Friday, June 8, 2018

Who was the first President to implement price controls?

The more I research progressivism to discover ways to use their history against them, the more I understand why nobody's ever really done this before. Nobody actually wants the answer to the question because it always leads back to Theodore Roosevelt.

In today's episode of erased history, or how American progressive historians have turned TR's legacy into the American version of a picture missing Nikolai Yezhov, we examine how price controls, contrary to popular belief, was not first implemented by Nixon, or Franklin Roosevelt, or even Woodrow Wilson as a part of the effort for World War I. But it was, naturally, the offspring of authoritarian progressivism. The first progressive is the one who gave us this nonsense. These progressives, they just couldn't wait to take control of everything.

You see, price controls were first implemented in the mix of Theodore Roosevelt's anti-capitalist efforts. Specifically, the war on railroads. The year was 1906. The act was the Hepburn Act. Judge Napolitano, a brave man for taking on TR's legacy and doing the job that most mainstream historians just do not want to do, describes it thusly:

The Hepburn Act gave the Interstate Commerce Commission(ICC) the power to set maximum rates for railroads

In other words, price controls. Which have never worked btw. Price controls are a guaranteed 100% failure of a policy and it was also a failure for TR. In the end, the railroad companies were so damaged by the totality of Hepburn that it gave rise to the modern trucking industry as we know it today.(I wrote about this about a year and a half ago, here) The FTC is quite proud of this legacy of price fixing, as they write here in a suspicious little footnote: (p. 19)

Most significantly, the 1906 Hepburn Act (different from the 1908 Hepburn Bill, discussed infra) empowered the ICC to replace existing rates, upon complaint, with “reasonable” maxima

Yeah right. If you like your railroad rates, you can keep your railroad rates. We know what the progressives consider to be "reasonable" and its never reasonable. But notice their play on words. To "replace existing rates". They could have just said price controls. Theodore Roosevelt even wrote in his own Autobiography, the following: (page 560)

I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce.

Go ahead and show me any big time TR historian who has collected this information and presented the big-government progressive side of our 26th president. I've never seen it. The world has never seen this. We have been lied to on a grand scale by progressives.

As far as the progressive historians are concerned, Theodore Roosevelt was just a great guy. He was just an outdoorsman. Isn't that great? He was just almost assassinated, but nothing more. He even kept speaking! Wasn't he great? Strenuous lifestyle! Strenuous lifestyle! Strenuous lifestyle! In no way shape or form should you ever examine his substantive political record, in no way should you ever examine big government. Shame on you.

Well, shame on me anyways. And it's a shame I proudly wear. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and we've got ourselves a century's old outbreak of progressive bacteria to cleanse. You don't just mow a stubborn garden weed and then hope it goes away. You have to destroy the roots.

Saturday, June 2, 2018

Constitution? Not important.

In his book "Progressive Democracy" (1914), Herbert Croly wrote the following: (page 29)
As in the case of every great political edifice, the materials composing the American system are derived from many different sources, and are characterized by unequal values, both as to endurance and as to latent possibilities. The appearance of definiteness and finality which it derives from its embodiment in specific constitutional documents and other authoritative words is to a large extent illusory. Its real origin and meaning are very much more doubtful and complex than these words intimate. Historians are no more agreed as to the former than political theorists are to the latter.

So what do we take from this? The Constitution, well that's not important. It cannot be, if its authority is largely illusory. Additionally, the rise of the professional (progressive) historian brought disagreement, because they too didn't see anything worthy in the Constitution. This benefits political authors and journalists who also have a similar mindset, because now they don't have to point to a friend they work with, they can point to some "distant" "expert" who by only a surface-level examination appears to be unbiased. So wink wink, nod nod over here, wink wink nod nod over there, everybody is in agreement - the Constitution sucks. These are old, outmoded ideals and we should progress toward something which is clearly better. We should progress toward something which is more concrete and not an illusion. Three pages in, Croly clarifies:

Emphatic, however, as was this assertion of its direct control over its own political institutions by the primitive American democracy, its willingness to restrict its own effective political power was no less definite and insistent. It did not show the slightest disposition to translate this supposedly effective popular control over the institutes of government into active popular control over governmental behavior. The democracy abdicated the continuing active exercise of effective power in the very act of affirming the reality of its own ultimate legal authority.

So you see, the illusion is the contradictory assertion of direct control, but yet a restriction on its own power. You need full total control, nothing less! Without full total control, that's the illusion. It's an abdication of effective power, that's what he's saying. The Constitution is, in his view, not important because it's a joke.

People with a mindset such as this cannot understand governmental limitations. Government is force, and these were the people, these progressives, who were born to be our masters. Government should be big, it should be unlimited, and of course! it should be the progressives who are in power until eternity.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

They're still lying and calling us anti-government. But we are Tea Partiers, and we love government

If you love the United States Constitution, then by definition you love government. That's what the Constitution does. It creates a government.

What we as Tea Partiers do not love is progressivism or any other movement and/or ideology that seeks to pervert the Constitution and build government that will control every aspect of our lives.

Loving government doesn't mean loving big government. We do not love big out of control bloated disrespectful government. But anti-government means anarchy, and Tea Partiers are not anarchists. Anarchists do not love the United States Constitution. This is ground where we cannot under any circumstances find a place to compromise. The Constitution is a hill worth fighting on, it is a hill worth dying on.

See the first ten words of this article. Garbage in, garbage out.

We are Tea Partiers, and we love the United States Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be stated otherwise: We love government.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

The constitution and the second amendment: "It always has been up for reinterpretation"

Has it? In case you didn't notice, Representative Bill Foster believes in word substitution and the living and breathing constitutional doctrine. He said:
It always has been up for reinterpretation. The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.

Of course, if one part of the Constitution is up for reinterpretation, the whole thing is. But that's less important than the fact that Representative Foster is disagreeing with his own forefathers here. He would have you believe that the Constitution has always been living and breathing - this is a common refrain with progressives. They want to push this ideal that what they believe, the progressives, that's how it has always been. Well, a historian worth his salt would see through this. His own founding fathers, in the early 1900s, sung a very different tune. As I pointed out in January, in 1912, the constitution was not "living and breathing". Here is a brief snippet of what the progressives' own founding fathers were saying:

Can a practically unamendable constitution, adopted in the conditions and under the influences of the political thought prevailing at the end of the eighteenth century, be adapted by judicial interpretation to the needs and thought of the twentieth century without causing us to lose the advantages which are commonly regarded as attached to a written constitution?

That's Frank Johnson Goodnow, who was at one point President of John's Hopkins University. Walter Weyl, who quotes (agreeing with) Goodnow in a different writing: (page 111)

According to Prof. Frank J. Goodnow, there are some measures " which many believe to be absolutely necessary either now or in the future . . . which we in the United States are probably precluded from adopting because of the attitude now taken by the courts towards our practically unamendable federal constitution."

Charles Beard, one of the first revisionist historians of progressivism, wrote the following: (page 56)

The new Constitution bound every state to an amendment, in case it was approved bv two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Even this system, as events have proved, has required such extraordinary majorities as to make amendments by regular process well-nigh impossible.

The Progressive(Bull Moose) Party platform of 1912 laid out in its platform the necessity of easier amendment - the first plank! Additionally, Roosevelt talked about the importance of this, such as:

We propose to make the process of Constitutional amendment far easier, speedier, and simpler than at present.

Bill Foster believes it was always open to reinterpretation and change.

The original progressives did not believe it was always open to reinterpretation and whined that it was impossible to change.

Both cannot be correct.

Saturday, April 7, 2018

What would Patrick Henry's opinion of the Incorporation Doctrine be?

Founding Father Patrick Henry famously proclaimed "I smell a rat!"

What did it smell like? What was that rat's name? What was the rat's color: brown or grey? What was the rat's purpose? The rat's purpose really is the only important question here. I asked the other questions mainly in jest.

Welcome to the 6th and final posting in this series examining the claims that progressives make in regard to Marbury vs Madison. In parts 1 through 5, I mainly examined some of the inconsistencies relating to the progressives' claims. Here in part 6 I highlight where the problem actually exists. To put it simply: It's not Marbury that's the problem, it's the Incorporation Doctrine.

So, let's start here: what was the rat's purpose? In 1789, not everybody was so willing to trust the newly formed Constitution that had just been forged in Philadelphia. The rat, Henry believed, was a move toward tyrannical government. This post directly relates to the last posting in this series, in that the purpose of a bill of rights is central, and its purpose is as a limitation.

Why did Patrick Henry and others demand a bill of rights? In Patrick Henry's view, the Bill of Rights was necessary because it's function, it's only function, was to limit the power of the general government about to be established. Henry believed the Bill of Rights to be rat poison.

But wait a second. The courts tell us that because of the Incorporation Doctrine, the Bill of Rights UNLIMITS the government's power to command the states? What would Patrick Henry think of that? What would Patrick Henry say about the courts invention, this Incorporation Doctrine, which they claim is related to the 14th amendment,(but in reality is not, read the debate notes when they created the 14th amendment) and now the Bill of Rights is being used as a weapon against the very states he wanted to protect, with the very same Bill of Rights!

Think of that. Patrick Henry must be rolling over in his grave in the context of the notion of this Incorporation Doctrine. So for those who may not know, what is this Incorporation Doctrine anyways? Here is how the lawyers at the American Bar Association describe Incorporation:

“Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government,” wrote the Court.

Emanations and penumbras, my friend, emanations and penumbras. Notice the slimy language of this quote? It says "enforceable against them" ("them" being the states) and also "against the Federal Government". Now I may have been born last week, but I'm not a fool. Which court wrote this anyways? Oh yeah, the Supreme court. That's from the case Mapp v. Ohio. But there's just one problem with this. This is a Federal court saying this. So no, the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution is not being used both ways, it's expressly being used as a weapon against the states and only the states. Don't think I'm stating my case properly?

What's the most notorious incorporation case in U.S. history? If you said Roe v. Wade, you are correct. A cursory examination of the effects of Roe lead to an undeniable truth: Roe has placed no limitations upon the federal government. The feds have found nearly unlimited powers at the expense of the states and localities. There's nothing limiting the feds here, they are unlimited!

The point is this. The progressives are fantastic liars. They have many people hating on a case, Marbury v. Madison, that is (if you read the text of Marbury) not in any way related to the judicial problems we currently have. Judge Marshall specifically states just the opposite: We judges do not have the power to make law as we choose. What that means is that America would be a great place if we lived in a Marbury world, but we don't. We live in an Incorporation world.

The Bill of Rights exists expressly and solely to limit the power of the federal government and allow the states to flourish. But since the creation of the Incorporation Doctrine, the Bill of Rights exists expressly and solely to steamroll the state governments. Take a look at another Incorporation case, Everson v. Board of Education with its misquoted "Wall of Separation". How would Patrick Henry, a deeply Christian citizen, how would he respond to not only the perversion of the Bill of Rights into a weapon against his state and other states, but used expressly as a weapon against the faithful? When the Bill of Rights was first submitted to the states, there were 12 recommendations. But it wasn't just a randomized list of 12. It also had a preamble. That preamble states:

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution; (source)

Did you notice that the only capitalized word is "Constitution"? Read the source, that's not my work.

The problem we have is not Marbury. It's incorporation. The Incorporation Doctrine takes the 14th amendment out of context, it takes the Bill of Rights out of context, it completely ignores the original stated purpose of the Bill of Rights per this preamble, and it takes most of our other Founders' writings out of context as well. Consider this: When the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's Danbury letter in the 1878 Reynolds case, how many words did they quote? One hundred and thirty five. How many words of Jefferson's Danbury letter were used in the Everson case? Eight. That's all, just eight. They will take whatever out of context that they have to if it justifies their social justice cause.

With the Incorporation Doctrine, the Bill of Rights gives the federal government unlimited powers to lord over the states and ultimately, to lord over you. That's not what the Founders intended. That's not what the preamble indicates. That is more than anything else, was what Patrick Henry feared. Henry's proclamation may be the most visible personal example of the fears our Founders truely felt, but not a single one of the Founders had it in mind for the Bill of Rights to be used to squelch the states. The Bill of Rights was invented was to squelch the general government.

As I stated toward the beginning, Henry found a rat, and he believed the Bill of Rights to be rat poison. But because of the Incorporation Doctrine, the Bill of Rights is now poison for the states and food for the rat.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

What is the purpose of a bill of rights anyways? To expand government? Or to limit it?

In parts 1 through 4 of this series (Scroll to the bottom for more detail about the parts) I have been examining progressivism and its relation (or lack therof) to the 1803 court ruling Marbury vs Madison.

Here in part 5, I just want to ask two questions. First, what is the purpose of a bill of rights? We could be talking about the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that exists in your State constitution. It doesn't matter really, where that bill of rights happens to exist.

What is it for: Is it there to expand the power of government and give them more power over jurisdictions which more local than itself? Or is said bill of rights there so that the people know what they should expect, and therefore to limit the power of government?

I'll state it plainly what I believe: I believe that a bill of rights exists for the purpose of setting limits to the government to which it is attached.

My follow up question is this: If a bill of rights, intended to limit government authority, is perverted into becoming an object that expands governmental power, is it no longer a bill of rights for the people? Does it then become a bill of rights for the government? As we come to the conclusion of this series, this is a very important question to cover.

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury?

In part 2, I examined the gap between the activist cases of the early-mid 1900s and the 1803 ruling.

In part 3, the negative and positive aspects of how the Marbury ruling functioned were examined.

In part 4, the constitutionality of the judiciary act was examined.

Yes, this series is getting rather long, but I assure you it is going somewhere.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

The Origin of Progressive Hostility

There's an article recently written on a website Quillette titled The Psychology of Progressive Hostility which is very well written, I highly recommend it. One part of the article asks the following question: "So how and why have these activists become so intolerant and horrible to deal with?"

It is questions like that that this blog are built around. Due to the progressives' complete dominance of academia(history) and media(journalism), I think it is safe to say that progressivism is the least understood ideology of modern history.

For what the article is and how it is set out to examine what it examines, I could not have written it this well. That simple, I could not even have come close. That's not to say it isn't without fault, for example, when I see someone quote Mill I immediately roll my eyes. However, my main goal is to highlight the origin of progressive history, which is conspicuously absent from the article.

In short, the origin of progressive history can be summed up into one single word: rejection. That is the origin of progressive hostility.

That's it. Rejection. Before being rejected, progressives loved and I mean LOVED America - at least, loved its government and what they could do with it. Read speeches from Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt, there is no bitterness whatsoever to be found. Progressive ideology was at its height, they were open about being progressive, and nobody could stop them, and their tone reflects this.

That came to an end in the election of 1920. There is so, so much to learn from the election of 1920. The progressives were beaten so badly, that the only way progressives could become viable again is to put on a mask and usurp the word "Liberalism" as their new home. This happened by 1932.

Think about that. Who is your worst arch-nemesis? What if Rand Paul had to wear a mask of that guy - his next door neighbor who put him in the hospital, or if Steve Scalise had to wear a mask of James Hodgkinson? What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had to wear a Benjamin Netanyahu mask? What if Donald Trump had to wear a Hillary mask?

You get the idea. Your rejection is so complete that you had to look like the exact opposite, otherwise face extinction. Yeah, that would piss you off too. That's what the progressives have had to deal with since the 1930s. That is the origin of progressive hostility.

And to top it all off? The progressives first time in 90 something years that the they start to take their "liberal" masks off and start calling themselves progressive again, as represented by the Hillary campaign. And they lost again. To Donald Trump of all people! (Who in the progressives' minds, is the lowest of the low)

Yeah. You'd be hostile too. This must mean that you need to wear a mask again for yet another 90 years. Who WOULDN'T be pissed and hostile about that? This is why their pitch gets so much worse after 2016. It's 1920 all over again! I challenge anybody, ANYBODY, go read Wilson's or TR's speeches, read their books. You will not find any bitterness. Contrast that with the progressives of today, and the comparison could not be more stark.

There's a strong link between rejection, bitterness, and ultimately hostility. And this is their history. The progressives own it.