*Written by Rob Rimes.

Introduction:

I don’t hate Mitt Romney but I am certainly not a fan, which should be obvious at this point. I do hate the goddamned media for giving him an unfair advantage over the other candidates but truthfully, that isn’t his fault. Romney isn’t the absolute worst presidential choice out there, which many of my colleagues and readers may disagree with vehemently, but he is still a progressive statist bastard that is hellbent on controlling the lives of all of us in an effort to keep the giant wheel of the establishment machine rolling. I have been nasty to the guy many times in my countless diatribes about the 2012 election but my distaste and malcontent has been for a very good reason. Point being, I know that Romney can’t save this country and I feel that this is painstakingly obvious even though I find myself completely befuddled over the fanfare and support that this guy gets, not just form the media – their support is understandable, but from the conservative voting public who are all pretty much in unison behind this guy’s idea of smaller government, less taxes and squashing the budding police state. This guy will not solve any of those problems. In fact, he will only magnify them and dig our giant pit of legislative bullshit deeper and deeper. Hell, the pit is practically bottomless at this point but electing Mitt Romney will only solidify that fact even further.

I’m certainly not saying that Obama is a better choice out of the two. Realistically, I don’t think there is much difference between one or the other. This is a prime example of there being just one big government party with two wings: one that wears blue shirts with donkeys on them and one that wears red shirts with elephants on them. The worst part about this is that most “conservatives” are following Romney, as well as Gingrich and Santorum, believing in the hypocritical rhetoric that they’ve got a small government guy on their side who will fight for them. Realistically, those who support these guys are ignorant in economics and foreign policy. It is incredibly unfortunate but as Ron Paul said in a recent debate, “Conservatives have lost their way.”

Now I can’t completely cover every negative thing on Romney’s record, as there is a lot, but I am going to talk about a few points. In the end, it is really your decision as to where you want to put your vote but you really need to think this through and ask yourself where you want to be in four years. Do you want to be climbing out of the hole or do you want to be yelling at the guys that are still digging and digging?

Smaller Government:

The first thing worth getting into is definitely the issue of Mitt claiming that he’ll work towards making government smaller. Mitt Romney, who has preached for this over the course of all these debates, has a really shitty record of practicing what he’s been preaching. In reality, Mitt has been feeding into the desires of the voter base and has been stringing them along with his version of the popular rhetoric of the day. The sad thing is that many of the people who support this douchenugget are taking all this bullshit at face value and not looking at reality. Truthfully, maybe Romney actually believes his empty words and his supporters might not be adept enough to see through the Orwellian doublespeak. Let me rundown his track record of big government bullshit by ripping the fucking band-aid off: exposing the man’s economic sores.

I could write a whole damn article about the monstrosity that is Romneycare but I won’t bore you or myself with the details that have already been recycled a million times and beaten into the ground with Thor’s hammer by every critic for several years now. I’m over the Romneycare issue personally. I don’t like it, I think it’s shit, it was the blueprint for what became Obamacare but it was done at the state level, not the federal level and most Bay Staters still approve of it, so that is their economic cross to bear.

One thing that many Romney supporters don’t know or just choose to ignore is the fact that he significantly raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor. While preaching fiscal conservatism and pimping himself out as friendly to business, Governor Romney increased the tax bill on businesses by $300 million! He and his cronies also approved hundreds of millions of dollars worth of higher fees and fines on businesses in just four years! Many business owners were incredibly dissatisfied with Romney as governor. Essentially, corporate taxes under Romney almost doubled in just his one term.

I guess the tax hikes were necessary though, as Romney drastically increased spending in Massachusetts. In 2006, Ol’ Mittens increased spending in just that year by 7.6 percent. In 2007, he increased spending again, this time all the way up to 10.2 percent. During just his four years in office, he increased state spending by a total of 20.7 percent! That’s a lot of debt thrown on the taxpayer but at least those hefty tax hikes on corporations absorbed some of the burden. Maybe this tax burden accounts for the fact that Mitt Romney managed the 47th ranked state, out of 50, in the realm of job creation. That brings me to my next point.

Romney has been touting his job creation success while working at Bain Capital. He proudly boasts about creating corporations like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics, all of which have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, as governor, unemployment was a real problem in Massachusetts. Sure, he did great in the private sector and as Romney himself has said, “Jobs are created in the private sector.” However, all of his job creation skills didn’t translate to success when he reached office. So what makes the public think that this job magician’s magic wand will suddenly work this time? Yes he is a self-professed business master but he couldn’t tap into that while running Massachusetts so essentially his trial run at it was a failure. On the issue of Romney’s job creation woes, Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends wrote:

During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.

The question no one ever seems to ask Governor Romney is how many jobs were destroyed in an effort to build his monstrous corporations. Now I am not attacking him for building giant successful businesses, as that is the nature of the beast – good or bad. I am just trying to point out how skewed these sorts of statistical claims are because if you created say 300,000 jobs but your new businesses eliminated the jobs of say 250,000 people whose businesses you closed down through competition, well then you’ve only really created 50,000 jobs. This is a simple ballpark example but it should show you how some statistical claims can be made when you only tell one side of the story. Hell, government has been using these sorts of statistical tactics for years when releasing inaccurate numbers to sway public opinion for a candidate, a bill or whatever else they have needed public approval on.

Another issue that shows how non-small government this ass clown is, is the TARP bailouts. Mittens hates when people bring the subject up and has gone as far as lying and completely denying that he ever supported it but there is tons and tons of evidence that says otherwise. In fact, Romney was incredibly passionate about poorly run banks getting a massive taxpayer funded bonus for sucking at business. On CNN, a few years back during the bailouts, Romney said:

I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion dollars a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

Sounds like small government to me! So why would he be so pro-big bank? Well, let’s look at his top campaign contributors from a recent list. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs who gave $354,700. Next up is Credit Suisse Group at $195,250 and Morgan Stanley at $185,800. Every other contributor in the six figures is also in the banking industry. You’ve got HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp. & JPMorgan Chase. His top ten contributors are all fucking banks! Occupying Wall Street should start on Mitt’s front lawn! This shows a sharp contrast from Ron Paul whose top three campaign contributors are the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. Paul’s biggest contributor is also a lot less than six figures. So who really understands the plight of the average person? Romney is so far up on the Wall Street crony capitalist ladder than he can’t remember how to get down – not that he wants to.

People that call Barack Obama the Wall Street president haven’t seen anything yet. On campaign contributions from the big banks, Obama has made significantly less than Romney. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $49,124, Morgan Stanley coughed up $28,225, Bank of America gave $46,699, JPMorgan Chase came in at $38,038 and Citigroup was at $36,887. You do the math but it is obvious who the bailed out banking industry supports.

Another thing worth noting is that Romney has gotten more money from lobbyists than all other Republican candidates combined. I guess you need all that special interest money to work towards smaller government. Damn it! That Mitt Romney doublethink is taking over my brain!

The fact of the matter is, love it or hate it, Mitt Romney has a proven track record of being nothing less than one of the heads on the big government hydra. He is an economic nightmare but because people take him at his word and don’t look at his record, he can continue to dupe the masses into thinking that he’s on their side.

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

Continued in Part II: Foreign Entanglements..

Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said.

Peter Kent said the protocol “does not represent a way forward for Canada” and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming.

“Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past, and as such we are invoking our legal right to withdraw from Kyoto,” Mr Kent said in Toronto.

He said he would be formally advising the United Nations of his country’s intention to pull out. …

He said meeting Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): “That’s $1,600 from every Canadian family – that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government”.

He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world’s largest polluters – the US and China – were not covered by the Kyoto agreement.

“We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward,” he said.

Mr Kent’s announcement came just hours after a last-minute deal on climate change was agreed in Durban.

Talks on a new legal deal covering all countries will begin next year and end by 2015, coming into effect by 2020, the UN climate conference decided.

Source: BBC News.

*Taken from Reason.

Nanny of the Month turns two-years-old this October, and the busybodies who mind your own business show no signs of letting up.

Take formerly dog-friendly New York City which has banished man’s best friend from any establishment that serves food or alcohol (and that includes outdoor patios!). Then there’s Michigan Gov. Rick Snyner who’s tackling childhood obesity by introducing a statewide database to keep anonymous tabs on kiddies’ weight.

But the this very special nanny comes to us from a California city that is fighting (and fining) a couple that hosts Bible studies at home. Presenting Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for September 2011: San Juan Capistrano City Attorney Omar Sandoval!

The city slapped Chuck and Stephanie Fromm with fines totalling $300 for violating a municipal code which prohibits religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations from meeting on residential property without a conditional use permit (CUP). The Fromm’s gatherings can attract as many as 50 people and the city says that causes parking problems, but the Fromm’s disagree saying there is plenty of parking in their semi-rural neighborhood where large homes sit on even larger lots (the Fromm’s lot includes a corral, barn, and large lawn). The Fromms have held their gatherings since 1994 and say their neighbors support them, except for one woman whose recent complaint sparked city action.

The city is threatening to impose steeper fines if the Fromms continue their un-permitted gatherings,claiming that “zoning and building codes treat residences differently than places of public assembly because of public welfare and safety reasons.”

The Fromm’s are appealing the fines and refuse to apply for a CUP because they could face thousands of dollars in expenses that could include conducting traffic studies and making their home wheelchair accessible.

Next stop is Superior Court.

My Two Cents: I wonder what kind of kickbakcs Mayor Doucheberg is getting from the red light camera companies? End Two Cents.

*Taken from NY Daily News.

Mayor Bloomberg wants to blanket the city with red light cameras – and maybe even publish the names of scofflaws who blow through intersections.

“I think we should have ‘em on every corner if we could,” the mayor said of the controversial cameras that trigger tickets to drivers caught running red lights.

“If people didn’t go through red lights, you’d save a lot of lives of elderly and kids,” Hizzoner told reporters Monday during a press conference.

Bloomberg was responding to a Daily News report on the $52 million in fines the city issued last year to drivers caught by cameras – really a $55 million haul with penalties included.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Yahoo News.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed” despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors’ rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.

“No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. “But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the Charlotte Observer.

Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.

But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees.

“We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don’t want to worry about them hanging down in the way,” said Sales, a church member.

The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.

CONTINUED..

*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 will be broken into five parts with each being released a few days apart. This is due to the size of the article.

1. Introduction:

Progressivism is a political philosophy for fucking losers, much like socialism. If you don’t believe me, look at presidents Timmy Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delanus Roosevelt, Lyndon Buttplug Johnson and Barack Hoe-train Obama: all fucking losers. Oh, you think some of them were great leaders and awesome POTUSes? Well, that is because the propaganda mill that educated you wanted you to leave with that impression. There is a lot that those shitty ass “education” factories left out of their pseudohistory lessons. Contrary to what they want you to believe, these White House douchenuts were the worst presidents in history (after Lincoln of course). Although, Obama isn’t finished yet. Then again, there is absolutely no way in Hades that he can turn this shit around. His progressive train left the station long ago and he’s still chucking logs into the furnace like a fiend for hellish speed.

These presidents were so bad, that they should put all four of their heads on a mountain in the Dakota Territory and call it “Mount Suckmore”. I find it to be ridiculous that three of the four are continually rated in several top ten lists. Then again, Lincoln usually takes the number one spot and he was the worst tyrant we ever knew. This is what happens though. To steal an old adage, “History is written by the winners.” In this case, those winners were tyrants. It should be no surprise really, that they have all been the heroes pimped out by leftist propaganda. Obama is just the newest “hero” in a long line of liberty smashers. Unfortunately for him though, he’s pissing off the lefties and the propagandists may not paint history in his favor when it is all said and done. Then again Obamacare is so tyrannical and evil that it is a massive win for the Progressive Movement.

Just like Obamacare, FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were both horrendous monsters that allowed the progressive beast to grow to a size not easily defeatable or even manageable. However, just like their architects, these legislative leviathans have been misrepresented as high points throughout American history. In reality, they bind the wrists of freedom and asphyxiate liberty.

2. Stage One – Theodore Roosevelt and the Roots of Progressivism:

“Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy.” -Theodore Roosevelt

I didn’t mention him in the introduction because I do have some respect for him but one can’t dissect the history of the Progressive Movement without first taking note of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a Republican, which is interesting as the Progressive Movement is typically related to the Democratic Party. Then again, Teddy did break away from the Republicans and formed the Progressive Party a.k.a. the Bull Moose Party after his presidency. His third party was instrumental in inadvertently getting one of the United States’ biggest tyrants elected. That tyrant was progressive beast Thomas Woodrow Wilson. More on Wilson in the next part of this article.

In 1900, progressivism was the political ideology of the day. Big Ted believed that he needed to build a bridge between big business and the labor force. He called this project the “Square Deal”. Whether it was intended to or not, the Square Deal kick-started class warfare like never before. You see, the Square Deal had three objectives: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations and consumer protection. While all seem like they were created with good intentions, each of these objectives created regulations and chains that forced freedom down a path of governmental restraint.

While the Square Deal was intended to help the middle class, it, like every other meddling piece of progressive legislation, created a bigger rift between the classes and gave birth to the blame game. The “haves” versus the “have nots ” was the war now being fought by the citizens of the freest nation on Earth. This philosophy of rich versus poor would carry on to modern times and provide just the right type of justification for progressives to continually meddle in our lives. In fact, the blame game has evolved into one of their sharpest weapons.

Big Ted declared that the Square Deal would treat both sides fairly. He promised that his baby would help the middle class, combat plutocracy and bad trusts while simultaneously protecting businesses from the extreme demands of labor unions. Teddy, as intelligent and well-versed in just about everything, must have never heard the English idiomatic proverb that states: “To have one’s cake and eat it too.” Also, George Orwell hadn’t yet published “1984″ so the concept of “doublethink” was probably unknown to Teddy.

The roots of progressivism came from the Roosevelt administration. The Square Deal as well as the Elkins Act and other policies of the day created a new government mentality that led to politicians overstepping their bounds in an effort to micromanage every facet of American society. Even the most trivial issues became the federal government’s business. What was once a power reserved for the states, that being anything not covered in the Constitution, became the federal government’s business. Tyranny was running wild but most people were on board with it because they did not heed the warnings of the Founding Fathers and they had not yet experienced a severe loss of liberty. Government regulation in America was nil before 1900, therefore Americans had no way to know where all this would lead. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.

Teddy, like the progressive leaders after him, was critical of many of the Founding Fathers and thought it was his place to force Americans into a sort of evolution away from the Constitution. He believed that in his modern age, it was time to change with the times. Apparently the basic simple outlines in the Bill of Rights were too hard for the super genius to understand. Truth is, the way that the Constitution is written is so simple and so straight forward, at least the first Ten Amendments. It can be easily applied to life and the evolution of our world, our society and our culture at any time.

The Square Deal was an attack against the ideals of the Founding Fathers. I don’t feel that Big Ted did this in a malicious way or to undermine the Constitution. I think he just believed that a century old document was too outdated and that the Industrial Revolution and American Exceptionalism changed the country so drastically that the prophetic messages and warning of the Founding Fathers had become nothing more than ancient words from a dead age. I think Theodore Roosevelt had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, his style of government would evolve into an even larger movement that would cause liberty to decay and whither.

Roosevelt’s biggest accomplishments according to historians, apart from the Square Deal, were the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Hepburn Act. All three of these achievements also came with pretty heinous consequences.

The Meat Inspection Act was a huge milestone in United States food and drug law. The act forced companies to have to comply with new standards on how meat was supposed to be handled. In theory this sounds fantastic but in practice it has a negative impact on liberty. I am not saying that there shouldn’t be standards, there should be, but why do they have to be regulated by the government? Private agencies could easily do the job and most likely, they could do it much better. We as customers have a right to know what we are buying but it is not the government’s job to force the provider of those goods to comply with the threats of fines, shutdown or prison. People are educated enough to make these decisions themselves and the private sector is perfectly capable of finding a non-governmental solution. The same goes for Big Ted’s Pure Food and Drug Act.

Now the Hepburn Act is something else entirely. Essentially what the act did was give the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the power to set maximum railroad rates. If this isn’t an attack on liberty, I don’t know what is. This act also ended the free passes and special discounts that railroad companies could give to their largest and most loyal shippers. The ICC was also granted the power to look at the financial records of any railroad company they saw fit. The Hepburn Act also extended the ICC’s authority to unprecedented levels. Not only did they oversee the railroad industry’s finances but they also had power over railroad sleeping cars, bridges, terminals, ferries, express companies and oil pipelines. The Hepburn Act created a budding police state that had a negative impact on the free market and thwarted the possibility of having a true capitalist system.

In regards to the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Hepburn Act conservative Republican writer Lewis L. Gould stated that Teddy was “consciously, or unconsciously … trying to concentrate all power in Washington, to practically wipe out state lines, and to govern the people by commissions and bureaus.”

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute wrote about these issues in the article “Theodore Roosevelt and the Modern Presidency“. In that article he writes about award-winning writer Albro Martin’s take on the Hepburn Act:

The results were devastating. In a book that earned the Columbia University Prize in American Economic History in 1971, Albro Martin described the situation in detail. His thesis, stated simply, is that Roosevelt’s Hepburn Act, combined with subsequent regulatory enactments — in particular William Howard Taft’s Mann–Elkins Act of 1910 — deprived the railroads of the rate increases they needed, an especially debilitating handicap in an inflationary atmosphere. The railroads needed investment capital following the reorganizations of the 1890s if they were to preserve their capital stock, to rebuild, and to modernize. In other words, they needed to be left alone. Instead they got policies that both increased labor costs and refused the rate increases they needed. The result was that by 1911 profits had vanished, and the collapse of the system of private management of the railroads followed soon afterwards.

You see, these methods of Big Ted’s were catastrophic. Yet, people latched on to these progressive ideas. I’d like to think that it was because of the fact that these tactics were never tried in America at that time and that the people just didn’t know better. However, people still support these types of methods and our country is in a sinkhole of shit because of it. These policies fail again and again but for whatever reason, they are deemed successes and the Beltway Suits just continue down the treacherous path of tyranny.

There are many other issues of note about Roosevelt and his progressive insanity but I cannot even begin to cover them all in this article. With that said, it is time to move a bit forward in time and examine the second stage of the progressive beast’s development.

3. Stage Two – Woodrow Wilson and the Rise of Wilsonian Tyranny:

“You are not here merely to prepare to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.” - Woodrow Wilson

This article is continued in PART II

*Written by Tho Bishop.

A public school in Chicago has put in place a new policy that increases the role the State plays in the lives of young Americans. The Chicago Tribune reports the school no longer allows kids to pack their own lunches without a documented medical excuse. The reason? To save children from the irresponsible dietary decisions of their parents. Meanwhile, in Florida, State Legislatures are said to be close to passing a law that would ban saggy pants. Perhaps “E Pluribus Unum” should be replaced with “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato.”

Elsa Carmona, the principal at Little Village Academy and person responsible for the lunch ban, claims she is only looking to do what is best for her students. “Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school. It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom).” It seems the kids may have a different opinion on the quality of the school provided lunches. The Tribune reports that, “During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.”

As typical with heavy-handed government policy, an arbitrary regulation leads to tragic unforeseen consequences. Kids who don’t like the school’s signature slop are reduced to going hungry or risk any disciplinary measures that are included with the new policy.

Though many would argue that the freedom to eat what you would like is more important than defending the ability to sag, the likely to be implemented Florida law does more than simply require violators to pull up their pants. A student caught out of code could face in-school-suspension, an indication that legislatures place a higher value on students confirming to arbitrary law than actual intellectual enlightenment. Even this punishment doesn’t go far enough for State Senator Gary Siplin, who proposed a bill in 2005 that would have made the possession of sagging pants a second-degree misdemeanor. Possible punishment? Up to $50 in fines and ten days in jail. A choice of fashion leading to incarceration – the State at work.

This is the progressive ideal in action, force individuals into the institutions of government (public schools) and then use those services to regulate their actions. Students will eat what the State wants them to eat. Students will dress how the State wants them to dress. Students will learn what the State wants them to learn. And all for the good of those students! “It makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of kids will be able to do a lot more with two hands,” says one government advocate for the pants law.

These incidents are not without some beneficial results.  As is so often the case, totalitarian rule sparks open rebellion.  In Chicago we are treated with the wonderful sight of students discovering the righteous cause of liberty. I give you Fernando Dominguez, a new personal hero of mine. The seventh-grader and new freedom fighter is fighting the dietary oppression. “Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?” asks our young rebel in both English and Spanish. The question is followed by the chants of his supporters, “We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!” I can’t help but smile at the image.

Another student articulates the logic of liberalism. Says Yesenia Gutierrez, “They’re afraid that we’ll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won’t be as good as what they give us at school. It’s really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they’d bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food.”

Government once again proves to be the best advocate for its opposition by overstepping any rational boundary. Students have been joined by their parents in criticizing the ban on outside lunches. Said one parent, “Some of the kids don’t like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast. So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something.”

And asked what they would prefer for lunch, the students demonstrate the unique preferences of individuals. Seventh Grader Ashley Valdez wants Subway. Second-grader Gerardo Ramos says he would “bring a banana, orange and some grapes.”Fourth-grader Eric Sanchez? “I would bring a juice and like a sandwich.” And perhaps the most honest of the bunch, second-grader Julian Ruiz responded, “Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff, but sometimes I would bring Lunchables.”

I have often been critical of the quality of education in public schools; inadvertently, the actions of overreaching government officials may give these affected students an important lesson – the value of individual freedom.