot at this. In past elections we have gone with the safer candidate or the best looking or most well-spoken. We’ve gone with the candidate who has promised us the world or the candidate that has taken the hardest line on our foreign “enemies”. It is now time that we support the candidate that will just leave us alone; the candidate that will remove the federal government from our homes and our thoughts and our wallets. One that will tirelessly defend the Constitution and will never waiver or bend to special interests. It is time that we endorse Congressman Ron Paul for President in 2012.

To be clear, the sale and enslavement of Africans did not start with the United States, nor were we close to be being the leading perpetuator.  Slavery was practiced in Africa by Africans and by Muslims.  When Africans were purchased by Europeans, they were generally already slaves and being sold as the property of their African or Muslim slave owner.  These were typically not free people being ripped from their families and homes as we were taught in middle school.  These African slaves were switching one master for another.  And as we’ll learn, it was not always a black master for a white master.  Blacks in the colonies and later the United State owned slaves as well.

For the duration of the infamous triangle trade of slavery, the mainland colonies/US received roughly four per cent of African slaves.  The majority of Africans were sold into slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean.   While four per cent is four per cent too much, it is curious that America seems to bear the brunt of the world’s ridicule regarding the slave trade and Brazil is barely ever mentioned.

Once these four per cent arrived on the shores of the colonies and ultimately states, they were auctioned off to the highest bidder.  As previously mentioned, those who purchased slaves were both black and white.  In fact the first legal slave owner was a man named Anthony Johnson.  In 1655, the courts ruled that his “colored” indentured servant was actually a slave and thus the property of Johnson forever.  Anthony Johnson was black.

While it was a minority of blacks that owned slaves, so too was it a minority of whites.   Contrary to popular belief slavery was not widely supported in the early days of the US.  Many of our Founders felt that slavery was immoral.   Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner himself, went so far as to include in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.”

Due to the necessity of compromising for the greater good of forming a solid union, that language was struck.  Founders such as Washington and John and Abigail Adams believed that slavery was immoral.  In reviewing George Washington’s Last Will and Testament, one would find that he set terms for freeing his slaves.  He also sets aside provisions such as clothing, money and education for them.  Earlier in his life he is documented as saying, “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”  While he continued to own slaves until his death, Washington signed into law a bill that banned slavery in several new states.  A handful of states already had laws on the books which outlawed slavery.  John Adams himself is not known to have owned slaves and was not known to support it.   In a letter to her husband, Abigail Adams writes, “I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province.  It always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me-to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have.”

Somehow this information rarely makes into our textbooks.   When it does, it is glossed over in order to hammer into our minds that America was an evil perpetrator of slavery and there is no room for anything that may hint at a slightly different narrative.   Dividing the people and creating animosity it would seem is much more effective for our Progressive leaders who have been creating the textbooks and curricula for the last couple of generations.

The United States Constitution as it relates to slavery and civil rights has also been suffocated in a mountain of half-truths and misinformation.  We generally accept that it is a slave document.  We accept that because we are told and we do not bother to read it.  Progressives will cite the clause that qualifies slaves as 3/5ths of a person as proof of its evils.  While it sounds harsh, many Founders would have preferred to qualify them as not a person at all but as property.  The reasoning behind this is that counting slaves as 3/5 or any fraction or whole of a person would have given the southern slave states more representation in congress and thus more influence in legislation.  This would only advance slavery and the slave trade further.  Wisely, the founders sought for 0 so that the south’s influence would be muted.  3/5ths was the compromise.

In addition to trying to decrease slave-state influence, the founders included in the Constitution the language of Article 1, section 9 which reads,

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Regarding this clause, the father of the Constitution James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 42 wrote,

“It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy…”

He felt, as did most other members of the Constitutional Convention, that the language contained in Article 1, section 9 would be the catalyst for the termination of slavery as a practice in the United States.   It allowed for a tax that would discourage it immediately and allowed for the complete abolition of it after the year 1808.

As we know however, slavery continued.  According to the census of 1830, some 25-33% of whites owned slaves and we know that 3,775 free blacks also owned slaves.  The total number of slaves owned by blacks numbered between 12,500-20,000.   Many owned slaves for the same reason that some of Founders owned them.  It was common belief that a slave was better off under their care and guidance then exposed to the intolerance and violence that often followed free blacks.  Not all slave owners, black or white, were cruel and not all cruel slave owners were white.  All however abridged a fundamental American value-freedom; a Constitutional value that was meant to apply to all.

Those who would say that the Constitution allowed for slavery would be up against its very words and the opinion of a famous former slave and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass.  Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to speak about the pro-slavery language of the Constitution.  After reading it, Douglass had this to say in response to them, “Take the Constitution according to its plain reading…I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it.”  He told a crowd that came to hear his Independence Day speech, “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

Douglass and an “overwhelmingly white group” of abolitionist would go on to fight for the emancipation of slavery which would ultimately be achieved only after a bloody Civil War.  Even the commanding general of the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee, believed “So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.”  This and all of the preceding facts have found their way into history’s “Spam folder”.  They are filtered out because it doesn’t perpetuate an image of America that is hateful, bigoted or racist.  They have no place in a United States lead by Progressives who thrive on division and class/race warfare.  It is up to us to preserve and spread our history so that we can restore the principles of our founding and once again unite Americans behind the idea of “American exceptionalism.”

restorationary.wordpress.com

There are four sentiments which we have found to be the most destructive. These sentiments are the result of a system which has been in place for roughly 100 years which seeks to remove the average American citizen from the process and leave the leading and decision making to the few who consist of the “Intellectual elite.”

The first sentiment is “It doesn’t affect me.” This is the idea that no matter what our elected officials decide is the issue of the day, no matter what legislation passes or rulings come down from the Supreme Court, somehow there is an individual so removed from the world that their way of life will not be changed even remotely. In actuality, each bill that is proposed by congress, each bill that passes into law, each ruling the Supreme Court makes and each address the President makes affects us all.

If congress passes a bill which would raise taxes on people making $200,000 per year, one may argue that since they are not making that much money it does not affect them. They do not look past the immediate effect. No, taxes will not be raised on that individual, however his employer will have less income with which to maintain his current staff or hire new employees. Investors will have less money with which to invest in the company for which you work. Some consumers of your company’s product will have to cut back on their purchases or stop spending on the product all together. Eventually, the apathetic individual may find that he/she no longer has a job and will suddenly come to the conclusion that “It DOES affect me.”

It is important for the sustainability of a free republic that each person feels that they are a part of it. Each individual must understand that they are part of the ultimate check on the three branches of government-We the People. Otherwise one by one, citizens will disengage and surrender that role to politicians, academia, media and special interests.

The second sentiment is “I accept that politicians are corrupt.” There was a time when Americans held their leaders to a high moral standard. Today, Americans have accepted that corruption and lies are prevalent among politicians. Those who would expect the truth or become disappointed when a politician lies are considered naïve or childish.

The change in attitude toward the character of our leaders has been directly proportionate to our own character. For decades, we have allowed a Progressive dominated government, media and academia to dictate new morals which are vastly different from those of our founding. We now live in a world where the ends justify the means; where a person’s character is not quite as important as how well they speak in public, where morality itself is subjective and not open to judgment by the very people whom these “leaders” were elected to serve.

Dismissing broken campaign promises, infidelities, lies, half-truths and greed as the standard has left us with a system that discourages good people from running for office. We laugh and suggest that the DC crowd will either corrupt them or swallow them whole. What we fail to understand is that politicians lie because we excuse it. Politicians cheat and steal because we brush it off. The reason we allow this behavior could probably be best described by the remaining two sentiments.

More so than ever, people are of the sentiment that “I can’t make a difference.” We have been forced into a group mentality wherein there is no strength in the individual but only in numbers. That is why you need to join a political party or a union or a cause because only through these groups could you possibly affect change and even then it’s not you, it’s the “group”. This sentiment is patently incorrect and only serves to create division and anger.

A group is made up of individuals. It is usually started by an individual who uses his individual will and freedom to grow support for his idea. You can’t get to 1,000,000 without starting with 1. History is marked by individuals who took a stand when the world was seemingly against them. From Moses, to Jesus, to Joan of Arc, to Gandhi to Martin Luther King, individuals have not only made a difference but have altered the course of humanity as we know it. It does not take leadership from an elite group who knows better; it takes one person inspired to do what is right. To borrow from Gandhi, “We must become the change we want to see.”

When we are lied to, we must call upon the liars to answer. Where we see corruption, we must act as individuals if necessary to shine a light on it. We must have a sense of what is right and what is wrong and we must expect that the people we elect to represent us have that same sense. No longer can we sit idly by and let the few dictate to the many the limits of our expectations.

For any of this change to occur, individuals have to decide that political discourse is ok and can be peaceful. The sentiment that “You shouldn’t talk about politics” or “Politics is a taboo subject” is very convenient for the leading intellectuals but for the average citizen it disengages us from the process and limits the free expression and flow of ideas. When we were founded, it was considered “Enlightened” to discuss and debate policy, politics and religion. This is how the ordinary citizen became informed or strengthened in his opinions. When the Founders met to draft a constitution, articles were published in newspapers and pamphlets. The “government” wanted the people to understand what was going on and wanted them to discuss it freely. Today, there must be a public uproar before our congress will publish a pending piece of legislation, before they will post the 2,000 page document for our review. We can no longer even count on our members of congress to have read it.

Americans have been made to believe that political or religious discourse is offensive. It is now good manners to avoid such subjects and keep all interaction limited to the weather or sports. The “tough” decisions will be made and the “difficult” solutions will be presented by the few academics who somehow have more of a right to opine then we the uninformed masses.

This is not how our government was set up. The Declaration of Independence purposely begins, “We the People”, not “We the group of elites” or “We the privileged intellects”. Our founders understood that it was the will of the people that government must carry out. The only way to determine the will of the people is to allow them a voice. Where we stifle that voice, where we remain silent, we allow and even submit our will over to the very people who have silenced us.

Our window of opportunity is almost closed. It is now time that the people understand that it does affect us, that we can demand better of our leaders, that we can make a difference and that we need, for the sake of our survival, to speak up.

Lee subscribed to a belief which is attributed to Thomas Robert Malthus, an upper-crust English “intellectual”.  Malthus claimed that the human population was increasing exponentially while food supplies were changing incrementally.  In his estimation, the world population would not be sustainable past the year 1890.  The solution?  Well it was Malthus’s belief that the upper classes had the responsibility to rid the world of the undesired classes; this would ensure robust food supplies and adequate land proportions for the former.

This belief, though now proven incorrect, was picked up by “Progressives” worldwide.  In the dawn of the 20^th century, the United States began systematically sterilizing these certain “undesirables”.   Women were forced, many times with approval of our federal court system, to endure brutal, painful and often debilitating surgery all in the name of mitigating overpopulation of the poor, “feeble minded”, “idiots”, “imbeciles” and ultimately racial minorities.  Often there was little to no evidence to support claims of institutions that “patients” were in fact “feeble minded”.

Eugenics was taught in school biology classes which suggested “policies of immigration restriction, sterilization and race segregation.”¹ There were a number of influential eugenics groups with prominent members.  Ivy League schools offered classes in eugenics:

“After 1914, courses on eugenics were being offered at some of America’s leading universities. Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Brown were among those listing courses that included eugenics. In the 1920s, the National Education Association’s Committee on Racial Well-Being sponsored programs to help college teachers integrate eugenic content in their courses.” [Ibid]

There were popular books of the time dedicated to eugenics.  Wealthy Progressives, judges, politicians and professors all supported and often encouraged the practice.  This was by no means a secretive or underground society.  States passed laws allowing eugenic experiments and procedures.  Newspapers published favorable articles on the subject.  As Governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson signed into law the state’s eugenics bill.  It was American scientists who influenced and in some cases assisted the National Socialists (Nazis) of Germany in their eugenics program which would come to be known as the Holocaust.

Other prominent eugenicists included Progressive party member Theodore Roosevelt who claimed, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.”  In a now famous Supreme Court ruling which upheld the state of Virginia’s legal authority to sterilize Carrie Buck against her will, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the majority opinion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”  This after failing to prove that imbecility was a Buck family “gene”.  Alexander Graham Bell, the “inventor” of the telephone was an ardent supporter as was Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger developed Planned Parenthood and kick-started the birth control movement for the purpose of eliminating “undesirables”.  Sanger was an open racist who addressed at least one Klan rally.  Ultimately, she set out to achieve black genocide masked in “reproductive rights”.  This mindset was confirmed in a fairly recent interview with Justice Ruth Ginsburg who said of Roe v. Wade, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The exposure of the German National Socialist party’s treatment of Jews brought to light the horrors of eugenics.  Its popularity faded.  Eugenics laws remained on the books for decades following World War II, but sterilizations largely went unpracticed.  All in all, about 50,000 cases of forced sterilization in the United States have been documented.

In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, professors John Ehrlich and his wife Anne, wrote a textbook entitled, “Population, Resources, Environment.  Issues in Human Ecology”.  In it, the authors advocate reduced individual liberties, government regulation of reproduction, forced sterilization and the “de-development of the United States”; all to stop the “crises” that is overpopulation.  Many of the statements made by the Ehrlichs are eerily similar to those of Lee’s manifesto.

In the acknowledgments the authors give thanks to physicist John Holdren, our current Science Czar appointed by President Obama, for his help with the publication.  Holdren would later co-author an updated addition of the book with Ehrlich which espoused the same ideas as the addition previously published.

It seems that the Progressives manufacture this crisis so that they can legitimize their desire to rid the world of “undesirables” and for government control of our everyday lives.  They couple it with environmental policies and claim it is for our own good.  But what do the facts tell us?

• The population as of last official estimates is about 6.6 billion people
• The square mileage of Texas = 268,601 (that is equal to 7,488,166,118,400 sq. ft)
• That means that every person on earth could have a 1,100+ sq ft living space in a land mass the size of Texas
• The land mass of Texas is equal to .004% of Earth’s total land mass
• The rate of population growth has steadily decreased over the decades (see graph from UN)
• The average family size has decreased from about 4.8 to 2.3 over the past century.

These facts are all conveniently left out when we discuss the crises (myth) of overpopulation.  Do your research, draw your own conclusions, but never ignore the facts in front of you.

The United States on a federal level and the individual states are or are in danger of bankruptcy due to unfunded entitlements. Pension programs, social security, welfare, and countless other “services” are going under. As of now, the American people have been relatively temperate in their pleas to stop the spending. If we look around the world however, the response from the people of other nations has not been as reasonable.

The riots in Greece have been violent. The economic situation there is largely attributed to their vast government spending on entitlements and bureaucracy. It would be easy to begin pointing fingers, however they are in the situation now and they need to develop solutions.

To combat their rising debt and inability to pay for previously promised programs, the government of Greece has begun cutting their budget. They have cut back on pensions, public sector wages, and-at the request of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-services such as universal healthcare. None of these cuts have been popular.

The response by the Greek people has been, let’s say, less than supportive. Though the nation has collapsed financially, the sense of entitlement to government assistance has been so ingrained into the minds of the people that they have stood firm against the very things that would restore some semblance of stability. Greece has also been forced into a situation where taxes on everything from products to profits have been dramatically increased. Many would argue that this could further stifle future growth; however that is a debate for another post.

There are now riots in France in response to that government’s proposal to raise the retirement age by two years, from a comparatively low 60 to 62. A reasonable observer would find that in the face of a failing pension system, France is probably not even doing enough by raising the retirement age, but it’s a start. Other government programs such as public transportation are also being cut in France and receiving a similar reaction.

Recently the UK has ceded some control of healthcare choices and costs over to the private sector because they too are no longer able to afford their many socialist entitlement programs. And of course, like clockwork, the people are protesting. There seems to be a trend around the world that wherever governments have endeavored to provide for too many of the “needs” of their people, economic collapse is lurking nearby. These governments understand it now and are trying to correct it. What they do not seem understand is how their programs have so enslaved the people to their State masters that weaning the people off of the government dole is almost impossible.

Considering the necessity of these cuts, it would seem that the average person would understand and in the interest of providing for a better future for their children, would support or at the very least would not violently protest the changes. Why then are the reactions so radical? To answer this, one must look to who is behind these mass protests around Europe. In nearly each and every case there is a union, group of unions, socialist organization or communist group. Unions have rallied millions of supporters to turn out and protest the wage decreases or the pension cuts, knowing that these may save the economy and provide future prosperity. In reviewing the crowds, one would also find the banners of international socialist and communist groups. These groups all have a vested interest in the collapse of free societies. In desperate times, people have turned to those providing the quickest and easiest “solution”. That is how communism came to existence. It is the radicalized socialist groups, communist groups and power hungry unions, who believe they will pick up and lead where freedom “fails”.

This has penetrated into our country as well. Mass rallies organized by unions have been shown to include anti-American, pro-communist/socialist messages. These groups are rooting for a collapse. They are lobbying for more spending, greater government control and further entitlements in order to dig us deeper into ruin. They seem to have now an either ignorant or willing vehicle in reaching those ends in the form of the current U.S government. In fairness, this has been going on for decades and is not isolated to the current administration. It does however seem that the “progress” being made by these groups is accelerated and has found unprecedented support from the administration.

It is that government which in desperate times offers a quick fix rather than a long term solution that ultimately faces these types of reactions from their citizenry. Similarly, it is those people who in accepting such “fixes” are ultimately faced with the devastating result of large government and are forced by lack of alternative to either accept cuts or protest. As F.A. Hayek so eloquently put it in The Road to Serfdom, “…it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes actions for action’s sake the goal.”

The government, almost by nature, seeks to increase its power. Under normal circumstances in a free society, the government does not have the opportunity to seize such power. However, when a “crises” arises, the people often plead for increased government intervention. The State is all too happy to oblige considering the power it gains by being the “savior”. It appears to be no coincidence that currently one in six Americans is on some form of government assistance.

The idea that an opportunistic government interested in furthering its control of the people is not a new one. One need only look to current politicians and those in positions of political power to see it in action. As if almost a prepared talking point, members of the current administration have been on record paraphrasing the Alinskyian notion that the government should, “never let a serious crises go to waste.” That mindset has been openly reflected numerous times. Yet, knowing that they are taking advantage of the problems we face, we keep allowing them to take more and more power and spend more and more money.

While the socialist governments of Europe are cutting back on their spending and entitlement programs, we are increasing both. Americans once thought ourselves immune from foreign attack, sadly we were proven wrong. We now think ourselves immune from complete financial collapse, while we pray that we are the economic realities point to the contrary. If we remove the special interests and corrupt politicians from the equation and rely on the timeless bedrocks of prosperity-freedom and self responsibility-we can find our way through this mess. It will take time, it will take diligence and it will take sacrifice, but it is the price we pay for being free and ultimately we will once again be the better for it.

]]> Whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we all must agree that the world is suffering economically. This does not seem to be a source of debate in this country anyway. No, here we debate over how we got to this point, as if suddenly proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Bush’s fault, Carter’s fault, Obama’s fault or Clinton’s fault would magically stabilize our economy. In the midst of all of the partisan finger pointing, we have been missing what lay right in front of our faces. Our government has the power to reduce our debt and deficit through spending cuts. They have the power to help water the seeds of growth through tax incentives and breaks, they have the power to reverse course on some of our over-burdensome programs by halting planned new entitlements. Unfortunately, the only power they seem willing to exercise of late is the power they have to spend.

The United States on a federal level and the individual states are or are in danger of bankruptcy due to unfunded entitlements. Pension programs, social security, welfare, and countless other “services” are going under. As of now, the American people have been relatively temperate in their pleas to stop the spending. If we look around the world however, the response from the people of other nations has not been as reasonable.

The riots in Greece have been violent. The economic situation there is largely attributed to their vast government spending on entitlements and bureaucracy. It would be easy to begin pointing fingers, however they are in the situation now and they need to develop solutions.

To combat their rising debt and inability to pay for previously promised programs, the government of Greece has begun cutting their budget. They have cut back on pensions, public sector wages, and-at the request of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-services such as universal healthcare. None of these cuts have been popular.

The response by the Greek people has been, let’s say, less than supportive. Though the nation has collapsed financially, the sense of entitlement to government assistance has been so ingrained into the minds of the people that they have stood firm against the very things that would restore some semblance of stability. Greece has also been forced into a situation where taxes on everything from products to profits have been dramatically increased. Many would argue that this could further stifle future growth; however that is a debate for another post.

There are now riots in France in response to that government’s proposal to raise the retirement age by two years, from a comparatively low 60 to 62. A reasonable observer would find that in the face of a failing pension system, France is probably not even doing enough by raising the retirement age, but it’s a start. Other government programs such as public transportation are also being cut in France and receiving a similar reaction.

Recently the UK has ceded some control of healthcare choices and costs over to the private sector because they too are no longer able to afford their many socialist entitlement programs. And of course, like clockwork, the people are protesting. There seems to be a trend around the world that wherever governments have endeavored to provide for too many of the “needs” of their people, economic collapse is lurking nearby. These governments understand it now and are trying to correct it. What they do not seem understand is how their programs have so enslaved the people to their State masters that weaning the people off of the government dole is almost impossible.

Considering the necessity of these cuts, it would seem that the average person would understand and in the interest of providing for a better future for their children, would support or at the very least would not violently protest the changes. Why then are the reactions so radical? To answer this, one must look to who is behind these mass protests around Europe. In nearly each and every case there is a union, group of unions, socialist organization or communist group. Unions have rallied millions of supporters to turn out and protest the wage decreases or the pension cuts, knowing that these may save the economy and provide future prosperity. In reviewing the crowds, one would also find the banners of international socialist and communist groups. These groups all have a vested interest in the collapse of free societies. In desperate times, people have turned to those providing the quickest and easiest “solution”. That is how communism came to existence. It is the radicalized socialist groups, communist groups and power hungry unions, who believe they will pick up and lead where freedom “fails”.

This has penetrated into our country as well. Mass rallies organized by unions have been shown to include anti-American, pro-communist/socialist messages. These groups are rooting for a collapse. They are lobbying for more spending, greater government control and further entitlements in order to dig us deeper into ruin. They seem to have now an either ignorant or willing vehicle in reaching those ends in the form of the current U.S government. In fairness, this has been going on for decades and is not isolated to the current administration. It does however seem that the “progress” being made by these groups is accelerated and has found unprecedented support from the administration.

It is that government which in desperate times offers a quick fix rather than a long term solution that ultimately faces these types of reactions from their citizenry. Similarly, it is those people who in accepting such “fixes” are ultimately faced with the devastating result of large government and are forced by lack of alternative to either accept cuts or protest. As F.A. Hayek so eloquently put it in The Road to Serfdom, “…it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes actions for action’s sake the goal.”

The government, almost by nature, seeks to increase its power. Under normal circumstances in a free society, the government does not have the opportunity to seize such power. However, when a “crises” arises, the people often plead for increased government intervention. The State is all too happy to oblige considering the power it gains by being the “savior”. It appears to be no coincidence that currently one in six Americans is on some form of government assistance.

The idea that an opportunistic government interested in furthering its control of the people is not a new one. One need only look to current politicians and those in positions of political power to see it in action. As if almost a prepared talking point, members of the current administration have been on record paraphrasing the Alinskyian notion that the government should, “never let a serious crises go to waste.” That mindset has been openly reflected numerous times. Yet, knowing that they are taking advantage of the problems we face, we keep allowing them to take more and more power and spend more and more money.

While the socialist governments of Europe are cutting back on their spending and entitlement programs, we are increasing both. Americans once thought ourselves immune from foreign attack, sadly we were proven wrong. We now think ourselves immune from complete financial collapse, while we pray that we are the economic realities point to the contrary. If we remove the special interests and corrupt politicians from the equation and rely on the timeless bedrocks of prosperity-freedom and self responsibility-we can find our way through this mess. It will take time, it will take diligence and it will take sacrifice, but it is the price we pay for being free and ultimately we will once again be the better for it.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/thomasnash1027/2010/09/07/crusing-down-the-road-to-serfdom/feed/ 0