*Written by Tho Bishop.

Giving us another example of what happens when you mix ego and poor primary performance, the major story going into the South Carolina primary is the new line of attack being employed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on Mitt Romney. Failing to win over voters by attacking Romney’s record as governor, the pair has turned their sights on Romney the CEO. While Rick Perry has introduced us to “Vulture Capitalism”, Gingrich is employing a 22-minute film criticizing Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, depicting Romney as “worse than the evil banker in “It’s a Wonderful Life.””

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

Though their critiques on Bain Capital seem more appropriate coming from Chicago, Perry and Gingrich’s underlying instincts are correct. The primary, insofar that it is a referendum on the establishment-favorite, has little to do with Governor Romney, whose only real noteworthy achievement is the despised Romneycare. No, the candidacy of Mitt Romney is based entirely on his history in the private sector. It is his success as a CEO that allows him to claim he is the one candidate who understands “the real economy”.

Unfortunately for the country, Romney’s economic literacy is the biggest myth of the primary.

It would be too easy to highlight the fact that Romney subscribes to the same flawed belief that “fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege,” a major contributor to the environment that created the disastrous housing bubble (after all, he said that as Governor, and Candidate Romney is nothing like Governor Romney). Instead, let’s take a look at one of Candidate Romney’s favorite topics: China.

If you have tuned in to any of the GOP debates, you should already know that he is not a big fan. On the subject of trade policy, his website highlights a plan on “Confronting China,” including the aggressive action of labeling the pseudo-Communist nation as “currency manipulators.” He goes on to criticize the Obama Administration’s “acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy.” America, he believes, must be we must be “willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.” To anyone who would argue that there are benefits to our current relationship with the Asian power, you are being “played like a fiddle.”

As such, it is interesting that one of his top economic advisers is Harvard professor Greg Mankiw.

In 2009, Mankiw took to the New York Times to criticize the Obama Administration for threatening much of the same policy his candidate now advocates. In what would be a fitting response to Romney’s accusation of “cheating”, Mankiw writes:

“Like many economists, I cringe whenever I hear the term “fair trade.” It is not that I am against fairness — who is? — but the word “fair” is so amorphous in this context as to defy definition. Most often, the slogan “fair trade” is little more than a rallying cry for protectionism.”

Protectionism? From the man who believes he is the only one who can save capitalism from Barack Obama? Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

But what of China’s “currency manipulation” Professor Mankiw?

“Perhaps the oddest thing about [the criticism of currency manipulation] is that [the] complaint seems out of date. The yuan-dollar exchange rate has moved considerably in recent years. After a long period of completely fixing the exchange rate, China allowed its currency to start moving in July 2005. Since then, it has appreciated by 21 percent.” (Since this article was written in 2009, it is worth noting the information is not out of date. The Chiense yuan hit an 18-year high in April of 2011.)

So according to Romney’s own expect, his major claim against China is a complete fabrication.

A cynic may argue that Romney doesn’t believe any of the baloney he preaches about China. That he is using our economic rival as a scapegoat for a public looking for someone to blame for their economic pain. This would contradict a POLITICO report that “Romney is dead serious about…putting new tariffs on Chinese imports,” but information from unnamed insiders isn’t always reliable.

So we must conclude that either Romney doesn’t fully understand the trade policy he advocates, or Romney is a demagogue not above misleading the American people to win an election. Sadly even the latter explanation doesn’t defend the governor from Mankiw’s criticism:

“Directing attention to the China currency issue amid a worldwide recession and growing fears of depression is more than a distraction. It is downright counterproductive.”

If we are to brand Romney an economic expert because of his success in the private sector, how does the GOP defend itself from the criticism of Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Being a good President is different than being a savvy CEO. The failure of Romney’s opponents to credibly attack Romney’s credentials in the economy is the reason Romney’s candidacy has the strength it does today. Interestingly, the candidate who is criticized for “crank economic theory”, almost as frequently as Romney is praised for his understanding, is the only one in the GOP field who identified the housing bubble years before it crippled the US economy – Ron Paul.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

*This article is broken into five parts with each being released a few days apart. This is due to the size of the article. Here is PART I, PART II, PART III & PART IV.

6. Stage Five – Barack H. Obama, Hope, Change & Health Care:

“This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.” – Barack Hussein Obama

As we’ve travelled through the last 110 years or so in this article, no other progressive leader’s tyranny truly hits home like our current president, Barack Hussein Obama. Barry O, just like his predecessors in the progressive movement, stormed into the White House with big promises and signs of “change” and “hope”. Obama was almost deified by the media before he was even sworn in. Hell, Obama pimped himself out as the messiah of the lefties when in his campaign speeches he spoke of parting waters and rising seas and all that other weird crap. Truth is, he is a man, a man with bad heroes and bad people around him. The results of his vision and the company he keeps can only lead to chaos. He isn’t the second coming, his disciples are idiots and and he can’t turn water into wine. Well, he can turn it into shit but no one really wants shit.

Luckily, Obama didn’t come to us with some massive plan like the New Deal or the Great Society. If he did, this country would’ve collapsed under its own weight, not that it isn’t doing that now, it is just happening slower than it could have happened. His biggest piece of progressive legislation was his health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA. The media has dubbed this monster of a law, Obamacare. This bill is so monstrous and tyrannical that the Republican Party swept in and stole the 2010 midterm elections: taking back the House of Representatives, as well as just falling short of taking back the Senate. Obamacare is also the catalyst for the formation of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement. Opposition to this bill is out in full force and there are dozens of different attempts going on simultaneously to repeal the bill. More than half the states in the U.S. are opposed to the bill. How’s that for a blatant rejection of progressivism?!

There are several reasons why people are so strongly against this newest form of progressive tyranny. For starters, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force any citizen to buy something. In this case, the government is forcing Americans to buy health insurance, whether they feel that they need it or whether can even afford it. So what happens if you can’t afford it? Well, like with everything the government tries to enforce, you will get fined. If you still don’t get insurance, you get fined again and more heavily. Now with all these fines, one definitely can’t afford it. So what happens? An even bigger fine! Well, what if you can’t pay the fines? Quite simply, you go to jail. In a nutshell, the federal gun is pressed to your temple and no matter what, you are forced to participate. Where is the freedom in that? One nation under God? More like one nation under the gun.

Another problem, that should just be obvious to anyone, is that this is government run health care. What has the government ever done effectively? Do you trust these nimrods to make wise decisions and have your best interest at heart when you are a huge financial liability that could be easily eliminated? I’m not saying that they are going to go into your hospital room and put a pillow over your face. However, the government will have the ability to make the decision of whether or not the person on their deathbed needs to move on to the afterlife or not. This right has seemingly been taken away from the family and loved ones of the patient. So okay, I guess figuratively the government can come into your hospital room and put a pillow over your face. Naw, that’s not fucking tyrannical or anything!

Super economist, social theorist, author and political philosopher Thomas Sowell wrote:

“Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already– and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a “duty to die.”

A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby “bring down the cost of medical care.” A stranger’s death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.”

The cost of health care is the big issue pushing for the implementation of a socialized solution. Obamacare, the socialized fix to the problem, claims to drive costs down and to make health care affordable and fair for everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions. Barack Obama obviously hasn’t learned the lessons of history or even studied up on the causes of the high cost of medical care. The reason why health care is expensive is due to government meddling. So how is more meddling going to fix the problem? Realistically, it will drive prices up even more. In fact, one year after Obamacare was signed into law, it has been announced that health care costs are going to rise 8.5 percent going into 2012!

Thomas Sowell, in regards to the high cost of health care said:

“Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance– and fewer people who can afford it.”

You can cut the costs of medical two ways. By lowering either the quality or the quantity. This has been done all over the word where socialized medical programs currently exist. In Europe, many countries have to bring in doctors and specialists from third world countries, due to eliminating cost. This dramatically effects the quality of health care, as doctors from these regions aren’t as advanced and as versed in medicine as the expensive doctors in the rich countries.

Reducing costs by force has also had a negative impact on the Medicare and Medicaid programs established by LBJ under his Great Society in the 1960′s. You see, payments for patients under these programs has been reduced but now there are a large amount of doctors who refuse to take on any new patients with Medicare or Medicaid benefits. In trying to reduce the price of medical care, the government has reduced the availability of medical care.

In the United States, our medical system is far superior because we haven’t had to take the extreme measures that the UK and other countries have had to. For instance, these countries have been forced to reduce costs drastically. In doing so, many of these countries don’t offer the best medication available, as it is more expensive. Therefore the people suffer. The best pain killers are rationed or not even offered. Therefore the people suffer. They are also highly selective over the use of MRIs, CAT scans and other highly expensive medical procedures. Therefore the people suffer. Are you starting to see the pattern?

As far as cutting costs goes, Thomas Sowell said:

“If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse,” as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven’t they done that already?

Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do?”

Now, when looking back on everything I’ve written about the two Roosevelts, Woodrow Wilson and LBJ, you should be able to see the pattern here. You should be able to recognize where all this is headed. It isn’t headed anywhere good. Whether Obamacare was created with the best of intentions or not, isn’t even the issue. The issues is that when looking at the economic blunders of the past, it is quite obvious that this will produce similar results. Then again, the Wilsons, Roosevelts and Johnsons of America, are the ones promoted as heroes. It is mind-boggling that their failed policies are considered successes. This goes to show that the Keynesian side of the economic coin, where all these guys sit, is a giant pile of shit. The progressives and liberals however, refuse to look at the solid proof and only concern themselves with finding a “moral” solution, regardless of the consequences. But really, what is moral about helping a few by robbing the many? Realistically, even those seemingly helped at first, are only stripped of their self-reliance and thus, become losers in the long run. In the end, the “morally superior” stance of the left is oxy-moronic and creates a lose/lose situation for everyone.

7. Conclusion:

We’ve gone on a pretty extensive journey through time here but hopefully now, you have a better understanding of the destructive nature of progressive policy. Between the Square Deal, Wilsonian idiocy, the New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare, we have been suffocated by the iron grip of big government. Freedom has been sacrificed for extremely bad ideas. I can’t fault the earlier progressives for trying new things but when their policies failed, they should’ve checked their ego and turned the tide.

For whatever reason, history is on the side of these idiots. I blame teachers’ unions and the Education Industrial Complex. With the vast majority of teachers being leftists, due to union pressure or just their own stupidity, it is no wonder that they, the benefactors of these policies, have presented these giant failures as successes. I’d hate to go all conspiratorial and shit, but it is about the only thing that makes sense.

In the end, the progressives are dead wrong but the people are indoctrinated with a moral code that pays no attention to basic economics. Because of this, we have a nation of people who cry for social justice and government aid, not realizing that in doing so, they are only digging their hole deeper and deeper. These people remind me of the citizens of Gotham City in 1989′s ‘Batman’. The Joker promised riches and dreams and people flocked to the streets to collect the free money he was throwing in the air. Unfortunately, they believed the hype and the promises and were then gassed and killed by the provider of those empty promises of prosperity and hope. In the real world, Batman isn’t there to save the day.

Eventually, we’re going to be in such a bad state, where we’ll have two choices. To pick ourselves up from our own bootstraps and learn to be self-reliant again or to once again turn towards a government who has perpetuated all this economic madness. I’d hate to say it but signs point to option two. The progressives have done far too much damage for it to be fixable. I guess there is a glimmer of “hope” but faith is in very short supply.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

*This article is broken into five parts with each being released a few days apart. This is due to the size of the article. Here is PART I, PART II & PART III.

5. Stage Four – Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society:

“I am concerned about the whole man. I am concerned about what the people, using their government as an instrument and a tool, can do toward building the whole man, which will mean a better society and a better world.” – Lyndon Baines Johnson

Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36th President of the United States of America after tragedy struck and President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. LBJ was a progressive leader that wanted to deliver just as much “change” to the United States as his predecessors, FDR and Woodrow Wilson did. Just like the last major progressive in the office before him, LBJ wanted to significantly change the landscape in America with a monster set of programs like the New Deal. LBJ called his monster the Great Society.

The Great Society was not only the second coming of the New Deal, it also borrowed many ideas from JFK’s New Frontier, which was never really implemented on a large scale due to his death just a few years into his first term. The basic make-up of the Great Society consisted of civil rights and the war on poverty, as well as programs for education, health care, the arts, transportation, consumer protection and the environment.

The first of these factors I want to look at is civil rights. To be clear, I am definitely in favor of civil rights in theory. Everyone deserves equality and no one should be discriminated against due to race, color, creed, etc. Civil rights and women’s rights were huge victories in their day. However, apart from all the fanfare and all the glory, there is a lot of tyrannical and evil bullshit. The thing I am talking about specifically is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now this bill was written by Republicans and most of the GOP supported it, while the Democrats were strongly opposed to it. In fact, I talk about this in greater detail in my article “Republicans: The Party of Racism?“. Essentially, the Republicans were all for civil rights, while the Democrats, today’s race baiters and favorite party of most minorities, were against them. Interesting, eh?

One Democrat seemingly saw the light however and that was Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ adopted the Civil Rights Act as a part of the Great Society. Even though it was drafted by the opposition, LBJ wanted desperately to make sure that blacks and other races had the same rights as whites. While this is quite noble and admirable, his efforts have grown to become counterproductive. Now the liberals will sneer at that and think it is some form of right-wing propaganda that I am trying to push off but I am only concerned with the facts. The facts clearly show, that in some aspects, parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have violated the Constitution and have also given a lot of minorities a sense of dependency on the federal government.

One way that it goes against the Constitution, is that it forces business owners to have to comply with a set of laws that makes it so they have to service everyone, no matter what the color of their skin is. Sure, this sounds good but if someone doesn’t like a certain group of people, should they be forced to do business with them? That goes against their individual rights and if it is their business, it goes against their property rights. I’m not turning a blind eye to bigotry, but that person, no matter how they feel, should be able to do business however they see fit. Now, that doesn’t mean that he won’t be negatively effected by his bigotry. He’d most likely loose business as word quickly spreads that he refuses to service a race that isn’t his. The government doesn’t need to regulate this, people can figure these things out for themselves. This was Barry Goldwater’s argument against the Civil Rights Act and by taking that stance, he lost the presidential election against LBJ. Nowadays, the Democrats like to paint him out as a bigot when, in reality, it was the Democrats who were the bigots of the day.

Also, as far as the unconstitutionality of the Civil rights Act goes, there is no power given to Congress that allows them to regulate employee and employer relations. This would fall under the 10th Amendment where the ability to make such laws would fall into the hands of the states themselves. Essentially, the Civil Rights Act is a violation against state’s rights in addition to the Constitution. Revisiting FDR, as governor of New York, he stated:

“..as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.”

If only FDR practiced as president, what he preached as governor. Too bad LBJ didn’t listen either.

Now, let’s look at the fact that the Civil Rights Act had counterproductive results. It was Congressman Ron Paul who said on the House floor:

“..contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of HR 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

So, how did it do that?

Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government a huge surge in power. Their reach could literally go further than it ever had before in regards to the regulation of business at the employment management level. The government now had power of the hiring process, employee relations and customer service. In regards to this, Ron Paul said:

“The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish its goals of creating racial harmony and promoting equality. You cannot regulate what is in a man’s mind. If he is a racist, you cannot legislate it out of him. If anything, this sort of action will create strong resistance, which in many cases is what has happened. People generally are good, but you can’t force them into being good. It has to be something that they are by their own accord.

Forcing employers to hire based on a racial quota is ridiculous. If you are giving minorities an extra edge then that certainly isn’t equal. Affirmative action in all its forms is racist in itself and a giant oxymoron. Ron Paul also had something to say about this aspect:

“Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

I keep quoting Dr. Paul here because he has a way with words that eloquently portrays the reality of this controversial subject. Well, “controversial” if you seemingly oppose it.

Trying to put a price tag on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is impossible. However, the vast majority of the programs under the umbrella of this bill have been incredibly costly over the years. The biggest cost however, has been the cost of individual liberty. If we all just got behind individual liberty and respected it, laws like this one wouldn’t even be necessary.

According to Wikipedia, “The most ambitious and controversial part of the Great Society was..” the War on Poverty. Man, seems like we’re always at “war” with someone or something, doesn’t it? I don’t want to go to war with the poor! Apparently, this wasn’t a war against the poor, it was a war to “help” the poor. Funny, how can you help the poor when wars are expensive? No one ever helped the poor with wasteful spending. Hell, wasteful spending is why many people are poor. So apart from the obvious, how was this a costly, counterproductive, horrible idea from the minds of progressives?

Well, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was comprised of a laundry list of programs guaran-damn-teed to end poverty in the United States. It didn’t matter to LBJ that the experts of the day were stating that poverty was on a sharp decline in America. No, no, no! LBJ had to try and meddle with it and force the turnaround quicker. Don’t these tyrants ever learn from the “good intentions” of their predecessors? No, they don’t. They don’t concern themselves with facts and data, they concern themselves with guilt and ego. In fact Johnson championed in what progressives before him had done when he declared:

“The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our one-hundred eighty year search for a better life for our people.”

LBJ claimed that the Economic Opportunity Act would accomplish five goals. They first goal would provide half a million underprivileged young Americans with the opportunity to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work. The second goal would give every American community the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty—and help them to carry out their plans. The third goal would allow Americans to enlist in helping fight the War on Poverty. It was voluntary however. The fourth goal would destroy the barriers holding back workers and farmers. The final goal was the creation of the the Office of Economic Opportunity, a federal HQ for the War on Poverty. Man, all that shit sounds expensive! Why not just give the money to the people charitably, as opposed to forcibly taking it via taxpayers’ dollars and distributing it into these expensive and expansive programs? I guess having a gun to one’s head to force their charity is more romantic.

LBJ and the newly refurbished Magical Progressive Problem Solving Machine created the Welfare State. In a typical case of “unintended consequences”, the welfare system has failed miserably and created a society that is further dependent on government handouts, whether through the abuse of food stamps or unemployment benefits. Just look at how out of control unemployment is now. The government now allows people to collect unemployment checks for 99 weeks! That’s a month shy of two years! I know unemployment is bad in this country right now, but my-fucking-god, is it really going to take two years to find a job? I’ve never in my entire life been unemployed for a quarter of that time. When I was, I was too proud to take unemployment benefits. Maybe that was a mistake on my part but I still went from being homeless and penniless to making a pretty good salary and holding a pretty sweet job. If there is a will there is a way! I’ve said it again and again. However, the government takes that will away.

You se, the length of unemployment benefits allows people to be overly selective with the jobs they choose. People turn down menial hard-working jobs for little pay because they are getting little pay to sit at home to browse TMZ and play Farmville between casually scanning Monster, Craigslist and CareerBuilder. Yes, I realize the unemployment benefits are small and near impossible to make a living off of, but with all the other entitlements and handouts added in on top of that, one can live pretty phat for an unemployed person. People can debate this to death but I have seen this in action with my own eyes throughout my life. This IS what motivated me to not become one of those people. Guess who’s gotten further in life between those people and I? I did, and I was even worse off than most of them when at my lowest. We have created a nation of lazy entitled whiners because of these progressive programs. If you think I am an asshole for stating that, you are a blind idiot for not understanding the concept of “cause and effect”. Truth is, the Great Society created the Weak Society.

Another part of the Great Society was education. LBJ dropped a few new laws on us with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act and the Bilingual Education Act. With these acts came some unintended consequences born out of good intentions like every goddamned progressive invention. With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act came the Head Start program. With the Higher Education Act came the Teacher Corps.With the Bilingual Education Act came special federal aid to schools that had students with limited English speaking ability.

This bilingual idiocy has led us to a country that is overly sensitive to the needs of non-English speakers. Instead of promoting our national language, we force our citizens to conform to the needs of those who aren’t even citizens. It makes it so that immigrants to America don’t have to learn the national language. We are the only country in the world promoting such nonsense. If you, as an American, move to a foreign land and refuse to learn their language, not only will you be laughed at, but you will fall behind immensely. It is not a nation’s job to adapt to an outsider, it is an outsiders job to adapt to the nation. Maybe it is just me but that’s common sense. Our political correctness has made us a nation of pacifist pussies always trying to belittle, demoralize and demonize ourselves and our culture for the sake of those escaping their situations for the American life. Hell, we’re cheating them as much as we’re cheating ourselves here.

The Great Society also created the medical monsters Medicare and Medicaid. Just like with FDR’s Social Security plan, one doesn’t have to look too far to see how these entitlements are ruining our economy still to this day. In fact, the combination of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid took up 43 percent of our national budget in 2010! Nearly half of our federal budget goes to just these three pieces of progressive legislation! It’s fucking insanity! Problem is, even the fiscal conservatives, for the most part, refuse to give up these entitlements. What these programs are, in layman’s terms, is welfare for the senior citizen crowd. Medicare and Medicaid also opened the door to socialized health care and eventually, Obamacare. I’ll cover that in the next section of this article.

LBJ’s Great Society also thought it was necessary for the federal government to involve itself in the arts and broadcasting. Why the hell government needs to be involved in art or broadcasting is beyond me. Many liberals have tried to explain this to me but their explanations continually fall short. First of all, art is open to interpretation and what some sees as art, someone else might not. Art is subjective. So who the hell is the government to think that they can funnel tax dollars to a subjective thing? How do you quantify that even? This is why we end up with our tax dollars paying for museum exhibits of ant-covered Christs. I plan to write an article about government and art in the near future.

As far as broadcasting goes, the federal government has given us PBS and NPR. To some, mainly the lefties, this is a great thing. To those on the right or in the middle even, this is ridiculous. First of all, it would be great if government funded broadcasting was non-partisan or even bi-partisan. It is neither of these. NPR for instance, is a hardcore leftist entity. Why should someone who is opposed to that ideology have to pay for it? Hell, NPR themselves have been on record saying that they would actually do much better without government funding. Okay assholes, then why are you stealing from us then? Give us back our money and go private. As long as you’re public and taking my money, you have no right to shove socialist and progressive bullshit down my throat. Now you can argue that I don’t have to listen to it. Good point, and I don’t. But I DO have to pay for it, and that is the problem. PBS is leftist too and I don’t feel like I should have to pay for them either.

Idiot shitcock Ralph Nader wrote a stupid ass book called “Unsafe at Any Speed”. Because of that stupid ass book, the LBJ administration added some transportation legislation to the Great Society. The biggest of these progressive programs was the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. What this law did was it empowered the federal government to establish safety standards for motor vehicles, as well as overseeing traffic safety. Once again, the progressives thought that they could do something more efficiently than the private sector. There are already several agencies that test countless things with motor vehicles and other items. Nader’s big stink against the Corvair, which was a focal point of his book, ended up being complete bullshit. The car was considered “unsafe to drive” and was pulled off the market. A few years later, the vehicle was tested to see if these claims were valid, and they weren’t. All this was created on a lie. Nader’s attack was complete bullshit and used as a catalyst to get the people to believe that we need government to protect us from those evil automakers. On this topic Milton Friedman said:

“Nowadays there are Corvair fan clubs throughout the country. Corvairs have become collectors’ items. Consumers have given their verdict on Ralph Nader and the government regulations.”

The last area of the Great Society I want to talk about is the environmental portion. Where the two Roosevelts and Wilson wanted to protect existing resources and promote conservation, LBJ took it even further. During his time in the Oval Office, he signed several environmental bills into law. These bills were the Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Preservation Act, the National Trails System Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. All of these bills come with their own forms of tyranny built in. Most of them have created some ridiculous laws that negatively impact economic growth. By putting the rights of a single endangered bird over the rights of thousands upon thousands of people to go into a Wal-Mart and buy their necessities is pretty fucking ludicrous. Analyzing each of these in full detail would take up a whole book. What I can say here though, is that with each of these programs comes a heavy price tag which we are still paying today. With each also comes a loss of liberty, especially individual and property rights.

There are several other aspects of the Great Society that I haven’t mentioned, but I am sure you get the idea. This being the fourth huge section in my giant article about the roots of progressivism should probably prepare you for the fact that the fifth and final part will also not have a positive ending.

Looking back at LBJ here, it is pretty apparent that his performance as POTUS was greatly influenced by the progressive masterminds before him. Because of that, LBJ’s legacy was just as tyrannical and maddening as the legacies of his predecessors. When you dump the Great Society on top of the New Deal, Wilsonian policy and Teddy Roosevelt’s programs, you are left with a giant beast risen from the ashes of liberty. The Great Society, the New Deal and all the other progressive bullshit programs did not empower people like they promised, instead they stripped great Americans of their already existing power, their resourcefulness, their drive, their pride and their self-reliance. All that was replaced with apathy, complacency and dependence on the State.

No need to worry though, there was another progressive who rose from the ashes promising “hope” and “change”. He is the subject of the fifth and final part of this article.

6. Stage Five – Barack H. Obama, Hope, Change & Health Care:

“This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.” – Barack Hussein Obama

This article will be continued in PART V

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Like many on the right, I have been exposed to, and intrigued by, Objectivism – the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand’s goal of a reasoned, consistent, ego-driven philosophy was a noble one and served to inspire a great many in the cause of liberty. It is often attacked, however, for its perceived ruthlessness, mainly rooted in its hostility to altruism. Objectivism vehemently rejects self-sacrifice as a primary virtue and chooses to celebrate self-service; an objectivist seeks to dedicate his life for his/her own happiness, not sacrifice theirs for the happiness of others. What place is there, then, for charity in a truly objectivist society?

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”

Though I agree with the objectivist stance that any form of mandated charity is immoral, I oppose Ayn’s view of charity as lacking primary virtue. And I can do so on her own terms.

First, we must establish that society exists because it’s beneficial to man. I shall begin with the hypothetical isolated man Alpha. Alpha is responsible for all the tasks necessary to sustain human life. Alpha must hunt, Alpha must find water to drink, Alpha must build shelter, Alpha must build tools, Alpha may wish to create clothes or other forms of protection. Alpha may be forced to go days without food if he cannot find and catch his dinner, or may find himself constantly having to move as he uses up the resources around him. If Alpha suffers from a hurt foot or a debilitating illness, it will be very difficult to survive.

One day, however, Alpha stumbles upon Bravo. As our daily exposure to people would indicate, each individual possesses his own unique talents and interests. Alpha, in this case, is really skilled at creating stone tools and producing shelter. Bravo is the better hunter. So now, where Alpha would have to spend time hunting, gathering and crafting – he can now focus simply on crafting and gathering. Bravo can focus on hunting. The two exchange goods by whatever exchange they agree with (after all, if the agreement is not seen as beneficial to each member, they can easily leave.) As the two become more skilled at their chosen specialties, a miraculous phenomenon occurs. Free time – primitive profit. Before there is coined currency, time is money.*

What else can we learn from this? Society is an inherent good. If the purpose of life is to seek one’s own happiness (an objective principal), than society is essential to allow man to live not simply to exist, but to enjoy free time.

If one views charity as an investment into society, then one can see the self-serving nature of the institution. If, for example, Bravo falls ill – it is in the interest of Alpha to provide for Bravo. If Bravo dies, so does Alpha’s ability to benefit from his utility.

But does the same remain true in a larger, more complex society? Yes. If Alpha and Bravo where living in a society with 300 other individuals, and have no personal relationship, the utility of Bravo as a hunter (even if he is no longer the only one) is beneficial to Alpha. If society loses one of the specialized hunters, someone else – maybe Alpha – will be required to pick up the slack. Ceteris paribus, a society of 300 functioning individuals will always be more productive than a society of 299 functioning individuals.

This approach only focuses on individual utility, the Objectivist case for charity becomes even more pronounced when one takes into consideration factors like reputation. Who is respected more in society today? A billionaire who spends no money in charity, or a billionaire who spends a great deal on charity? In the NFL, if one is looking to live as prestigious career as possible, if two wide receivers have identical stats, the same number of championships, identical Pro Bowl appearances and the same skill-based awards, how can one separate himself from the other? Charity. There are awards in the league to recognize charity and none to recognize a lack of it. If there is only one spot open for the Hall of Fame and all other things are equal, the more charitable and socially motivated player will get the spot.

Charity, I contend, should not be seen as an act of altruistic self-sacrifice, but as a self-driven investment in society. Altruists would contend that a selfless act of charity should be more respected than a self-driven one, but I would question the premise of that notion. Not only does it require the belief that acting for yourself is less valid than acting for others, but it raises this hypothetical: A man donates five thousand dollars to charity selfishly (i.e. to improve his standing in society). Another man donates four thousand dollars to charity selflessly. Is the five thousand not always more beneficial to the whole than the four thousand? How about if the money totals are equal, is the five thousand selfishly given not equally as beneficial to society as the five thousand selflessly given?

Ayn Rand may not have been the most delightful individual to have walked the Earth, but the failings of Rand, the person, does not represent a valid criticism of her philosophy as a whole. Furthermore, too often those who oppose government mandated social functions are often described as social Darwinists and painted with a barbarous brush of ruthlessness. I hope by understanding the inherent good of voluntary society and the utility of every individual in it, these misunderstandings can be resolved. Charity is not only an altruistic virtue, but also an objective one.

*Adam Smith’s realization of this principal led to the creation of the Labor Theory of Value further developed by David Ricardo and Karl Marx. Though Smith rejected this value theory in terms of a 18th Century (or contemporary) economy, he did believe it was valid for a primitive economy as hypothesized above. In reality even this economy has a Subjective Theory of Value due to the fact that Alpha and Bravo may not value an hours worth of hunting and an hours worth of crafting as equal. Price, even in this setting, is determined only by the reasoning of those involved in the transaction.