"Progressive" polls very high among Americans

According to Pew, as reported by the International Business Times:

Despite the political divides between the terms "liberal" and "conservative," two-thirds of the public reaction to the word "progressive" were positive. While Pew reports there was little difference among Democrats' reaction to liberal and progressive, the discrepancy was clear amongst Republican respondents. Fifty-five percent of Republicans reacted positively to the word, compared to the 20 percent who reacted similarly to liberal. Independents also had a considerably more favorable reaction to progressive (68 percent) than liberal (54 percent.)

Republicans! Unbelievable. No wonder this country is so close to losing her liberty. This is what happens when schools and colleges teach that progressivism is a good thing, despite the fact that historically progressives have long hated the American way of life and our beloved Constitution. Here are some examples:

Progressivism and the origins of the tyrannical administrative state

America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise

The Conservation of Business - Shall We Strangle or Control It?

nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of individuals

Individualistic ideas are discredited and reputiated

The Dictatorship of the Constitution

And there's much more in the archives. I would hope that everybody would note that all I'm doing is channeling their own words. I would also hope that everybody would note that I'm giving out book titles, speech titles, with links, dates, and page numbers, so that should you want you can take these things and blog about these things yourself you can do so on your own with specificity and force. You can take them and do whatever you want with them, directly sourced, in context.

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 3

Continuing with an examination of the words of Ravi Zacharias, in his message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4). I lifted the following small clip out of part 1:

Ravi Zacharias - The truth becomes so blurred

Blurring the lines of truth and reality. How often do we see progressives doing that? For example, very few people look upon the poor the way progressives accuse us conservatives of doing. Those of you who are against wealth redistribution are probably thinking that that's offered as a solution for the issue of poverty. Wealth redistribution is something you find very often in regimes where you have a dictator or set of dictators who need to prop themselves up. Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter on that very issue which was read aloud by another founder(James Wilson) on the floor of the constitutional congress! But at this point, the truth has been blurred, so wealth redistribution has been brought up on par to being on the same level as run of the mill charitable giving. And milk is just the secretion of a cow, no different than it's urine.

From Reformers to Progressives

The Foundation for Economic Education's publication "The Freeman" has an interesting article titled "The Twisted Tree of Progressivism". This is paragraph two:

One portent of Progressivism is found in the Liberal Republican movement of the 1870s. Prone to Paris Commune panics, distressed by strikes and labor trouble, such reformers as Charles Francis Adams (descended from John Adams), Francis Amasa Walker (Boston laissez-faire economist and Indian manager), and E. L. Godkin (Anglo-Irish editor of The Nation) concluded that efficient, inexpensive bureaucracy was just the ticket. It could manage questions too important to be left to democratic processes, especially those touching on the lately acquired government-bestowed advantages of big business. (“Efficiency” had a great future before it.) This movement was urban, basically eastern, and closely connected with economic elites (Nancy Cohen, Reconstruction of American Liberalism).

This really touches a nerve, it's one of the reasons why the Progressing America project even exists. Yes, I think it's great that they gave us names and a background on the topic, and yes, I think this article is worth reading. But what did Godkin, Walker, and Adams say/write to give this author the impression that they supported inexpensive bureaucracy? When did they write it? Essay or book? Title and page numbers? How about a partial quote so someone can track it down? Could you throw me a bone here? I find that there is a great desire, sometimes even a desperation amongst people who seek to advance the cause of liberty to know more about progressivism. I see it in some of the places I post articles, and I have heard it repeatedly from people I've come in contact with. There is such a deficit of knowledge on the progressives, and articles like this are certainly helpful in illuminating their mindset, but we need to know when, where, and in what words did these people put their ideas out.(and citing Nancy Cohen's book isn't exactly helpful)

But just to be fair, this article does do this in some ways. The third paragraph points out the call for more government, and tells us to go look to the Populist Party Platform of 1892. Now that's what I'm talking about, show us where to look! Context is great, but the details do matter. The important thing that this article does is point out that what ended up becoming progressivism is a convergence of multiple ideals, which all converged because at the very foundation of all their beliefs was the one thing they all held in common. Bigger and bigger government. They could squabble about the details later. For now, we just have to make government bigger. That will solve all the problems.

For anybody who's seen me previously touch upon the topic of 'Reformers' but not really go into much detail, this is why. There's too many non-uniform views amongst all these different groups, to the point to where they're not even the same group of people. It's the birth of progressivism, which rose at about the same time as fabianism in Britain, where you see the uniformity of the view of making progress through bigger government. But it's not socialism. It's just progress, it's social regulation. And even within the progressive movement, it's a mistake for us to look at progressives as a monolith. Outside of making progress with more government, there are a multitude of divergent views of how best to use government, and to whom will it be used against.

Just because you vote, doesn't mean you're a free citizen

I cannot wait for Ameritopia to hit. Mark Levin is very articulate when he talks about the dangers we face as free citizens of this country. These are the kinds of comments which are timeless, as the majority of human history is not one of liberty, it's one of administrative states, "the divine right of kings", and even outright brutal bloody tyrannies.

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 2

America is worth preserving against the assault of progressivism. But what's under assault? What are you really losing? Your faith is certainly a part of that, but it's so much bigger than that. There can certainly be a form of tyranny that's Christian based, but that's one of the very things our Founding Fathers sought to break free of. No religion has a stake above any other to the point of shoving it down people's throat. But the exact opposite can be just as tyrannical, to the point to where you can't even have a display at Christmas time out in your own front yard without catching heat from it. The very concept of calling Christmas the "Christmas holiday" or saying "Merry Christmas" to certain people has become controversial. How? How did we get here? Through the process of secularization. Continuing with an examination of the words of Ravi Zacharias, in his message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4). I lifted the following small clip out of part 4:

This is why the first place the progressives started, was in the universities. They knew full well that they had to steal our Founding Fathers away from us before they could ever snuff out our liberty. Today, it's routinely implied, or even outright taught that our Founders were just a bunch of old rich racist white guys(and athiest!) that hated blacks and enslaved them. Sure, there was an abolitionist movement, but often times that's looked at as being separate from the Founders. And the black patriots that were instrumental in the revolutionary war have all but been eliminated from just about every modern text book you could lay your hands on. The revisionism that goes on in education has gone way beyond universities at this point, it's long since perverted the lower levels of education as well. Middle school and high school. So bad has the revisionism gotten and so long has it dominated, that someone who has documents to prove their case such as David Barton does, can easily be laughed off of the stage all the while he points to the very document proving what he's saying. The faith that all our founders had in the Protection of Divine Providence is something that progressives knew they couldn't compete with. So they had to eliminate it. It was Woodrow Wilson who once said that "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface". Have you read the preface of the Declaration of Independence lately? What do you see there? That's all the stuff the progressives wished wasn't there. And at this point(almost to 2012) it can be said as a matter of practicality, that stuff isn't there. Go ask your high school son/daughter - that's all the proof right there, your high schooler hasn't been taught the preface. This is all being done on purpose.

Sure, there are religious leftists out there, but they're not in the majority. And those who are of a higher profile see the word merely as a tool. Jim Wallis is very open about this, stating that "the gospel is all about wealth redistribution", even though Benjamin Franklin stated rather plainly that wealth redistribution is what tyrants do. And progressives have been abusing their Christian faith for a very long time, to reach an authoritarian end. After the small clip of Ravi you see above(further in part 4), he makes the point that students are lost in high school, they have no meaning in their lives. And isn't that true to a large degree? Has life in America gotten better or worse over time, since all evidence of religion has been expunged from schools. One of the communist goals of 1963 is the elimination of meaningful art(see 22/23), it's certain that they'd target other meaningful things as well. And I'm not advocating that one particular faith be placed above another, rather that certain underlying foundational core beliefs that all religions believe in(even those outside of Christianity) that used to be taught in America's schools are no longer there. What are the results of this? It certainly can't be a coincidence that over time we're not in a better place. For those of you who are fans of the book "The 5000 Year Leap", will be familiar with the following which used to be an elementary school book: A Catechism on the Constitution. Another book titled "The New England Primer is a book that used to be in schools, and is one of the earliest known books printed in America. As Ira Stoll writes in his book "Samuel Adams: A Life", Adams was likely taught as a young boy with this very book, given that there wasn't much else around. That was the book to use back then. Here's a cover picture of one that came from the printing presses of Benjamin Franklin. The New England Primer, which also goes by another name, "The Little Bible of New England" because so much of what's in it is overtly religious. But it doesn't place one over the other.

And now as I look above I see that it's official, I ranted. Oh well. Someone has to put all this stuff together to show it's relevance and relation. Without core, meaningful, and foundational things being taught to students, is it any wonder why school shootings have happened, and have even appeared to be on the rise? When Columbine first happened, everybody was shocked and mortified. Sure, school shootings are still shocking and mortifying to a point, but the numbness has set in because it's happened so many times now. And as I asked in the beginning, why is all of this happening? How did we get here? There's been much that's happened outside of the realm of religion that's salient in answering this question(like what Wilson said above), and that's primary what my blog has been and will continue to be about. But for now, I'll leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin:(In his letter to Thomas Paine)

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 1

This message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4) is rather brilliant in the examples cited and in it's construction. I cannot recommend it highly enough. In this particular segment, Ravi Zacharias elaborates on a writing from G K Chesterton regarding revolutionists and contradiction. I will be clipping several pieces of this message over the next couple of days and commenting on them, as there are several very deep and thoughtful things in this that we can all learn from, in defending ourselves from progressivism. It needs to be noted that at no time does Zacharias ever use the term progressivism during the entirety of the message. Yet for those of us who find ourselves on the opposite side of the assault by revolutionary progressives, it's very hard to miss how relevant this is to the topic. It will become even more clear as I develop my full thoughts with multiple clips. Here is the first clip:(comes from the end of part 3)

And should anybody from RZIM object to me putting these online in streaming form, just contact me(Facebook primarily, so that I can see who you are and track you to RZIM) and ask, I'll nicely remove the videos from my youtube and popmodal accounts.

President Woodrow Wilson comments on censoring the press

On March 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wrote the following letter:

I have been very much surprised to find several of the public prints stating that the administration had abandoned the position which it so distinctly took, and still holds, that authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety. It, of course, has not been abandoned, because the reasons still exist why such authority is necessary for the protection of the nation.

I have every confidence that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury, but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field who can not be relied upon and whose interests or desires will lead to actions on their part highly dangerous to the nation in the midst of a war. I want to say again that it seems to me imperative that powers of this sort should be granted.

You think that's bad reading it? Here, listen to it:

The power of the spoken word, and I'm even not a professional speaker. But that doesn't really matter. This is how arrogant these people are, the words are what they are. People need to see this, they need to hear it. A lot of very dark things happened in America during the "progressive" era. And it's a shame that so much was said, written, taught, and actions taken while much was either never recorded in the first place, or said video/audio clips have been lost to time. It's long past time to correct this by recording it ourselves.

I am a socialist - Theodore Schroeder

The name Theodore Schroeder probably seems like an obscure name to anybody who comes across my blog or happens to be a regular reader. I know it was obscure to me, when I came across a book titled Free Speech for Radicals. Written in 1916, this book is linked with a group which titled itself The Free Speech League.(FSL) The more I dug, the more I realized I found something worth blogging about. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (a place I normally wouldn't want anything to do with) has quite a bit of information about Schroeder

Friends with anarchist Emma Goldman, he founded the FSL with several progressives in 1902, among which was Lincoln Steffens, who famously said "I have seen the future, and it works!" in regards to the newly emerging Soviet empire after a trip to Russia in 1919. Later on, Schroeder's ideas even became influential with Havelock Ellis, who was one of the founding members of England's Fabian Society.

Most importantly though, the FFRF states that the FSL was a precursor to the ACLU. I find it so interesting how all of these people and groups, that all the dots end up being connected. It always ends up coming full circle. One group learns what does and doesn't work, then shuts down(or renames itself) and the new group takes what was learned and implements it. Anyways, Schroeder confirmed his beliefs three times, on page 135 and again on 136 of "Free Speech for Radicals":

(135) I will state now that it became public that I was a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League.

(136) I was employed at the Helping Hand Home and had been there about a year. Third, that I am not an I.W.W. I am a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League. Fourth, I did not disturb the peace, and offered the proof. Part of my papers was taken from my clothes when these were returned to me.

(136) Now, on March 15, 1912, she came back again and asked me if I still persisted in being a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League and reading their literature and taking part in the free speech fight. Yes, I do persist in being a Socialist and believe in free speech. Then, she said, my services were no longer wanted, and she said I could vacate at once.

The man is more than free to believe whatever he wants. My preference would be for their radical beliefs to be widely known as these people thrive on living in the shadows - put it in the headlines and let people see how whacked out they are. But that said, I read through parts of the book, and I have a suspicion that many of the alleged actions on part of 'them pigs' and other authorities are trumped up to make the radicals(and they know full well they're radicals) victims and martyrs. Also, parts of the book seemed pretty standard fare for what the ACLU does today. They'll defend anybody who's subversive of American beliefs and traditions, but if those who defend liberty find themselves in a bad spot, the ACLU is usually nowhere to be found.

An empire of laws, and not of men

I'm a fan of the founding fathers, they have a lot to say that's worth taking in. That President John Adams made the comment about "an empire of laws, and not of men" is true, but this is an essay that it would be well worth it for you to look into and read. It's a short read, but there's a lot of meat here. Or as soon as I'm finished recording, download it and use it the audio to help reinforce the ideals of liberty. Having done as much recording as I've been doing over the last year or so, I'm getting much more comfortable behind a mic. It's time to raise our founders off of those pages.

Full text: Thoughts on Government: Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies - John Adams

There's actually a lot here. John Adams was a fan of republics, so much so that he stated that a republican government is the only form of good government. He was not a fan of democracies, and was outspoken about that too. I'll have to put those together at a later time. Here, we have Adams explaining in detail some examples of congressional corruption. How familiar does most of this sound to you?

Progressivism: Making journalists into associates of the state

In "How we advertised America", George Creel wrote the following: (Page 16/17)

As a matter of fact, I was strongly opposed to the censorship bill, and delayed acceptance of office until the President had considered approvingly the written statement of my views on the subject. It was not that I denied the need of some sort of censorship, but deep in my heart was the feeling that the desired results could be obtained without paying the price that a formal law would have demanded. Aside from the physical difficulties of enforcement, the enormous cost, and the overwhelming irritation involved, I had the conviction that our hope must lie in the aroused patriotism of the newspaper men of America.

With the nation in arms, the need was not so much to keep the press from doing the hurtful things as to get it to do the helpful things. It was not servants we wanted, but associates. Better far to have the desired compulsions proceed from within than to apply them from without.

As I read this, the first thing that came to mind was the journolist. But this is much more insidious. The journolist was just a bunch of conniving leftists posing as journalists getting together in a proverbial 'smoke filled room' to influence an election. What Creel and the boys did was apply pressure from the government. But they're not in favor of nationalization! Not censorship! No. What they want to do is make progress. Abuse the regulatory state perhaps, apply a little pressure where they can. You know, nudge. Nudge them into making "the right decisions" about what they'll report on. Creel continued:

Aside from these considerations, there was the freedom of the press to bear in mind. No other right guaranteed by democracy has been more abused, but even these abuses are preferable to the deadening evil of autocratic control.

Yet if they're going to make "associates" out of the press, then there is no freedom of the press to speak of. It's a lie. It only looks free on the surface. Having the press turn itself into a willing branch of autocracy, now wouldn't that be perfect? And worth note is how this was originally geared just to be strictly about protecting military prospects, actions and so forth. But that's the thing about statists and authoritarians. They can't help themselves but go further. The only way people can be free is if the government is limited. More from Creel: (Page 18)

My proposition, in lieu of the proposed law, was a voluntary agreement that would make every paper in the land its own censor, putting it up to the patriotism and common sense of the individual editor to protect purely military information of tangible value to the enemy. The plan was approved and, without further thought of the pending bill, we proceeded to prepare a statement to the press of America that would make clear the necessities of the war-machine even while removing doubts and distrusts.

And with that, the shadow press was born. They ceased to be a free press(while still looking like one on the surface) and became associates of the state. Wilson and Creel didn't nationalize the press, they just made progress. In what year did you think journalism died? This book is dated 1920, but the CPI was born in 1917.

Obama's executive governance: more 'fabian' than 'napoleonic'?

Obama wants to channel Theodore Roosevelt does he? Makes sense to me that we should talk about this in terms that progressives themselves would have. In an opinion article titled "The Authority of the Executive", the following observations are made: (The Outlook, Volume 93, page 486)

An important difference between the Roosevelt and the Taft Administration has been thus stated by a shrewd observer of public life at Washington: "When a desirable course of action was proposed to the Roosevelt Administration, the proposal was met with the question, 'Is there any law against it?' 'No I' 'Then go ahead and do it.' If it is proposed to the Taft Administration, the proposal is met by the question, 'Is there any law for it?' 'No!' 'Then we must ask Congress for a law.'"

That this somewhat dramatically interprets a real difference between the two Administrations we do not doubt—a difference partly in temperament, partly in principle. In so far as it is temperamental, it is incapable of definition. It can only be said that one Administration is more eager, the other more cautious; one puts greater emphasis on results, the other on methods; one is impatient to achieve, the other waits to consider; one assumes authority if it has not been denied, the other assumes no authority until it has been granted; one is Napoleonic, the other Fabian; one is militant, the other legal; both seek the same end, both are progressive, both approve the proverb, "Make haste slowly," but one lays the emphasis on" haste," the other on " slowly;" the danger in the one temperament is too great expedition, the danger in the other disastrous delay. When the question is, Shall the public welfare or private interests take precedence? the dangers in delay are not inconsiderable.

The Outlook was a New York magazine, to which Roosevelt himself regularly contributed. What an incredible way to discuss the way things are being done, no? I could launch into a week long rant because of this and other things I've already posted.

But I'll keep this short and simple. If you believe as Sean Hannity does(and God love him, I have all the respect in the world for him) that journalism died in 2008, then I really hope that my project here can expose you to new concepts, key words, and ideas. Because journalism died well over a century ago. There's a certain order to things like this. Before progressives can become a huge force in government, they need to subvert the media and turn the entire thing into a mouthpiece for bigger government. And if you read the writings of Lippmann, Creel, Bernays, and others, you will see that that's exactly what they sought out to do, and did.

The Authority of the Executive

An important difference between the Roosevelt and the Taft Administration has been thus stated by a shrewd observer of public life at Washington: "When a desirable course of action was proposed to the Roosevelt Administration, the proposal was met with the question, 'Is there any law against it?' 'No I' 'Then go ahead and do it.' If it is proposed to the Taft Administration, the proposal is met by the question, 'Is there any law for it?' 'No!' 'Then we must ask Congress for a law.'"

That this somewhat dramatically interprets a real difference between the two Administrations we do not doubt—a difference partly in temperament, partly in principle. In so far as it is temperamental, it is incapable of definition. It can only be said that one Administration is more eager, the other more cautious; one puts greater emphasis on results, the other on methods; one is impatient to achieve, the other waits to consider; one assumes authority if it has not been denied, the other assumes no authority until it has been granted; one is Napoleonic, the other Fabian; one is militant, the other legal; both seek the same end, both are progressive, both approve the proverb, '• Make haste slowly," but one lays the emphasis on "haste," the other on " slowly;" the danger in the one temperament is too great expedition, the danger in the other disastrous delay. When the question is, Shall the public welfare or private interests take precedence? the dangers in delay are not inconsiderable.

The difference in principle may be somewhat more accurately defined.

We may hold that the Congress is the sole representative of the people, and that the Executive Department has nothing to do but to carry out the will of the people as it is expressed by the Acts of the Congress. Or we may hold that the Executive is equally with the Congress the representative of the people, and is empowered to exercise for the people all the functions that in free, popular government are exercised by the Executive Department. In the one case the Congress is the servant of the people, and the Executive is the servant of the Congress. In the other case both are servants of the people, with commensurate powers, so that the Executive is no more dependent on the Congress for authority to perform its legitimate executive functions than the Congress is dependent on the Executive for authority to perform its legitimate legislative functions.

The distinction may be made clear to our readers by a historical parallel.

The Constitution of the United States provides for a Judicial, an Executive, and a Legislative Department. It left the Congress to organize the Judicial Department, and the Congress has done so. The Federal courts, though called for by the Constitution, were organized by the Congress. But, having been organized, they are independent of the Congress. They have a right to exercise all the functions which, historically, in a free Commonwealth belong to the courts. They are even, in some respects, superior to the "Congress. For they can, and sometimes do, declare that the Congress has exceeded its Constitutional powers in enacting certain legislation, in which case that legislation is set aside as unconstitutional and void. And this power of the courts to set aside the legislation of the Congress which organized them, though at first resisted, is now universally acquiesced in. The Outlook holds that, in a somewhat analogous manner, the Executive is authorized to exercise all the functions which in free constitutional governments belong to the Executive Department. It is not confined to doing those things which the Congress has authorized it to do. Its authority is not derived from the Congress. It is derived from the same source from which the Congress derives its authority—

the people. It may do without authority from the Congress whatever the principles and usages of free governments allow the Executive Department to do, unless it is prohibited by the Constitution, or by the explicit provisions or the necessary implications of Congressional legislation. How far the Congress can go in limiting the powers of the Judiciary—whether, for example, it can prohibit the courts from issuing injunctions—is a question on which Constitutional lawyers are not agreed. How far the Congress can go in limiting by legislation the powers of the Executive we do not here discuss. It is enough to affirm that the Executive need not wait for a law of the Congress in order to take such executive action as is called for by the public interest and is not prohibited by the Constitution or by law.

We are here attempting to define a principle rather than to defend it. But there are certain fundamental facts which appear to us to sustain the principle that the Executive is not dependent on legislation for its authority. The facts are such as these: The Constitution which creates the Congress creates also the Judicial and Executive Departments; the Judicial Department continually exercises in the public interest authority not specifically conferred by any explicit legislation; it is difficult to see why the Executive Department, deriving its authority through the same instrument, should not act upon the same principle. The Chief Executive is elected by the people and is responsible to the people; he is not, as in England, dependent upon the legislative body, responsible to the legislative body, nor chosen directly or indirectly by the legislative body; he is no longer even nominated by a Congressional caucus. There is therefore little ground to claim that he must look to the legislative body for authority to act.

This question, whether the Executive may do whatever the Congress has not prohibited or only what the Congress has authorized, is not an abstract one, of interest only to the Constitutional lawyer. It is a very practical one, and of immediate and pressing interest to all the people of the United States. They are the owners of large landed estates, including great forests, large mining tracts, and valuable water powers. These estates are held in trust for them by the Secretary of the Interior. If we are right in the view here taken, the Secretary of the Interior has authority, in protecting the interests of the people in these estates, to do whatever any trustee might do to protect the interests of his ward. He is not bound to wait for any special authority from the Congress. He may retain possession of these estates for the benefit of the people until and unless the Congress by definite action requires him to dispose of them to private owners. If he acts upon this principle, the public interests in the public's lands will be safe. For while the inertia of the Congress might prevent it from taking any affirmative action to guard those interests against spoliation, it is reasonably certain that, with public attention focused upon this question, the Congress will not by affirmative legislation dispose of these estates belonging to its constituents without some provision for protecting their rights and safeguarding their interests.

Progressivism and the quest for state authority, through alcohol

The notion that "social justice" is about freedom is thoroughly laughable. Just look at it's roots, and spend a little time reading about the social gospel, which preceded social justice in America. Even more laughable, is how progressives have re-written history in order to make all of this possible. Today, progressives look back and sneer at those days when the EXTREME CHRISTIANS (I know, how shocking!) actually attempted and succeeded at getting at a constitutional amendment which "legislated morality". I put the phrase "legislate morality" in quotes, because this is one of the most common sneers the progressives use. And of course, it's those hypocritical conservative Christians who are the culprits. Today, we shouldn't dare repeat that mistake and attempt to legislate morality.

Well, when progressives entirely dominate academia, colleges, and the history therein, that's what happens. They'll blame you for what it is that they did. And why not? Do you know where to look for answers? And even if you wanted to look, would you know where to start? While blaming it on Christians isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the whole truth. These people were fairly honest about their goals. They intentionally set their sight on liberty, at least, those who were involved in the upper levels of the movement. Just like progressives do today. Example 1 Example 2 The average OWS person on the streets today actually does hate wall street and wants to do something about it, just like the average person during those days would've only been interested in doing something about the problem of alcohol. They're probably not looking for tyranny, but they've been whipped up into a frenzy. And as you probably know, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

Josiah Strong, who was one of the founding members of the "Social Gospel" movement, wrote this in the magazine 'Homiletic review', which claimed to be all about religion, theology, and philosophy - directly under the banner of "Studies in Social Christianity": (Page 44, "Prophetic Courage")

By common consent the civilized world, backed by moral conviction and scientific knowledge, has abandoned these worn-out experiments, and is settling down upon the basis of common sense, announced by that greatest of leaders, Lyman Beecher: "Temperance in the use of all harmless things, total abstinence from all hurtful things." That alcohol, outside of its well-defined, legitimate uses, is the most destructive foe of human life and welfare, need no longer be argued. He who would question that statement would need the stupidity of ignorance or the triple hardihood of hopeless conservatism. In all countries we find that public opinion is steadily converging upon this perfectly clear, rational judgment—total abstinence for the individual, prohibition for the State. Religion, science, political economy, education, business, are coming into a closer, more consistent solidarity upon that simple basis. The most encouraging indication is that this union of the great interests of humanity against the common enemy is founded in the awakening sense of democracy, and in the new and broader scope of its interpretation. "Personal liberty" is at last an uncrowned, dethroned king, with no one to do him reverence. The social consciousness is so far developed, and is becoming so autocratic, that institutions and governments must give heed to its mandates and shape their life accordingly. We are no longer frightened by that ancient bogy - " paternalism in government." We affirm boldly, it is the business of government to be just that—paternal. As the father of a household must administer its affairs for the equal good of all, and for the equal protection of all, so the government must devote itself to every interest of the people. So Prohibitionists are pushing for an amendment to the national constitution, forbidding the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.

What a triumph for progressivism! However, most prohibitionists didn't openly talk this way. For them, they truely wanted to solve a problem in a way that they were being told was the right way. This is totalitarianism, take note of how many things I emphasized, there's a lot in this. First, note his attack on hopeless conservatism. So much for blaming it all on those EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS and their awful conservative views, just trying to "legislate morality". Note the two words I underlined: "autocratic" and "administer". Philip Dru, Administrator? Anybody? That book is such a potent blueprint for progressivism. It's all there, and it's not even that long of a book. And you can get it for free online. Either in print or in audio. Both versions are 100% free. Please read it.

But Josiah Strong was not the only one. In his book "Why Prohibition!", progressive labor leader and reverend Charles Stelzle wrote the following: (Page 71)

The doctrine of "personal liberty" as applied to the use of liquor has been over-worked by the liquor men. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as an absolute individual right to do any particular thing, or to eat or drink any particular thing, or to enjoy the association of one's own family, or even to live, if that thing is in conflict with "the law of public necessity."

Of course, below this paragraph Stelzle makes some fairly good observations(and I hope people will click the link and look) regarding any number of things, but any one of these observations or all of them combined is no excuse to further the problem. He makes an abusive, bastardized case for 'the common good'. If state power and the abuse of it is such a problem, then taking the next step to create yet another layer of federal bureaucracy is clearly not the solution. Say what you want about the ills of alcohol, tyranny is a bigger problem. Besides mother nature, isn't tyranny the number one killer of humans throughout history? So don't let any progressive wannabe administrator prattle on about prohibition and Christianity, they're standing in the quicksand of their own history.