Patience is the progressives most deadly weapon

Have you ever read Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party platform? You should. In Chapter 3 of his book "The Art of War", Sun Tzu writes:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

That quote has been in the right side bar of the progressingamerica blog since day one, and will never change. We need to know progressives in order to defeat them, that's what guides the progressingamerica project going forward, and it always will. Sun Tzu is right. That's why Tzu's book is still studied, even after this many thousand years. It will be studied a thousand years from now.

So, what does the Bull Moose party platform advocate? The Bull Moosers, the progressive party's 1912 party platform calls for these following things:

* A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.

* Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled

* Limit the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.

* A minimum wage law for women

* An eight-hour workday

* A federal securities commission

* Farm relief

* Workers' compensation for work-related injuries

* An inheritance tax

You will see much of the modern progressive agenda in this old proclamation, in which they still fight for these things in 2016 - keep in mind this was written in 1912. That's how patient the progressives are. They plan for longer than their own lifespans. They plan forward for longer than their children's lifespans.

Think about that, that is a lot of patience. Now, most of the items in this list the progressives achieved long ago. But one item, healthcare, took the progressives 97 years to achieve. The first president to call for government meddling into healthcare was Theodore Roosevelt. And the progressives have been on that agenda ever since, it took Barack Obama to complete the job. Let me state it for you this way:

In Theodore Roosevelt's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, everybody involved with that effort - they're all dead. Who was the next progressive president to push toward government healthcare? FDR for certain, made his moves. But Truman is the one. Truman called for government healthcare.

In Truman's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, nearly everybody involved with that effort - all but only a small handful are all dead.

And so it goes. And let's also at least make one mention of how the progressives achieved government healthcare. Like so many other of their objectives, they nibbled. First, it was old people. Then it was children. Then it was everybody. They did the same thing with education. They nibbled. First it was one thing, then another, then the Department of Ed, then NCLB, then finally Common Core.

See, the progressives are patient, patient, patient. And they do not let death of the physical body halt them. They just complete the circle with the next guy in line. Here's another one:

* A strong, centralized government.

* An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.

* The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

* The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.

* The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.

* The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.

* The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.

* The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

* The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.

* The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency

* The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.

* The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.

* The control of agricultural production.

* The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.

* The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.

* Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

* Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.

* State control of communications and propaganda.

That's from Stuart Chase, who was an adviser to FDR. He called this "political system x".

At varying degrees throughout our lives, these 18 things have been fought for by progressives. Some of these things have come and gone over the years, but 100 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these. 500 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these.

Death does not stop the progressives. That's only a speedbump, an inconvenience, a distraction. That's a serious amount of patience to have. You may still be thinking that I'm kidding. Ok, check this out. A man named Hamilton Fish was a close friend with Theodore Roosevelt and a partisan hack progressive back in the day. Hamilton Fish was an actual Bull Mooser.

Hamilton Fish had a son named Hamilton Fish, who in turn also had a son named Hamilton Fish, who finally again, had a son named Hamilton Fish. Where is Hamilton Fish today?

Hamilton Fish the fifth is the current publisher of the magazine The New Republic. Please, please look it up. This seriously makes me want to start cussing! I couldn't make this up even if I tried. Reality is stranger than fiction. These progressives are the biggest scumbags! They do not stop. They're cockroaches. Once the building has roaches, it needs to be razed. And even that doesn't stop them. You build a new building and their descendants are right there anew.

Do you know what The New Republic is? I mean, do you know what The New Republic actually is? The New Republic was the progressive mouthpiece of Herbert Croly, who as you may know(everybody should know this) wrote a highly influential book titled "The Promise of American Life". The 'Promise' was one of Theodore Roosevelt's favorite books, and is generally believed to be the inspiration for his "New Nationalism" programme. TR also highly recommended Croly's second book, "Progressive Democracy".

This whole thing is incestuous! It's all cyclical for the progressives: Here we have Fish and TR and Croly and back to Fish again. True that its only one anecdote, but it really shows what I mean. There are others.

These progressives will just wait 10 or 20 years or however many they need, and if you've fallen asleep? Now they have you. Because the progressives certainly aren't changing their minds. You're just too stupid to understand their brilliance. They'll just change the people who pursue the agenda. They'll replace one Roosevelt with another Roosevelt, replace a Wilson for a Kennedy, for a Johnson for a Carter, for a Clinton for an Obama, for a Reid for a Schumer for a Pelosi and beyond. And I didn't even name any of the progressive republicans who have played their part either. John McCain anybody? And if you figure out the agenda? Change the title! That's why the progressives have been masquerading under the title of "liberalism" since FDR renamed their entire movement.

The agenda never stops. It only sleeps. Death gets cheated. The agenda is eternal. Big government forever!

http://tinyurl.com/grys6l4

What if the Bureau of Land Management were its own country?

Have you ever heard "what if Texas were its own country" or "what if California", etc.... Hat tip to Mark Steyn for pointing this out. Here we go:

If Alaska were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 33rd among all of the world's nations.

If Texas were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 40th among all of the world's nations.

If California were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 59th among all of the world's nations.

But what of the BLM - the Bureau of Land Management, an out of control behemoth of a federal agency filled with progressives and bureaucrats that you never elected - which, BTW, owes its existence due to the lineage going back to the work of big government Theodore Roosevelt - where would it stand?

If the BLM were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 26th among all of the world's nations.

Naturally, the BLM would knock Alaska down to the 34th country, Texas to 41st, and California down to 60th, respectively.

You still don't think progressive governance is a problem?

http://tinyurl.com/gmv63oy

Democracy is a relic from a bygone era

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. - Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964

Democracy, the moldy-oldy discredited system, was introduced in the year 507 BC. That's 2,500+ years, for those of you counting. The American Republic and the Liberty which it was founded on, which was never discredited but simply circumvented by progressives; by comparison was introduced in 1776 AD. That's 240 years. But who's counting?

Democracy carries with it a fatal flaw: tyranny of the majority. The American Republic fixes that flaw. It contains safeguards in it to protect the people from the failures of democracy, so as to ensure the Liberty of every citizen and respect that no other source of power is legitimate except the sovereign people.

Long live the Republic. Now it is true that true republics are necessarily democratic and that's a good thing, however, a republic is far superior to democracy.

But right now, as we speak, tyranny is on the march. Even when they lose elections, progressives do not stop. The agenda moves forward. For the last 100 years, progressives, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, have sought to circumvent the Republic and pervert the Republic into a democracy by introducing measures such as direct election of the senate, an easier way to add in amendments to the constitution, and the last piece of this puzzle, abolition of the electoral college. Two of these efforts are listed in the Bull Moose platform of 1912.

These progressive scumbags are patient sonsabitches, aren't they? Their patience to destroy this country outlasts their own lifespans. They are that committed to seeing it done.

Their final effort to destroy the Republic would have states join what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would nationalize the Electoral College, and as you probably know is unconstitutional because it is illegal for states to engage in treaties or treaty-like-behavior. Right now, these progressives, they are plotting and scheming yet again to take your Liberty and your Republic away from you and give you something far, far inferior. They seek to abolish the new in favor of the old.

Democracy - old. Outdated. Discredited. Doesn't work - for the progressives, it's not designed "to work"(In the way people generally mean "it's working"). They want democracy because it works in conjunction with their machine: Progressives indoctrinate children from right out of the womb until and including past college age: Pre-k, k-12; and then the indocrination lasts for the rest of their lives with the drive by media. "Who you going to vote for? Well the newspaper said that people who read the constitution are evil, so I'm voting for the progressives. My teacher was a progressive. What a great guy!"

That's the machine that the progressives set up, in order to control your vote. If people only know what the media tells them, and they only know what their teachers taught them, they will vote accordingly.

http://tinyurl.com/zuejezm

In the "living constitution", we see that progressives are ardently anti-science

Specifically, the science that progressives are rejecting is Newtonian in nature. I'll explain:

In the book Constitutional Government in the United States, Woodrow Wilson wrote the following:(page 57)

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Fortunately, the definitions and prescriptions of our constitutional law, though conceived in the Newtonian spirit and upon the Newtonian principle, are sufficiently broad and elastic to allow for the play of life and circumstance.

To be even more specific, what Woodrow Wilson is doing as he is actively inventing the concept of the "living constitution", is holding up Darwinian science over Newtonian science. Darwinian, as in, "making progress", as in, it can be changed at will depending upon circumstance or interpretation. Most people falsely believe that "evolution" is confined to battles between the religious/irreligious and/or about the small changes that occur in biological animals. All of these things are true, but the most important aspect here is ideological evolution.

The idea that evolution is the opposite of revolution, is the least talked about aspect of evolution.

If you want to achieve a totalitarian state, you simply don't need a revolution to do it. You can have ideological evolution and do it. A revolution moves you from A all the way to Z in one step. Ideological evolution, however, moves you from A, to B, evolves to C, evolves to D, to E, to F, G, H, I, J, etc etc etc until you find yourself at Z.

That's progressivism. They "make progress".

Now, I went a little further in explanation than I originally wanted to, but that's ok it's important information. As to what I quoted from Wilson on page 57, he writes something nearly equally as important on page 55, which allows me to drive this point home.

The government of the United States was constructed upon the Whig theory of political dynamics, which was a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe [see: Newtonian government]. In our own day, whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything, whether in nature or in society, we consciously or unconsciously follow Darwin; but before Darwin, they followed Newton. Some single law, like the law of gravitation, swung each system of thought and gave it its principle of unity. Every sun, every planet, every free body in the spaces of the heavens, the world itself, is kept in its place and reined to its course by the attraction of bodies that swing with equal order and precision about it, themselves governed by the nice poise and balance of forces which give the whole system of the universe its symmetry and perfect adjustment. The Whigs had tried to give England a similar constitution.

Now, make no mistake: This is Wilson complaining. He is whining about the fact that the Constitution was founded using the Newtonian theory; that it has checks and balances using the Newtonian model. As a progressive, they want something they can mould and remould any time they please. Also, his use of planets as an example is huge. Wilson is more offended by the checks and balances than anybody will ever know, and I include myself in that. He wrote about it repeatedly.

But at the end of the day, he is rejecting science. A science denier. Woodrow Wilson is saying that Newtonian physics, gravity, etc., that's not good enough as a role model for governmental structure.

http://tinyurl.com/gmt3k3a

Could you ever trust a "Citizen of the World"? What would the Founders say about this, if anything?

Progressives are fond of selling old ideas as somehow being new, and the only real point that they have to rely on is that someone won't go and look it up. Meanwhile they engage in revisionist history, erasing and covering up historical facts, then progressives top it all off with the arrogance to claim that "Well the Founders could not have fore saw........" (finish the false claim)

Mr. progressive, you would be wrong - as you always are. As recorded by James Madison, Gouverneur Morris made the following comment on August 9th, 1787:

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The lesson we are taught is that we should be governed as much by our reason, and as little by our feelings as possible. What is the language of Reason on this subject? That we should not be polite at the expence of prudence. There was a moderation in all things. It is said that some tribes of Indians, carried their hospitality so far as to offer to strangers their wives & daughters. Was this a proper model for us? He would admit them to his house, he would invite them to his table, would provide for them confortable lodgings; but would not carry the complaisance so far as, to bed them with his wife.

He would let them worship at the same altar, but did not choose to make Priests of them. He ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there could be no room for complaint.

As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal biass in favor of that of England. It has been said that The Legislatures will not chuse foreigners, at least improper ones. There was no knowing what Legislatures would do. Some appointments made by them, proved that every thing ought to be apprehended from the cabals practised on such occasions. He mentioned the case of a foreigner who left this State in disgrace, and worked himself into an appointment from another to Congress.

Chalk that one up as yet one more thing that the Founders did, in fact, fore see.

http://tinyurl.com/hmt98zw

How is it that progressivism gets confused? Why do even some conservatives fall into the trap?

Have you ever scratched your head sometimes, when someone you know who you are sure is not progressive in any way, doesn't support big government, doesn't like it, and doesn't like people who are progressives and are constantly push for the biggest government man has ever known - sends you something or says something that makes you scratch your head? The end result is you say to yourself or to them: "You know who wrote that, right?"

Enter the "An American's Creed". You ever heard of this? Chances are, you've seen it in whole or at least in part at least once in your email. I know I have. This is a good lesson in how progressives reel people in and start polluting them into the religion of big government.

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream, to fail, and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, "This, with God’s help, I have done." All this is what it means to be an American.”

Look at that! Look at it. This could easily pass as a Reagan quote. If I didn't know who wrote it and what their story was, I myself would be very sympathetic to this in its entirety. This was written by Dean Alfange, who started out with the American Labor Party, an actual socialist party which tended increasingly communist. Alfange tended anti-communist. Being anti-communist simply is not enough. Since Alfange wrote this, I reject it.

Alfange later became a Democrat and a strong supporter of Truman due to Truman's promise of nationalizing healthcare.(The life long dream of progressives for over a century) Alfange eventually was a part of the Liberal Party of New York which was, again, a party for bigger government.

The point is, none of this quote is real, since Alfange was a life long supporter of big government for as far as the eye can see. Coming from Dean Alfange, this might as well have come from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Van Jones. This "Creed" is not a genuine statement of deeply held internal convictions, this "Creed" is an outreach in order to suck people in. "Yeah, maybe them progressives aren't so bad after all!" "Maybe he's a centrist!"

It's a trojan horse. Don't fall into the trap.

http://tinyurl.com/jfwozk7

Eugenics: Margaret Sanger vs. Theodore Roosevelt

Here's something I do not understand:

The very same people who blast Margaret Sanger, and inevitably bring up the fact that she supported eugenics, will then turn around and defend Theodore Roosevelt with the deepest sincerity knowing full well that Theodore Roosevelt also supported eugenics. Somehow TR is a good progressive, but MS is a bad progressive. How is this possible?!?!?!???? In my book, there are no good progressives and I think every last one of them ought to be thrown out onto the ash heap of history.

What follows are two quotes, and I defy anybody - anybody to off of the top of their head(no googling! no peeking!) tell me which quote is from Margaret Sanger, and which one is from Theodore Roosevelt. Neither quote is a work of fiction. To the untrained eye, you cannot tell the difference.

Who said it? Margaret Sanger or Theodore Roosevelt? It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.

Who said it? Margaret Sanger or Theodore Roosevelt? If plants, and livestock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts. How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan?

http://tinyurl.com/guzfkaq

Margaret Sanger spoke in front of the Ku Klux Klan. How did this come to be?

Would anybody say to themselves that it must be that Margaret Sanger tripped, fell over, and landed on a Klansman?

Yes, that must be it, I'm sure. It was all coincidence. She received an invitation to a Klan meeting, and everybody in her inner circle scratched their heads not having any clue how.

When Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, she was close friends with one Lothrop Stoddard. They had been friends for years, as her publication Birth Control Review gave a very positive review of his most notorious book in 1914, almost a decade earlier. (See here)

Who was Lothrop Stoddard? Among other things, he was a Klansman.

In Sanger's autobiography, she starts her section on her Klan speech as "I received an invitation", which contained a letter of instruction on where to go, etc. She doesn't specify if this invitation was random. Why did the Klan pick her? What was the connection? She probably didn't randomly meet a Klansman on a subway train somewhere and say to herself "now that's a great robe. That nice, pointy hat, I need to introduce myself to THIS guy. He is making sense!" Did the klan pick a random name out of the telephone book and say to themselves "Now this is the one!" Out of the hundreds, if not thousands of radicals they could have picked, why did the Klan pick Sanger? What was the process?

By a simple process of agreeing that sending her an invite was not random, and we have also employed a process of elimination, it has to be Lothrop Stoddard, as a Klan member(current or former/recent in the 1920's) as well as a member of her Birth Control League. Through his contacts, his extremely close proximity, I would bet you is how Sanger found herself the subject of an invitation and later speaking event for the Klan. It makes too much sense to not be at a minimum a strong possibility.

Could I be wrong? Possibly. Nobody's ever looked into this, that I can see. Were there other Klan members at the League? Could be. If so, then Stoddard may not be the missing link. I would bet, though, that there's even more of a "here" here than what I've already put together, whatever that ends up being. There usually is with progressives. These are some nasty people.

Process matters.

http://tinyurl.com/z8gboec

Why is communist indoctrination required to go work at a corporation?

It has long ceased to be a secret that college campuses at all levels, from the highest ivy league centers down to community colleges, are centers of far far left wing indoctrination.

Why then is it that corporations keep requiring 4 year and above degrees - many times for jobs that clearly don't need such a thing? Most of the time, if you don't have that bachelor degree, you aren't even getting in the door. Don't bother. Don't send an email, don't call, do not show up at the office. Just don't.

Ok, Mr. Corporate toady boss. Let's examine your contradiction, your hypocrisy. How does it benefit you personally for me to be indoctrinated by a communist professor? How does this company benefit if every one of its new recruits hates the company? Are these idiot managers really that stupid, that they can't see all these protests, all these young indoctrinated students out there holding up signs about how the American Corporation is the root of all evil.

Meanwhile these managers watch these protests and they're picking out candidates for future employment. "That third guy on the right, holding up the red flag with the yellow emblem, calling big oil and big pharma the problem, find out who he is Frank. He'll make one heck of a regional manager!" Ok, that was a little sarcasm on my side, but seriously. Enough is enough. It's time for people to get real about what is really going on on university campuses these days, and cut the crap.

Who exactly came up with this suicidal policy structure anyways? I don't want to be an expert in communism to come work for your company!

To the reader of my post, go ahead. Right now. Go searching for a job, even if you don't need one, you'll see what I mean. Go to internships.com, or go to monster.com, or indeed.com, or dice.com. In job posting after job posting after job posting, you aren't getting a job until you have that 4 year degree communist indoctrination. Minimum. 6 years indoctrination preferred.

Send out all the resumes you want. They don't want to hear from you until you're redder than a tomato.

Tyranny re-focuses: Targetting the electoral college

The Electoral College(EC) is anti-democratic. It's supposed to be anti-democratic. Democracy does not work. It is a failure of a system, it's simply a bad idea. One of the many great features of the EC is that it protects the people - and the Republic - from the known, historically proven failures of democracy. Democracy always fails - no good parent would seriously do that to their children, inflict them with purely democratic government. Good parents give their children Republics, representative republics which as a guiding feature limit the size and scope of the national government.

It's simple to understand why those faithful to progressivism want to abolish the EC. A purely national vote would hand the election every time to any silver-tongued demagogue or two-bit tinpot dictator who sought the presidency. Progressives have for generations stated that's what they want, a benevolent dictator. They even mingle with communists like Van Jones, so that ought to let you know where they're headed.

You can tell how bad they want to get rid of the EC, because they're even playing the race card, even though the EC is not the result of that. The EC came out of the Connecticut Compromise, where little states like New Jersey and Connecticut worried about big states like New York and Virginia. In the irony of ironies, the Electoral College was born because of equality and fairness. The progressives like to tell you that's what they favor, equality and fairness, but they really do not. The EC is one example to prove this.

There's three reasons why we have the Electoral College, the third of which few people know or realize:

1: Equality and fairness among the states, so that people in less populated districts are allowed to have a say against people in the big cities.

2: Protection against democracy. Long live the republic!

3: Protection from cabal and corruption. The EC is actually very good at this, and it doesn't get talked about enough.