Archive for category History

Tea Party Fascism

Book worm as Right Wing News has an interesting article about why his liberal friends denounce him as a Fascist:

Given that the Tea Party is about lessening, rather than increasing, government’s power over its citizens, calling me a fascist or a Nazi seems like a misnomer of almost heroic prop0rtions.  Yet my liberal friend is well-educated, as are most of the other so-called liberals tossing those insults around with such abandon. Read the rest of this entry »


, , ,

Leave a comment

The New Deal Myth

Jay Wiley at American Thinker takes a look at the myth that Democrats still push that the New Deal somehow saved us from the Great Depression:

The New Deal was a menagerie of federal programs and bureaucracies based on the Keynesian economic theory that increased government spending would stimulate the economy. This theory necessitated more government intervention in and control over the American economy. This dovetailed nicely with the Left’s political agenda.

The prevailing historical narrative of the New Deal casts FDR as champion of economic justice through “bold” and “dynamic” government regulation of the economy. Of course, every good story needs a villain, and critics of the Keynesian approach were cast as greedy, self-interested capitalist thugs. FDR’s cosmopolitan, forward-looking approach was meant to draw a sharp contrast to the outdated and unjust laissez-faire economic model. This was progress.


The truth is that the experimentalism of the New Deal was an ineffective mess that further tangled the knot of the Great Depression.

After years of unprecedented economic intervention by Roosevelt, competition was stifled, investment plummeted, restrictive cartelization abounded, industrial production stagnated, and budget deficits skyrocketed. Wage controls and new union contracts limited the number of new workers private-sector employers could hire, leaving unemployment to hover around 20%.

Government being government, the New Deal was plagued by staggering inefficiency and red tape. Many New Deal programs were to be administered by local officials with agendas, constituencies, relationships, and governing philosophies of their own.

Roosevelt’s lack of imagination was also startling. He governed as though a new agency or bureaucracy were tantamount to a new solution. The federal government took on a new role in the 1930s as insurer against poverty, recession, and even human want itself — a sharp deviation from Jeffersonian principles of freedom from government. The result was an exponential growth of government, a restriction of economic freedom, and an economic downturn lasting far longer than usual.

And despite the fact that such a massive imposition of the government on the economy was such an abject an abysmal failure, the Democrats are hoping that if they try it again, it will work splendidly!

Read the whole thing.

, , , ,

1 Comment

The Negro Project

Kathleen McKinley at Right Wing News reminds us of something that the Left wants us to forget: that Planned Parenthood, the brainchild of racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, had its origins in a project intended to abort minority babies and reduce minority populations.

Ron Miller writes about how he believes that Planned Parenthood’s “Negro Project” lives on.

What is The Negro Project? It was a project created by Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger in the 1940s. She wanted to build birth control clinics in black neighborhoods. Abortion was still considered the horror that it is. It wasn’t considered then. Her goal was to control the “breeding” of blacks. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

Leave a comment

Obama’s Fear of the Creator

Brian Garst at Right Wing News comments on Obama’s repeated ommission of the phrase “endowed by their Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence:

Obama believes that the state is the originator of all “rights.”  He believes that it’s perfectly valid for him to get together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and declare that free health care is a “right.” But rights don’t work that way. The danger of this statist view is that, what the state giveth, it can taketh away.  A state that can create “rights” out of thin air can erase them just as easily. Think you have a right to self defense? Not if Obama and the gun haters get their way. Think you have a right to your property? Not when the redistributionists decide that it’s unfair for you to have more while others have less. This is why Obama refuses to acknowledge the origins of our rights, and why his deliberate ignorance is so dangerous. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Leave a comment

Tea Party Hippies

Outdoing himself yet again, Zombie has this excellent article comparing the underlying philosophy of the Tea Party to that of the early Hippie Movement, before it was co-opted by communists and other collectivists:

If you, as a hippie, think the thesis of this essay couldn’t possibly be true, you’ve been paying too much attention to the mainstream media. The Tea Party has been intentionally misrepresented, villainized and smeared by the powers-that-be. But this too is a feature that the Tea Party shares with hippies — the hippie movement was itself misrepresented and smeared by a different mainstream media over 40 years ago.

This essay will elucidate in a fresh way how Tea Partiers are the true heirs to the hippie ethos. When you’ve finished reading, you’ll see the Tea Party in a new light and (hopefully) understand that you may have been on the wrong side of the fence until now.

In short, the Tea Party and the hippie movement share four fundamental core values:
• A craving for independence;
• a celebration of individualism;
• joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency;
• and an acceptance of the natural order of things.

And excellent article, including an elaboration on political theory that introduces an axis of constructed versus innate human nature to the political spectrum:

The horizontal axis measures “government control,” ranging from a desire for less governmental power at one end of the scale, over to a desire for more governmental control at the other end of the scale. Most of you will understand this axis intuitively. But the vertical axis is a little more subtle, but also more eye-opening: it delineates people’s beliefs about human nature. At one end is the assumption that human nature is innate — that our personalities and other essential human attributes are built-in, unchangeable, and naturally occurring. At the other end is the belief that everything about humans is “constructed” — that we only are the way we are because of the particular cultural environment surrounding us, and that as a result people can be changed, through indoctrination, education, and/or alteration of the culture itself.

A great addition to the political spectrum, and I’d love to see it added as a third axis to the grid system that the Libertarians use with personal liberty on one axis and economic liberty on another.

Read the whole thing here.

, ,

Leave a comment

Happy Columbus Day!

In my hometown, every year on Columbus Day communist propagandists activists from Haskell University have an anti-Christopher Columbus parade down the main drag. In the latest efforts by the Left to smear American history, Columbus has been depicted as an evil, greedy, despicable man who is personally responsible for genocide on a massive scale. Since America wouldn’t exists without the explorations of this man, he is reviled by the left as it desperately tries to portray him as the embodiment of evil.

Now, Columbus wasn’t a perfect man. He apparently had a history of drinking and gambling. Yes, he was a bit of an imperialist, but who wasn’t in 1492? But he was nowhere near as horrible as the Left portrays him. (Note the author of this piece — it should come as no surprise that Columbus is portrayed as a Nazi, and that the allusions and most of the history presented here are nonsense.)

Anthony Hager at American Thinker takes the time to dismiss another fantasy of the Left’s view of Columbus: the idea that the America were a romantic, peaceful paradise before the evil Europeans came along: Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Progressive Feudalism

Since I read the Communist Manifesto, I have been trying to decide just what differentiates Socialism from feudalism. Aside from justifying rule based on Divine Right, I haven’t been able to come up with much of significance. Socialism supports an elite aristocracy and relegates the masses to submit to and support that aristocracy, and aside from the rhetoric of freeing the masses from wage slavery and the imposition of absurdly and obviously flawed economic models, erroneous assumptions about human nature, and the need to lie constantly about what is actually being implemented, I cannot see any real difference between a socialism society and a feudal one.

Finally, I’m not alone, and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker supports this idea much more thoroughly than I ever have:

The changes wrought on the American political economy by progressives have taken us in the unmistakable direction of feudalism. The morphological resemblance between the progressive version of America and the historic feudal regimes of Western Europe and Japan is obvious if one takes a few moments to consider the changes in the proper context.

Read the whole thing.

, , ,

1 Comment