Democratic socialism was the battle cry. 

Progressives believe that the founders’ view that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights are naive and unhistorical.  Freedom is something to be achieved, it is not a gift from God or nature – it is a product of human making – a gift of the state.  They define God as human freedom achieved through the right political organization, or simply  deny his existence.  The state is divine  and the private sphere is selfish and oppressive.  They don’t believe that ownership of private property is necessary.  Government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, and complete control over commerce and production through regulation.  Government must be involved in the spiritual development of its citizens through protection of the environment, through education and spiritual uplift  through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.  Only those educated in top universities are capable of governing.  Politics is far too complex for the average man.   Educated leaders of advanced nations should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom.  A strong central government must run the country.  Politics in the sense of favoritism and self-interest should disappear and be replaced by the universal rule of enlightened bureaucracy.        

When Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1901, he attempted to move the Republican party toward progressivism.  I don’t think he failed.  During his term he appointed three progressive Supreme Court Justices – Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., a proponent of legal realism; William Rufus Day, and William Henry Moody, a supporter of enhanced federal powers.  Using the coined phrase “Square Deal” to describe his domestic agenda, he pursured numerous anti-trust suits and used his office to push for the courts to yield to the wishes of the executive branch. In my opinion, the worst of his socialist polices was the Antiquities Act of 1906, giving the President authority, through executive order, to restrict the use of public owned land by the federal government.  Even thought the Act was intended to preserve small historic sites, Roosevelt’s first use of the law was a major land grab for Devils Tower National Monument, followed by another large land grab for the Grand Canyon National Monument.               

Woodrow Wilson, another progressive, believed that the founder’s system of checks and balances was the main cause of problems in governing.  He saw the Constitution as cumbersome.  During his term in office he gave us the 16th Amendment, establishing the Federal Income Tax; the Federal Reserve Act, establishing a central bank;  The Sedition Act, making it unlawful to speak out against the War; the Overman Act, giving him much personal power as head of the war machine; the War Revenue Act, increasing the Federal Income Tax level to 67% and then to 77%; the Espionage Act, hindering free speech during the War;  numerous regulations on public utilities; educational reform; and anti-trust reform.

Margaret Sanger - The Face of Evil

The eugenics movement also came into play during this time in both Europe and America.  The term, formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the work of his half-cousin, Charles Darwin, was the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans with the aim of improving the species.Eugenics regarded the movement as a “social philosophy” for the improvement of human hereditary traits.  It involved the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, the mentally ill, the disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups (blacks, Italians, Jews) as degenerates to be taken care of by the use of segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, euthanasia, and in some extreme cases, such as Nazi Germany, mass extermination.  Supporters of the movement included Margaret Sanger, often touted as the precursor of Planned Parenthood,  H. G. Wells, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Endell Homes, Jr., Teddy Roosevelt,  Woodrow Wilson, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, John Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Sidney Webb, Charles Davenport,  the Rockefellers and the Carnegie Institution, and Henry Ford. The eugenics movement eventually led to Roe v. Wade. Is the eugenics movement still in vogue?  Think designer babies!  And, the next time someone laughs when you mention “Death Panels“, tell them to read about this horrific period in our history.  Watch trailer of Black Genocide in the 21st Century – MUST SEE

John Dewey, known as the “the father of modern education, was an avowed socialist and co-author of the “Humanist Manifesto”, and “The Primary Education Fetich”  which was the catalyst behind education reform. Dewey, who belonged to no less than 15 Marxists front groups, taught the professors who trained the teachers to indoctrinate the kids.  “You can’t make socialists out of individualists.  Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society.” Progressives would eventually take over the National Education Association (NEA) and turn it into a powerful political instrument to pressure the government to pour billions into public schools in order to further their social agenda.   In 1967, the NEA Secretary said  “the NEA will beome a political power second to no other special interest group”.  THEY KEPT THEIR WORD.

This progressive era, spurred on by the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS), a Fabian Socialist front group, were also instrumental in founding numerous social organizations, and labor unions.  The groups include, but are not limited to, The ACLU, The NAACP, Industrial Workers of the World, the New School for Social Research at the New School in New York, and numerous teachers unions. 

Donna Holt, Interim State Coordinator – Campaign For Liberty, announced the effort as follows.

“The Virginia Campaign for Liberty will be mobilizing on two very important pieces of legislation in the 2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly. Both are state’s rights issues that pose a challenge to the federal government under the 10th amendment.

The Virginia Firearms Freedom Act – See full text of the bill here.

The Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act – See full text of the bill here.

In the upcoming weeks leading up to the legislative session, we will be forming a committee of people to assist in our lobbying effort for legislators to sponsor the bills.  If you wish to volunteer to join the committee, please email me at donna.holt@campaignforliberty.com.”

Please contact our representatives (below) in Richmond and urge them to support these bills! Also, I again invite you to join Campaign for Liberty!

Senator Robert Hurt Republican – District 19 P.O. Box 2 Chatham, VA 24531 Email*: district19@senate.virginia.gov

The videos were shot at Drexel University in Pennsylvania.  The MC is Judge Andrew Napolitano.

If you want to learn more take a look at the following websites. (Click on the Image or link below)

Campaign For Liberty

Young Americans For Liberty

http://www.yaliberty.org/

Students For Liberty

http://studentsforliberty.org/

Young America's Foundation

http://www.yaf.org/

…..& Many More!

This is worth every MINUTE to watch! THIS VIDEO HITS IT OUT OF THE BALL PARK!

It was taken inside Congress with Congressman Rogers from Michigan speaking on the floor.
Finally, someone with the courage to speak out on the absolute insanity of government run health care!

Don’t foget our next meeting is coming up Saturday, October 17th at 10:00 am – Noon
at the Franklin Center (the building behind the Library). You don’t want to miss this meeting!
Invite as many as you can who love their American freedoms and are not afraid to fight for them!

See you there!
Marietta

You might mention this any time someone tells you that the founding fathers intended Congress to have carte blanche to take care of the “general welfare.”

“It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people… … the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions.”
— Colonel David Crockett member of the U.S. Congress 1827-31 & 1832-35, AKA Davvy Crockett

History’s immortals sometimes offer a glimpse of their greatness in events other than those that granted them immortality.

Tennessee militia colonel David Crockett, perhaps best known for his role in the 1836 defense of the Alamo, also served three terms in the United States Congress between 1827 and 1835. Nationally known during his lifetime as a political representative of the frontier, Crockett apparently came by that reputation honestly, inasmuch as he was not above listening to his constituents. The following excerpt from an 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis, “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,” reveals how his own rural electorate taught him the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the perils of ignoring its restrictions.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

“He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

“Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

” ‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

” ‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest….But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.

” ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

” ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..’

(I borrowed the text below directly from their website, for which I apologize, but this is too important not to share!)

Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey

The research of Mr G Edward Griffin reveals how all viewpoints can be stripped down to 2 basic positions.

Discover how the different approaches of Collectivism and Individualism impact on all aspects of our lives, from human rights, governmental authority and the use of force.

Discover the truth about Big Government. It is not a practical/efficient machine, working successfully for the good of the people.

The bigger government gets, the less representative, accountable and efficient it is.