Tax Day 2010 - Getting Ready for the Next Depression

Tax Day is here and while protests are taking place all over the country, we would do well to realize that April 15, 2010 may be something to celebrate only because these will be the lowest tax rates you will see for the foreseeable future. The spending spree brought on by the election of Barack Obama has accelerated the American free-fall into debt and the lending machine we have been using to finance our deficits has finally warned us that they are about to pull the emergency brake handle; bringing it all to a screeching halt. Think of it…our nation has spent so much money that we have not only exhausted our own ability to finance it, but the ability for an entire pool of foreign nation’s to lend us the difference. That is quite a feat and certainly qualifies as the primary definition of Obama’s proclamation that he would “fundamentally transform” America.

What has happened here? In the timeline of human events it wasn’t all that long ago when we were a nation that innovated self-reliance; which was the catalyst that sparked the solutions to every one of our difficulties. There is a long history of financial cycles where business and employment waxed and waned but the free market responded with dynamic solutions; not under the watchful eye of government, but because government was not involved at all. Today, that dynamic structure is shackled by the heavy hand of government regulatory control.

As the Twentieth Century approached, America found itself allured by the false promises of European thinkers. Progressives had entered the scene armed with the teachings of Marx, Engels and Nietzsche hoping to create an America that could coalesce power under a strong central government with the authority to pool the nation’s resources together to provide a base standard of living for all. Our first truly Progressive President was Theodore Roosevelt and while he didn’t have the power to bring about the change that he wanted to see, he certainly planted the seeds of Marxism thinly veiled behind the uniquely American label of Progressivism. What Roosevelt did do was to create the precedent of creating administrative agencies under a loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause. After all, if you could tweak America’s understanding of the constitutional authority for Congress to “regulate” commerce, then nearly anything could be brought under Federal control.

Woodrow Wilson would be the next Progressive President to assault the Constitution and is in fact, the most damaging. As a man who considered himself a “Progressive intellectual”, Wilson began the process of radicalizing America and using the precedent established by Theodore Roosevelt, created the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Farm Loan Act and of course, the Progressive Income Tax to pay for it all. Curiously, there was no constitutional authority to create any of those programs but since Roosevelt had already started the vilification of the Corporation; it was an easy sale to convince America that it just needed to be done. Of course, since these programs added to the Federal budget that gave Wilson the ability to institute the Progressive Income Tax because the Constitution allows Congress to collect taxes to pay for the debts of government. Incidentally, when the Progressive Income Tax became law, it was promised that the top marginal rate would never exceed 10% and most Americans would accept a minor tax to provide for such important programs.

Wilson narrowly won his second term in 1916 by promising America that he would keep us out of the unpopular war that was raging in Europe; a promise that he would break less than a year later. The war expenditures created the economic conditions that would have Wilson break another promise in short order, when he raised the top marginal income tax rate to 77% to pay for America’s war debt. Wilson’s actions crippled business and investment and led directly to the unknown depression of 1920. The reason it is called the unknown depression is that while there is plenty of data available about this calamity; none of the facts are particularly flattering to Wilson or the Progressive movement so it is simply not discussed in schools, the press or academia. Worse news for our Progressive friends is that the facts surrounding our recovery from that depression soundly refute Progressive policy. President Warren Harding recognized the damage done by Wilson’s wild tax increases and responded by halving Federal spending and eventually reducing the top marginal tax rate to 25%. Within two years, the nation’s economy rebounded and the “Roaring Twenties” had been born.

Progressive Herbert Hoover became President in 1929 and as though he had no recollection of the damages wrought by Woodrow Wilson, immediately sought to use his Presidency to bring about more transformative change. Hoover began by closing what he called “tax loopholes” for the rich and could probably be credited for creating the open war against wealth that modern Progressives use to sway the general population’s support for any program or policy that will punish evil wealth and better the lives of average Americans with the proceeds. Hoover also raised tariffs and farm subsidies while increasing Federal expenditures for public projects such as veteran’s hospitals that for the first time thrust our medical system into a direct an unfair competition with the Federal government. Hoover also cancelled oil leases on government lands (does that sound familiar?); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; created an anti-trust division within the department of justice and generally saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism.

It wasn’t a year before the nation slipped back into fiscal chaos as the bottom fell out of the stock market in 1929. Failing to learn the lessons set by Warren Harding in the early 1920’s, Hoover implemented huge public spending projects and raised the top marginal tax rate to 63% in 1932 throwing the nation into a full fledged depression. The Depression allowed the next great Progressive President his shot at transformative change; Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although Roosevelt had accused Hoover of spending and taxing the nation into depression, FDR immediately began his bid to tax and spend the nation out of depression. Yeah, that didn’t make sense to me either but that is what happens when Progressives control what you read, hear and learn. The lessons of history become lost in the fog of “intellectual rhetoric”.

In the midst of a crippling depression, FDR created a huge new Federal entitlement program (Social Security) and saddled us with a labor relations act that would legitimize collective bargaining. He is also the first President that advocated the establishment of a second “bill of rights” that would enumerate certain economic rights that were unnervingly similar to the rights listed in the Constitution adopted by the Communist regime of the Soviet Union. Fortunate, we dodged that bullet or we may be a very different nation today. In a slight of hand, FDR balanced the regular budget but the “emergency budget” created to combat the depression had increased Federal spending from 8% of GDP under Hoover to 10.2% under Roosevelt. As a result, the National Debt increased more than 100% and was 40% of GDP by 1936. To pay for all this spending FDR raised the top tax rate to an insane 79% in 1936 and Truman would continue this ultimately topping out at 94% after World War II.

While FDR’s programs caused a brief drop in unemployment from 25% when he assumed office to 14% in 1937, the tax hikes and new government programs would take their toll and create a new depression within a depression, throwing more people out of work. FDR’s programs are widely credited for ending the depression, which is the white-washed and revised history offered by Progressive historians that again, want to conceal that Progressivism, like its Socialist sister; does not work. The Depression would not end until World War II when the American industrial base was the only untouched manufacturing center left standing and if you wanted to buy anything, you had to buy it here. Of course modern Progressive’s use the artificial manufacturing boom of the ‘50’s to justify higher income tax rates. After all, if the nation had economic expansion with a top marginal tax rate of 94%; doesn’t that negate the validity of the cuts imposed by Harding? Well, since the economic expansion was based on an artificial and temporary demand, those Progressive assumptions must be equally artificial.

So now it’s 2010 and we have another Progressive in the White House and this Progressive is as corrupt, evil and devious as Woodrow Wilson was. While Barack Obama is seemingly ignorant of the historic solutions that are proven to relieve financial problems on a national scale, this Progressive has a willing band of co-conspirators holding absolute control over the Congress making his regime particularly dangerous. Ronald Reagan understood what needed to be done but by then, the Federal agencies created by the Progressives of the early and mid- twentieth century had become so powerful, and the misinformation fed to the general population was so complete that not even the charismatic “great communicator” could restore the Federal government to its basic and most successful roots.

While 2010 may be the lowest taxes we will see in a long time history has taught us that we must now brace for a new “Great Depression” as Obama continues to make the same mistakes that all of his Progressive predecessors made. In his case, I sincerely question whether his actions are actually mistakes. We may be witnessing the only Progressive President that truly understands the history of his actions and is intent on using them to complete the work started by Theodore Roosevelt to create an America based on the principals of Marx, Engels and Nietzsche. God help us all.

Paul

Who is Saul Alinsky?

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews calls him “one of our heroes from the past”; Barack Obama taught his theories in college; Hillary Clinton even wrote her college thesis about him. So who is Saul Alinsky and why should we be suspect of anyone that doesn’t grimace at the mention of his name?

Saul Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, and while he never had clear associations to any political party but instead, as Alinsky biographer David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left. Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration familiar to anyone that lived through the 1960s.

His tactics have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. Alinsky, in essence, created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" that is the main underpinning for modern Progressives. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results” which is little more than a rewording of the Marxist doctrine that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.

According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?"

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop his concept of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he gained notoriety as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) which only lends credence to the notion that the ultimate goal of Progressives is the globalization of politics and the unification of the world under a single, socialist style government.

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a cleaner, less threatening word for “revolution”. Not just any revolution but a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is a systematic cultivation of power by a supposedly oppressed segment of the population and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. Isn’t it curious that Barack Obama chose the phrase that we were “five days away from fundamentally changing the United States” just before the 2008 election?

The goal, according to Alinsky, is to create enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted; a revolution whose foot soldiers view America’s Capitalist system as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than the current system’s complete collapse which would be followed by an entirely new system built upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. Can you think of any “charismatic radical organizers that profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed”? Naw….Obama just said he’s not an ideologue so that must be strictly coincidence….right?

We are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations (like ACORN?) to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

Alinsky did not mean the sweeping upheaval as was witnessed in 1917 Russia but instead, viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin who viewed the demoralization and eventual collapse of the West as best accomplished through a “Trojan Horse” tactic; rotting the mighty oak of Capitalism with a disease from within.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care when they first unveil their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of defiant demeanor or menacing appearances that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. Alinsky added, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism; They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies.

Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers. “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly!”; but to Alinsky, it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.

Alinsky viewed the role of the organizer as supremely important; a master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God. Perhaps that explains the unbelievable statement Obama made during a campaign stop when he said that people would have an epiphany; that a light will descend upon on them and tell them that they must vote for Barack Obama.

I could go on for a week and still not be through with Alinsky but there is enough here to spell out who he was, what he believed in and the incredible parallels to the actions and words of Barack Obama. There are reams of information out there on Alinsky not to mention his books and writings that can complete the picture far better than I can. One thing I will add is that you must always remember that this man; this unapologetic radical, is the man that Barack Obama emulates; Hillary Clinton studied and Chris Mathews worships. If you do forget this, you forget not at your own peril, but at the peril of our nation.

Paul

The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism....

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Tomorrow: Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Paul