fdr (10)

It was impossible to post this article here. Please go to the website using this url


We discuss not only the fascinating history of the Monroe Doctrine (Abe Lincoln was the first to invoke it) but why it is applicable to Venezuela. This article was listed as one of the top Google stories.

Read more…


Is Trickle-Up Poverty the New Prosperity?


           While being assaulted on all sides with Barack Obama’s “trickle-up poverty” and other progressive government boondoggles like Obamacare on top of trillion-dollar national deficits as far as the eye can see and well beyond . . . a strange new phenomenon has emerged to further muddy the waters already obscuring our future hopes. China is now selling off American debt and ridding itself of dollars so that now the largest holder of American debt is . . . drum roll, please, Maestro! . . . the United States Federal Reserve Banking System. Yes, you read that correctly. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is now in the voodoo economics business all the way up to his fuzzy skull.  

           Over the last three months, China has sold roughly $19 billion in treasury bonds and other U.S. debt instruments. China, in other words, has become concerned about the sheer size of the U.S. overall debt and the high probability that the Federal Reserve’s unceasing money printing for the last twenty-nine months has debased and devalued the world’s reserve currency for ‘lo these last 60+ years: the American Dollar. Looking back in history that’s exactly what happened to the British Pound Sterling which had been the World’s Reserve Currency for over two hundred years until the Brits ousted Winston Churchill with World War II still not entirely won and brought in their Labour (progressive-liberal) Party to run the show. Labour inflated their once proud currency so much that the citizens and nations of the world began dumping the Pound and fleeing for gold, silver, the gold-backed Swiss Franc and most commonly for the American Dollar.

            The American Federal Reserve now standing as the largest holder of U.S. Treasury debt means that financing Obama’s third trillion-dollar federal budget deficit in succession has become something the rest of the world has begun to shy away from. China is still the largest foreign-holder of American debt, but the Chinese seem determined to remove their names from the top of that dubious list (other top foreign holders of U.S. debt instruments include: Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, Korea, England, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia). It also suggests that faith and trust in the “Almighty Buck” may be reaching a low-ebb.

            Unlike hard money (gold and silver) and all hard-money backed currencies such as the Swiss Franc and the Kruggerand-backed South African money . . . paper money has zero intrinsic value . . . it only exists and continues to serve so long as people trust the government issuing the paper bills (and that goes double for a nation’s paper debt instruments).    Bernanke has run the printing pressings so long that on a sheer mathematical basis the dollar of today is technically worth only as much as 3.4 pennies compared to the dollar of late 2008 when the financial crisis reached its low spot and the U.S. government started stepping in. What’s going on here? Why is Bernanke printing so much money?

            Bernanke is a well-known student of the Great Depression and has written numerous articles suggesting that the reason the Great Depression turned from a “little-d depression” into a “capital-G/capital-D Great Depression” is because there was never sufficient money in circulation to head off relentless deflation. That is, he believes a vicious-circle of deflation was created and that the continuous dropping of prices fed off itself and destroyed jobs which destroyed buying power which destroyed businesses which destroyed more jobs, etc., etc. 

            There is some truth to what Mr. Bernanke suggests . . . but it’s a lot like yanking your starting pitcher off the mound with the score going from 2-1 in the 6th to 8-1 against you in the 8th . . . once so much damage has been done . . . almost nothing will work. Perhaps the twirler should have been sent to the showers when he looked tired after 120 pitches before the start of the 7th?  Or after he’d allowed a home run and walked the next two batters with no outs in the 7th? Poor decisions early in a process can make finding good decisions later . . . very, very difficult.

            Rajjpuut suggests a different reading of history is more accurate.    Almost precisely a full decade before the infamous 1929 stock market crash we had a depression start-up that 98% of Americans never heard about. Progressive Woodrow Wilson’s so-called “Invisible Depression” started in late 1919 and was full-blown by the time Warren G. Harding was elected in November, 1920; and much worse when Harding took office in March of 1921 (they had a four-month Lame-Duck session in those days). Production had already dropped nation-wide by 26%. Ignoring the suggestions of his Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover for immediate implementation of numerous government aid programs and other subsidies . . . Harding did only four things:


1.       Cut government spending by 48%

2.      Cut taxes by 49%

3.      Paid down the nation’s debt by 30%

4.       Slashed government regulatory interference across the board


            In fifteen months the economy had rebounded mightily (just a couple months later,  Harding died in office so he barely got to enjoy his success). The United States was now well into the “Roaring Twenties” the most single prosperous rebound of any economy in the recorded history of the planet. Calvin Coolidge, Harding’s vice-president continued the Harding policies faithfully, but chose “not to run” in 1928.   One of the most popular men in America and a famous philanthropist and author, Herbert Hoover ran for the presidency for the Republicans and won in a landslide over Democrat Al Smith.  Only three men in history have become president of the U.S. without extensive military or business executive or elected experience: Taft, Obama and Hoover.

            Hoover was a famous geologist and mining engineer who married the daughter of a rich banker.  He believed mightily in the “Efficiency Movement” (if you’ve read Cheaper by the Dozen, the father, Frank Gilbreth, was founder of the Efficiency Movement) and believed that the economy was riddled with waste and inefficiency which could be dramatically improved by “experts” like him once they identified the problems and solved them. Hoover became, according to the New York Times “one of the Ten Most Important Living Americans” for his charitable and humanitarian work during World War I.  

            Hoover administered distribution of over two and one-half million tons of food to nine million war victims and was later named head of the brand new U.S. Food administration by Woodrow Wilson when the country entered the War. A member of the Supreme Economic Council after the war, as well as head of the American Relief Administration he continued organizing shipments to millions of starving people in Central Europe.  A well-known philanthropist, Hoover like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson was like them a self-described “Progressive and Reformer.”

             He came to be known as “Wonder-Boy” during the Harding-Coolidge administrations for his notorious and comical lust for expanding portions of everybody else’s bailiwicks into new roles for the Commerce Department. The reporters of his day called Hoover, "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!" Long before he had entered politics he had abandoned laissez-faire economic thinking. Outside of engineering and charitable work he was a terrible micro-manager always on the look out to fix what wasn’t broken.  History shows that Hoover did one very important thing as Commerce Secretary:  he codified and standardized traffic lights across the nation. 

              As soon as he was elected president Hoover set about planning the undoing of much of the good work created by Coolidge and Harding.   He raised government spending and taxes and debt.  He initiated numerous “eleemosynary” style federal activities (reminiscent of his charitable work in World War I) to protect workers and farmers and businesses from the natural vicissitudes of the free market economy. His biggest mistake was instituting a huge tariff designed to protect American farm workers from foreign competition but remove such protections from business; the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was to cause great consternation in the business world. The agricultural tariff increase was the second highest in U.S. history and put a lot of people out of work. Overall, once the stock market crashed in 1929, Hoover instituted the biggest big-government policies the nation had ever seen.

             Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who had once praised Hoover in 1919 and tried to get him to run as the Democratic presidential candidate) and his v-p running mate Garner accused Hoover of being a socialist and promised that when elected they would:


1.      Cut government spending severely

2.      Cut taxes dramatically

3.      Pay down the nation’s debt

4.       Slashed government regulatory interference across the board and eliminate many of the socialistic programs of Hoover


          Since these amounted to little more than promises to do what Harding had succeeded with in 1921, people embraced FDR and he won in a landslide taking office in March 1933. History shows that the bottom of the Great Depression was reached in July, 1933, and the bottom of our own “Great Recession” was reached in March, 2009, in each case shortly after the new president took office. Ordinarily the expectation is that after the bottom is reached, prosperity begins to return within six months. In both FDR’s and Barack Obama’s cases, however, government interference made things much, much worse.

          FDR, of course, did exactly the opposite of what he promised. He dramatically raised taxes and government spending and debt and deficits. He expanded all of Hoover’s social and economic programs and added 40 of his own (just one law in 2010, Obamacare, created 384 new government agencies, so FDR was a piker compared to Barack) and made big government a way of life. He also confiscated gold coinage and then instituted an overnight inflation of 69% by pegging the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce (he’d given the citizens just $20.76) impoverishing the taxpayers while enriching the government. Of course doing what Harding did and avoiding what Hoover and FDR did is just common sense . . . something seemingly beyond Obama and Bernanke . . . .

          In June, 2009, when the full-folly of the Obama policies began to outline themselves in sharp contrast to common sense . . . the Chinese held $896 billion in American debt; today they hold $764 billion a 15% reduction in greenback holdings. Since an outright flooding of the market with U.S. debt notes would destroy China as well as the U.S., it seems the Chinese are now buying up gold and silver in large quantities and making an orderly retreat from the dollar – leaving our suspect currency in the hands of less astute nations and of Ben Bernanke. Since the American trade deficit with China alone reached a record $273.1 Billion in 2010, the Chinese are going to have to work awfully hard to keep lowering their dollar holdings . . . so one suspects that gold and silver will continue to rise quickly.

          Bernanke’s monetary policy, known as “Quantitative Easing” a.k.a. “irresponsibly printing money,” has seen the Federal Reserve recently buy up $600 billion worth of Treasury debt. Big Ben’s plan is to hold down interest rates and thus help lower the cost of federal government borrowing (to cover the Obama deficits) and incidentally increase inflation which he believes will stimulate economic growth and create jobs. This is a very Keynesian economic philosophy. In the months prior to his death in 1946, John Maynard Keynes (as the ending of the British Pound Sterling’s  200- year reign as the world’s reserve currency approached) who had long preached against the classical economic wisdom of Adam Smith and Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace,” like an atheist seeking God at the last hour repented . . . .

          As Britain’s economic hole under the progressive Labor Party deepened, and his own death drew near, Keynes told Henry Clay of the Bank of England of his hopes that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” would somehow save the English economy and yank Britain out of the economic swamp it found itself in: "I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the ‘invisible hand’ which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." The inflation destroyed the Pound Sterling as the Labor Party continued with government largesse and Keynes’ deathbed conversion went to naught.

          Here in America recent spikes in food prices and energy costs are a direct consequence of Bernanke’s unofficial devaluation of the dollar. The government continues under-reporting of inflation assisted by the Labor Statistics Bureau’s refusal to include fluctuations in prices of food and energy. Bernanke, however, believes that deflation is still the rule and continues to inflate the currency to avoid a second Great Depression. Since job creation by the private sector is the key, perhaps the government ought to try: cutting spending; cutting taxes; eliminating debt; and getting the government out of the way of the free market . . . oops, that’s been mentioned before . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



Read more…



Americans Now Learning Real History,

Might NOT Have to Repeat Ill-Effects

A recent Rasmussen Reports Survey seems to show that Americans are starting to understand that the country was NOT rescued from the Great Depression by government spending and government policies (a.k.a. interference in the free markets), but rather that the government actually cost the nation millions of  jobs, intensified a normal recession with its increased spending, creating and lengthening the depression and eventually turning it into the “Great Depression.” The lesson, however, is not necessarily transferring into a greater understanding of today’s economics . . . .



According to the Rasmussen survey, 43% now say that government policy mistakes created the Great Depression of the ‘30s; while only 26% disagree and 31% say they are unsure. Americans, today however, are still greatly confused about the cause of the financial meltdown which, they think, began about October, 2007. More on that later . . . .

Despite the Rasmussen poll results, thanks to two and a half generations of revisionist history ,today far too many Americans still believe that Herbert Hoover was  a) a conservative rather than a progressive  b) that greedy Wall Street created the Great Depression c) that Hoover’s administration spent almost nothing fighting the economic problems d) that government spending can create jobs in the private sector e) that in 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned for president against Hoover’s “conservativism” f) that FDR did virtually everything entirely different than Hoover and g) that FDR saved the country from the Great Depression. Let’s quickly put those lies to rest before dealing with today’s situation, eh?

Since progressivism (we must ‘progress’ beyond the out-dated and seriously flawed U.S. Constitution if we are ever to make ‘progress’ toward an earthly socialist or even Marxist Utopia) first became a serious undercurrent in American Politics in the 1890’s only once in the following 120 years has a serious economic downturn been handled by pure conservative restraint . . . and no, Ronald Reagan was NOT president when that happened (Reagan actually increased government spending while cutting taxes extra-severely and created some whopping deficits in the process of also creating twenty million jobs). 

Teddy Roosevelt was our first progressive president. You’ll remember that his “Bull Moose Party” was actually a third party officially known as, wait for it:  the “Progressive Party.” Teddy certainly had done a lot of questionable and presumably out-and-out unconstitutional things earlier when he was a Republican president, luckily most of them worked out pretty well for the nation.  Perhaps a Progressive president once every century or so wouldn’t be a bad thing, but certainly no more often?

Our first ultra-progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, however, was another story. Besides giving us the Federal Reserve Banking system and the income tax (still called today: “progressive” income tax), Wilson was a great propagandist who ran for a second term under the slogan “He kept us out of War” but within a month after his March, 1916 inauguration he deliberately and unnecessarily thrust us into World War I. He was the first truly big-spending president the country had ever known . . . way, way beyond the costs of the war. When his term was winding down, we were in a serious recession much worse than the recession sparked by the 1929 collapse. When he left office in March, 1921 the country was in a full-fledged depression.Curiously, those events are generally overlooked by history. People in the know, however, speak of “The Invisible Depression” or of the “Not-so-Great Depression.” Why was the Invisible Depression so invisible we don’t even know about it today?

            Two things: 1) revisionist progressive historians have done everything possible to hide this quite remarkable set of events and keep us from comparing it to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s approach while creating an enormous myth of FDR as a savior and 2) these policies worked out as the launching pad for the World’s most expansive decade in free market history and gets lost in the shuffle while everyone writes books and novels and treatises about the “Roaring ‘20’s” instead. What actually happened was this:

            Warren G. Harding and his vice president, Calvin Coolidge took office in March, 1921 with a full-fledged economic contraction underway. The full story is available from the Cato Institute here:


but let’s sum it up briefly.  Unemployment stood 150% higher than it was a year earlier; and GDP was only 76% of 1920 levels. Harding immediately cut government spending 49%; taxes 48%; and reduced government debt 30%.   Unlike the business-bashing that Wilson, FDR, LBJ (Lyndon Johnson) and Obama are infamous for, the Harding administration did everything it could to get government out of business’ way.   In fifteen months the country was humming again and the Invisible Depression was over. When Harding died, VP, Calvin Coolidge continued the same policies saying “the business of America is business.” 

Where did Herbert Hoover come from? Hoover was a highly respected humanitarian with an engineering background that Harding installed as his Secretary of Commerce to appease certain Eastern Republican interests.  Under both Harding and Coolidge was very ineffective. Hoover promoted government intervention under the rubric "economic modernization" and tried to get Harding to dole out unemployment benefits to ease the pain of the high 1921 joblessness. Through the next eight years both presidents Harding and Coolidge largely ignored Hoover. 

Hoover was, in short a progressive . . .   Some people are aware of that but here’s what most don’t know. At the end of World War II, Hoover’s humanitarianism including involvement in a program akin to the Marshall Program after World War II which benefitted defeated Germany and the Bolsheviks in Russia. Hoover was so influential and well respected that the New York Times named him “One of the ten most important living Americans. Woodrow Wilson considered Hoover “my ideal successor,” Democratic leaders looked upon Hoover as a strong presidential candidate and FDR said, “There could be none finer.”    Hoover, who up to then was a-political, said that because of his childhood memories, he had no interest in being a Democrat (supposedly the only Democrat in his home city was “the town drunk) and ignored Democratic overtures.   Hoover decided he’d become a Republican and announced his candidacy for president but couldn’t get much Republican support although he did finish 2nd in the 1920 California Primary.   Despite the gridlock at the RNC Convention that year, Hoover’s name was never seriously discussed and Harding became a popular compromise candidate and he won the nomination on the 10th ballot.

After the 1920 Republican -- to appease influential Republicans on both coasts -- Harding installed Hoover as his Secretary of Commerce. Hoover’s only real contributions during his stint as Commerce Secretary were some important traffic safety (embracing motor vehicle standards, rules of the road, and urban traffic control) innovations. Nevertheless, he sought to expand the Commerce Secretary domain in every possible way. He became known for trying to take over parts of other cabinets so much so that the joke was that Hoover was "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else” and Coolidge called him “Wonder-boy.” 

            After the combined Harding-Coolidge administration ended in 1928, Hoover again ran for president. As soon as he was elected in 1928, he set about making the government much bigger. His biggest moves began right after his inauguration and including implementing a wide series of farm programs and a much-criticized huge tariff increase.   A self-described “Progressive” and “Reformer,” Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by getting government involved encouraging of volunteerism. Long before entering politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking.  As Commerce Secretary, he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push expensive and interventionist tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress. Hoover also increased taxes and increased the federal budget 50% (for comparison Barack Obama so far has only increased the budget 41%). It’s obvious that the real Hoover was nothing like the do-nothing Hoover that Progressive historians have insisted he was.  

Just as they did back then, the left (the progressives of today’s  Democratic Party) is now seeking to blame the current economic crisis on a conspiracy that is an inversion of the actual facts. By the way, back in 1932 FDR and his first VP-to-be called Hoover a “socialist” and promised to use Harding’s methods to regain prosperity . . . that is FDR promised to pay down debt; slash taxes; and slash government spending. Instead he actually raised the budget 100% above Hoover’s last budget; confiscated the nation’s gold and in other ways undermined the recovery so badly that only the nation’s entry into World War II nine years later got us out of the depression.

Most Americans have no idea about the facts you’ve just read and their opinions about government’s ability to create jobs in the private sector by increased spending are largely based upon the “Savior myth” of FDR as the man who heroically saved us from the Great Depression. 

When it comes to today’s problems and today’s myths the infamous Obama-car-in-the-ditch myth (blaming all our woes on conservatives and the free markets) tops them all.   The truth, however, is:

George W. Bush saw that ACORN, the progressives, big spenders, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were deliberately pushing the car (our economy) toward a 500-foot cliff. He jumped into the front seat, grabbed the steering wheel and slammed on the brakes . . . guiding it into the nearest friendly ditch.        
To prove this surprising assertion for yourself: you’ll need a little education:
           That our current president was an ACORN lawyer and community organizer deliberately bankrupting our country as part of Cloward-Piven Strategy using Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA ’77) who has the gall to repeatedly tell the car-in-the-ditch story is one of the most shocking hypocrisies imaginable.

The fact that Frances Fox Piven is today still openly calling for bloody revolution and urging the poor and unemployed to “use their anger” and begin the Marxist “revolution” while the lame-stream, mainstream media is accusing the TEA Party of hate-mongering and ignoring Piven is the greatest possible journalistic malfeasance.

The fact that George W. Bush’s administration recognized the problem as early as January, 2005 and sought to repeal the horrific CRA ’77 laws but the vote was defeated. And that Bush made at least 19 separate speeches on the matter and continued to strive for elimination of CRA ’77 right up until finally in July, 2007 (30 months later) when a much weaker law was passed has not been allowed as part of the history of the meltdown even though Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in August, 2010 credited Bush with preventing an absolute collapse of our financial system and with preventing total disintegration of the housing market again reflects poorly on the so-called journalistic “profession.” The “watchdogs of the Republic” have turned on us . . . this is the biggest story of the last half of the 20th and of the first decade of the 21st Century and naturally, it’ll never be reported by the present generation of mainstream journalists . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



Read more…


“If all you have is a hammer, after a while, the whole world starts looking like a nail.”

Were Democrats Victimized

by their Own Shenanigans?

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats find themselves fully flummoxed and feeling flimflammed by the voters they’ve been working so feverishly and frantically for. It seems that in the 21st Century, government throwing large amounts of money at problems A) is not that popular with the voters and B) doesn’t work. Hey, what’s that all about?

Rajjpuut used to work as a health educator for Blue Cross and Blue Shield. One of the “studies” that BC and BS did involved a series of actors going around to physicians reportedly suffering severely with fictitious but reasonable symptoms). It was discovered that surgeons wanted to surge into the body with a scalpel; radiologists thought the patients needed to be zapped; internists considered only the wisdom of potions, powders and pills; and chiropractors thought that body alignment was clearly necessary.

In a different study, psychologists found that chess masters routinely either missed or took much longer to discover unique two-move checkmate patterns when their thinking process got tangled up in five- eight- or ten-move combinations leading to far more familiar patterns . . . what’s up? In a phrase: it’s a scientific principle called the “Einstellung Effect” which is a fancy way to say that when all you have is a hammer, after a while the whole world starts to look an awful lot like a nail. Specifically, the Democrats are “one-trick ponies” who solve problems (or invent problems to solve; or cause problems and then set out to cure them) with only one specialized technique: upping taxes and throwing money at the symptoms of the problem (never the underlying cause which is all too often an initial excess of government involvement).

So our current exacerbation of our fiscal problems under Barack Obama may well be a lesson in the futility of money-throwing and an example of redistributive wealth (as a solution) coming out second-best to the Einstellung Effect, at least that’s one possibility, but other than in revisionist history (where the progressives change things to be more to their liking calling, for example, the Italian Fascists an example of the evils of right-wing ideology when anyone doing a modicum of research finds out that the Italian labor unions rose up against the corporate bosses and seized power and then after seizing power across all of Italy, they elected Benito Mussolini to lead the entire nation. Last time anyone checked, labor unions are NOT a right-wing, but rather a left-wing manifestation. The progressives who used to call themselves Liberals are guilty of revisionism at least 100 times a day in major comments found in print, on the air or online.

Hmmmmm, the Einstellung Effect or progressives’ own historical revisionism coming back to bite them in the butt, ooh what a “Behar” (as in calling someone “a son of a Behar”). Of course, if you believe as Rajjpuut does that the 100% accurate and real ditch story is this one:

George W. Bush saw Obama, Clinton, ACORN and progressive politicians deliberately pushing the car (the economy) toward a 500-foot cliff (utter financial disaster) and jumped into the front seat, grabbed the wheel and slammed on the brakes, thus initiating a controlled skid that deposited the vehicle into the nearest friendly-looking ditch.

For more on the details of this version of the now famous car and ditch showing that progressives created a bad law under Jimmy Carter (CRA ’77 which forced mortgage lenders to make knowingly bad loans) which was first expanded by regulatory fiat under Clinton and then expanded legislatively by Slick Willy three times (twice in 1995; and the steroid-version expansion in 1998); and all the while abused by ACORN to at day’s end cause us our worst financial comeuppance since 1929 . . . . Go here for those details and be shocked to find that supposedly 'stupid' G.W. was acutely aware economically and proved himself a hero according to Treasury Sec. Timoth Geithner:


So the truth is that former ACORN lawyer and bank brow-beater and shake-down solicitor for the propagation of CRA ’77, Barack Obama, actually did 10,000 as much harm to the U.S. economy prior to October 2009 as George Bush ever did . . . and that since taking office in January, 2009, he’s done more harm to the U.S. economy than any man since the days of Herbert Hoover and FDR (two infamous progressives) . . . . it all sounds like the Democrats have been hoisted upon their own petard just as they were back in 1933 when FDR came into office and started breaking his campaign vows to, you guessed it, lower taxes and lower spending which is what Warren G. Harding had done in 1920 when he inherited a much fiercer depression from Woodrow Wilson than anything we’ve seen since: Harding cut taxes 48%; government spending 49%; and paid down the national debt by 30%.



So, is Rajjpuut saying that Democrats deliberately did the country in? As a matter of fact, he’s saying that the Progressive ultra-left-wing of the Democratic Party which has co-opted the Democratic Party did just that . . . but let’s pretend you consider such utterances to be “conspiracy theory” nonsense . . . well, given the facts as they stand you can instead call them extraordinarily INEPT instead and we’ll both be happy.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Like to Make Some Easy Money?

“. . . except for rare awards such as MLK’s in 1964 and Mother Teresa’s in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t have anything to do with peace . . . . It’s simply a way that the relatively IMPOTENT Scandinavians can try to push their political views on the rest of the world . . . to date, five progressive U.S. Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize but no conservative or moderate presidents have although the progressives have got us into a lot more wars and a lot bigger wars . . .”

Predicting the Next Nobel Peace Prize

Winner for Fun and Profit

A great philosophical question to ponder is this, why is so much of the world so interested in progressive American Presidents? Progressive American presidents tend to be the most popular beyond our shores and only Progressives have ever won the Nobel Peace Prize. What’s that all about? What’s the connection?

Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite one of the greatest inventions in man’s history and one that’s saved a lot of trouble in the mining and construction industries, was appalled when the invention that made him rich was also used in munitions (the material of warfare). Actually, that’s not true . . . that’s just the story. What is the truth?

We’ve all seen those old west movies where they’re transporting nitroglycerin in bottles and everybody’s having a nervous fit . . . basically by combining sawdust, sort of, with nitroglycerine, Nobel made a fortune from dynamite which he invented in 1867. And once it was fully evolved, it made him a whole ship-load more. TNT (which was created by a German chemist, only four years earlier in 1963, was first created as a yellow-dye SURPRISE BOOM!) is even today taken around the world as the gold-standard when it comes to measuring explosive power. Dynamite, Nobel’s invention of a solid form of nitroglycerin is actually 60% more powerful than TNT. But TNT is more compatible with bombs and artillery shells so the myth dies there. Nobel did amass a fortune, however, the result of roughly 360 inventions during his lifetime.

What really happened is that the ever-responsible press in the northern latitudes didn’t understand and realize the difference between TNT and dynamite and excoriated Nobel, getting older, relentlessly. One newspaper took a mistaken report of Nobel’s death and wrote his obituary in 1888, titled Merchant of Death Dies. This falsehood so upset Nobel that he provided for the Nobel Prizes in his will. Thus Nobel created the fund which still exists today and which still awards the various Nobel Prizes.

Today, the Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Economics, Literature and Peace are perhaps the most famous prizes granted human beings anywhere on the planet. The “mathematics prize” actually does NOT exist but several times mathematicians and game theorists have been awarded an economics or other Nobel Prize in recognition of their great works. American John Forbes Nash, subject of the biography and fictionalized version of the biography made into the movie A Beautiful Mind, shared an economics Nobel Prize in 1994. And then we come to the Nobel Peace Prize and the pure Nobel Economics Prize. First a paragraph on the prize in economics to set the scene . . . .

When issued as a pure economics award, the Nobel Prize is a pile of horse pucky. All the pure Economics that’s ever been worth printing is found here:




but the IMPURE economics that wins the Nobel Prize when they’re not giving it to deserving mathematicians is some variation of Keynesian economics. At last count there were at least 80 versions of Keynesian economic models out there. This is very reminiscent of the numerous contortions the geo-centric astronomers created to buck up the Church’s geo-centric dogma that the whole universe rotated around the earth . . . when a simpler and more effective and demonstrably true model (the earth and other planets in the solar system all orbit the sun: the helio-centric model) was rediscovered (the ancient Greeks knew about it and that the earth spun on its axis once a day) all the useless curlicues and retro-orbits disappeared immediately. Keynesian economics is utterly popular but Classical (TRUE) economics is not. Keynesian economic allows governments to pretend they can play around with our money and do great things including saving the day from economic crisis. Of course, the truth is that government interference is 99.9% of the time the cause of economic crisis and a sure recipe for economic disaster . . . such as thirty years of forced loans from five U.S. government laws that multiplied bad home loans in the U.S. 133 times from 1975 (1 in 404) to 2005 (34 in 100). So the economics prize is largely B.S., what about the Peace Prize and how might I make money from it?

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the biggest lies ever created. When Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 he was the odds-on recipient that year, but his name was quietly dropped off the list. Gandhi never got the award but was the inspiration for Martin Luther King, Jr. who did. In fact except for rare awards such as MLK’s in 1964 and Mother Teresa’s in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t have anything to do with peace usually. It’s simply a way that the relatively IMPOTENT Scandinavians can try to push their political views on the rest of the world.

To date, five progressive U.S. Presidents and near presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize but no conservative or moderate presidents have^^ . . . Teddy Roosevelt in 1906; Woodrow Wilson in 1919; Jimmy Carter in 2002; Al Gore in 2007; and Barack Obama in 2009. Of these only one, Teddy Roosevelt, actually succeeded in any lasting peace attempt . . . negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. The rest have been abject failures and/or have won the award for some other ridiculous purpose. Certainly Carter has not brought any lasting peace of note; Gore’s science is disproven and had nothing to do with peace; and Obama got his for being elected president despite being half-Black. If we add in the prize won by Cordell Hull in 1945, the story becomes complete.

Cordell Hull was the long-serving (eleven years) Secretary of State under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and was given the award for ostensibly being a “co-initiator of the United Nations.” If Roosevelt had lived a bit longer, chances are that award would have been his or his shared with Hull. So the pattern is clear. The folks in Norway and Sweden (the Peace prize is awarded separately in Oslo, Norway not in Stockholm) are real big on progressivistic socialism and are one-worlders. Anytime an American President spreads American money and American effort toward those kinds of goals, that progressive president is very likely to become a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Of course such American lavishness with money is always popular all over the world, not just in Scandinavia.

So who can you put your money on? Only once has the award been given twice to the same person, once. The Scandinavians would love to give it to Barack again, but it’s really unlikely. That leaves progressive Bill Clinton. One small problem if they award the Peace Prize for his efforts in Haiti, they’d have to split the award with George W. Bush and pigs’ll fly before that ever happens. So the best bet over the next few years will be Bill Clinton for his “lifetime body of work” referring to what he did as president and for negotiating with North Korea for prisoner release, etc. Billy Boy is right now doing everything he possibly can to build his legacy up to Nobel Peace Prize status . . . he’s a progressive and he knows how the game is played. Be smart, take at least ten or twelve to one odds, but it’s a very good bet . . . if Slick Willy can get his name involved in just one more such enterprise (perhaps his "Clinton Global Initiative" will do the trick for him?) he's got to be no worse than 2/1 against. That's a bet Rajjpuut would expect to win while deploring the winner all the way to the bank . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** This is where all the mathematical models spring from and it’s a valid source of solid economic theories.

^^ of course, the progressives are far more likely to get us into wars. Wilson, was classic, he ran for a second term on the slogan “He kept us out of war” but within a month of his victory inauguration, had deliberately put us into World War I.

Read more…

”. . . and then there’s welfare . . . . Obamacare created 388 brand new government agencies or offices and a whole new welfare culture so that now the whole mess (national debt; unfunded liabilities (in Medicare, Social Security and the federal side of Medicaid), Obamacare, Medicaid funding by the states; and welfare + interest will amount to roughly a $225 TRillion obligation. The Gross Domestic Product of the whole world is only about $56 Trillion, roughly one fourth of the mountain of debt and obligations we’re now facing. How can this be handled without impoverishing our children and grandchildren? Without reducing the nation to 4th world status?” Rajjpuut

Crocodile Tears of the Left

Flood America with Corruption

as the “BIG LIE” Dominates

Part V: Victim #5, The American Dream

Loyal readers are advised to skip ahead as we give a brief review. In this blog series, we’ve been exposing the self-described “victimhood” of progressives at the hands of their evil, racist, etc. conservative oppressors and showing you where the real victimhood is . . . .


The highlight of part I of this blog series (the link immediately above), and it was difficult to pick a single highlight with “TRUTH” the victim, was this well-documented statement:

Using the same Cloward-Piven** strategy that DELIBERATELY created the bankruptcy of New York City earlier between 1967 and 1975 by deliberately overloading the welfare rolls . . . beginning especially after 1992, ACORN, OBAMA, First ACORN PRESIDENT Bill Clinton, and oodles of progressives (98% of them Democrats) DELIBERATELY were pushing the car toward a 500-foot cliff. George W. Bush jumped in and grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes. Bush was able to create a controlled-skid and guide the car to rest in a friendly-looking ditch!

The fact that such a statement is made NOW, 44 years after the chain of events began producing that statement is something that every American ought to be aware of, just as every American ought to be aware of the identities of Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven and be able to articulate what Cloward-Piven strategy is . . . the fact that most Americans are totally ignorant of these things means someone hasn’t been doing their job. In Part II the victim was journalistic integrity . . . .


In Part III of the series we examined how the false victimhood of the progressives (we must “progress” beyond the outdated and deeply flawed U.S. Constitution) has created another real victim: “Responsibility” in the guise of the rising numbers of single-mother-families (a problem obviously created by everybody else’s sexism, according to feminists). As the irresponsible notion of deliberately choosing a single-parent family drags down all of society (see this link) destroys the American family and creates a new impoverished class in the country . . . .


Economics is a very simple area that the left has sought to hijack with the creation of their own branch of economic science called Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics only sort of explains what happens in Socialist and Totalitarian regimes, that’s why there’s about 80 different schools of Keynesian economics out there. Rajjpuut gives the basics of real (Classical) economics which NOT surprisingly explains everything that happens in any type of political system pretty much perfectly. Classical economics is not the same as Obamanomics, not at all. Taxing and spending and government interference boondoggles (GIBs) and government spending boondoggles and the deficits and debt they create are the antithesis of common-sense classical economics as we saw in our 4th installment . . . .


And while the left and their media sycophants are crying, “racists, sexists, bigots, etc. all day long proving themselves always the long-suffering victims and conservative Americans always the eternal oppressors, the fifth REAL victim of all these progressive-victim tales is:

Victim #5: The American Dream

The American Dream is a simple, beautiful thing . . . from the start people came here to find freedom from the heavy hand of big government they’d known in other lands. They continued to come here during the last 233 years because freedom was incarnated in the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States (itself based upon the Declaration of Independence) knowing that the Republic created upon America’s shores was a Meritocracy, that every man or woman who came here would find no real obstacles to their American Dream, to build a good life and open to all of them was the opportunity to leave their children a lot better off then they themselves started out. Thanks to a Century of Progressivism, the American Dream is on the endangered list . . . .

The American Dream is endangered because the very core principles of this nation have been set aside for far too long now. Thrift; industry; equality before the law; capitalism; freedom itself; integrity; and small, non-interfering government that lived by these principles





has all but disappeared from the American scene. The meritocracy has virtually vanished. Thrift has been replaced by personal, corporate and particularly government excesses and debt creation. Industry? Why? 48% of the people pay no taxes, the industrious and the job creators are taxed relentlessly as their 52% supports all the rest of society, most shamelessly, a bloated bureaucracy of unionized government workers who almost can’t be fired no matter how poorly they perform.

Repeatedly hard-working, hard-studying men and women who seek to advance themselves by entering important civil-service fields like the fire-department, police-department and first-responder medical crews find that it does no good to ace the test . . . because affirmative-action critics will steal the positions the hard-working/hard-studying folks actually earned; “capitalism” has become a dirty word and PROFIT has become the dirtiest of vile words as freedom itself has been perverted in a thousand ways . . . most often by abusing the once honored word “reform.”

Citizens are becoming aware that the word “reform” attached to a bill doesn’t mean anything is ever improved, it only means that government is expanding, spending is going up and taxes too . . . and the last time Obama, Pelosi and Reid showed integrity . . . . well, it hasn’t happened in Rajjpuut’s lifetime. Our ever expanding, ever spending, ever interfering government is the problem and the political class (the politicians and bureaucrats within the government) is the only group who benefits while the rest of us suffer. The biggest losers, the biggest victims? Our children and grandchildren.

Our $14 TRillion national debt is multiplying geometrically as this is being written. But that’s small potatoes. Since 1935 for Social Security and 1965 for Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid, the progressives have established these three entitlement programs as “pay as you go, set-aside” entities . . . but of course, the progressives in congress have seen to it that we never pay as we go, we never set aside the money collected for these purposes . . . the result? We now own $115 Trillion in unfunded liabilities (promises made to our people – often our aged) that we have not one single dollar set aside to pay off these promises.

On top of that as all three of these unfunded liabilities grow . . . the new Obamacare program will between 2019 and 2024 bankrupt every state in the union as they force states to fund the greater role for Medicaid required by that law. And then there’s welfare . . . . Obamacare created 388 brand new government agencies or offices and a whole new welfare culture so that now the whole mess (national debt; unfunded liabilities (in Medicare, Social Security and the federal side of Medicaid), Obamacare, Medicaid funding by the states; and welfare + interest will amount to roughly a $225 TRillion obligation. The Gross Domestic Product of the whole world is only about $56 Trillion, roughly one fourth of the mountain of debt and obligations we’re now facing. How can this be handled without impoverishing our children and grandchildren? Without reducing the nation to 4th world status? Can it be done?

Yes, it can and it can be done simply (but definitely NOT EASILY and definitely NOT QUICKLY). Barack Obama is committing the country to the path that Republican Progressive Herbert Hoover and Democratic Progressive Franklin Roosevelt took which turned a simple panic into first a depression (under Hoover) and then a Great Depression (under Roosevelt) that lasted over twelve years. The strange thing is that Roosevelt ran against the big government, big spending philosophies of Hoover and promised to revert to the strategies of Harding and Coolidge (cutting taxes by 47% and taxes by 49% and paying down 30% of the national debt) and then, of course, FDR pulled a Barack Obama on the country doing such things as confiscating the people’s gold (forced) at $20.76 per ounce and then devaluing the paper dollars he’d given them to $35 per ounce – stealing almost 70% of the value of the gold he’d confiscated.

The reason he won the election in 1932? Hoover was totally unpopular and FDR was promising common sense solutions that the people knew worked because they’d seen them work in making the “Invisible Depression” of 1920-21, well “invisible” . . . .



One proviso, our current situation and our current direction is much worse than what Harding faced taking over from progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson . . . so how tough could things be? Imagine elimination of Obamacare; government spending reduced 60%; taxes reduced the same 60%; and a commitment to reduce the national debt by 12% per year . . . does that sound austere to you?

Then consider this, let’s say, the problem with the economy and the national debt is wiped out in five years . . . NICE! Not so fast! Remember the $225 TRillion total we mentioned? Well that’s taken care of perhaps $16 TRillion and all the states are meanwhile going bankrupt and the federal government as well because of state and federal government pensions going through the roof to our unionized state and federal employees . . .

So we’re talking about letting states fail (go bankrupt) and state and federal workers getting their contracts renegotiated markedly downward and we’re talking about our wonderful union employees “pulling a Greece” and holding the country hostage with street violence . . . simple is one thing, easy solutions are yet another . . . .

Next Time: First Crocodile Tears, then Dismemberment Part VI

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…


Boobus Americanus Understanding Little
Believes History’s Biggest Lies,
Do We Need a Negative Stimulus Package?
The great cynical journalist H.L. Mencken often talked about that utterly strange creature he called “Boobus Americanus.” Mencken would be greatly heartened to know that in this era of “endangered species” Boobus Americanus has multiplied twenty-fold thanks to cross-breeding with Couch-us Potat-us Americanus and Sitcomus Addictus. Here are four great myths from the 20th Century spread by Progressive historians (“we must progress beyond the outdated ill-conceived Constitution”) and Progressive politicians . . . myths that Boobus Americanus believes with all his heart and soul.
I. Progressive Woodrow Wilson was one of our greatest presidents
II. Warren G. Harding was one of the worst presidents and a crook
III. Herbert Hoover, who did nothing to head off the Great Depression, was a conservative who “fiddled like Nero while Rome burned.”
IV. Progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt was our greatest president and he saved us from the Great Depression.
Here are the facts:
A. Democrat Progressive Woodrow Wilson was, among other failings, a racist who premiered D.W. Griffiths’ racist classic “Birth of a Nation” in the White House and instigated segregation in government hiring from the White House. He was also our first true tax-and-spend President. He left behind a much worse recession than G.W. Bush did. He also wrote a history of America that called into question virtually everything noble about the country and the founding fathers. He was definitely a progressive and tried to change history to move things more along the progressive path with much greater government size and control of our lives. As Wilson’s last year, 1920, ticked away the economic situation was grim . . . unemployment had jumped from 4% to 12% and GDP dipped 17%. It would get worse.
B. Things got so bad that new president Warren G. Harding’s Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (falsely characterized as a do-nothing laissez-faire conservative) urged Harding to consider a huge array of interventions in order to turn the economy around. Harding ignored Hoover and calmly paid down the national debt by 33%.
Harding facing a GDP drop of about 25% because of Wilson’s policies, also cut taxes and spending both between 45%-49% and the recesssion became known as the “Invisible Depression” because it ended within 15 months. Indeed within six months signs of recovery were already visible. In 1922, unemployment was back to 6.7% and had dropped to 2.4% by 1923. His vice president Calvin Coolidge continued Harding’s policies and the resulting “Roaring 20’s” was the single most prosperous decade in American history as the standard of living rose dramatically. For the first time Americans in large numbers owned automobiles, indoor plumbing, electric lighting, and appliances like the ice box and radio and took yearly vacations. The Teapot Dome scandal that’s been blamed on Harding by the Progressive historians occurred after his death and was created by fraudulent dealings initiated by his Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall.
C. Hoover, who replaced Coolidge in 1928, was a Republican Progressive and up until FDR was the most interfering president in American History. Almost as soon as he took office he abandoned the business friendly policies of Harding and Coolidge and jumped in to interfere in agriculture and business. To be specific:
Hoover . . . .
1) increased taxes on top wage earners from 25% to 63%
2) increased government spending by 47%
3) ran a deficit of 4.5% of GDP
4) against the wishes of over 1000 economists, he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, effectively shutting down international trade
5) established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to make loans to the state governments
6) appropriated money for public works construction (Hoover Dam among others)
7) met with major industry leaders and put significant pressure on them to maintain wages at current levels, despite the amount of money in the economy falling by one-third. This led, predictably, to massive unemployment thanks to those first wage controls in American history.
8) the myth or misconception of Hoover’s non-interference gets so absurd it’s almost unbelievable. The truth is diametrically opposed to that myth, for example, during the 1932 campaign, Franklin Roosevelt’s first vice president, John Garner, accused Herbert Hoover of “leading the country down the path of socialism.” Furthermore, FDR brain-truster, Rexford Tugwell admitted that, “most of what (Hoover) began would be taken over by Roosevelt and renamed the “New Deal.”
D. Progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned against virtually everything Hoover did. He promised to return to the policies of Harding and Coolidge (low taxes, low spending and non-interference), but once elected continued Hardings policies with a vengeance. Higher taxes, much higher spending. He also confiscated gold and then soon changed the exchange rate from $21.76 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce, effectively robbing all savers and investors of 61% of the value of their holdings. FDR made even Hoover’s interference look like penny-ante stuff . . . among other things he created 40 brand new federal agencies. Far from saving the country from the depression, he and his policies turned a little ‘d’ depression into the Great Depression which the rest of the world suffering a little ‘d’ depression avoided. In fact, except for the outbreak of World War II, almost nine years after he was first elected, the Great Depression showed no signs of ceasing under FDR.
E. Just for comparison, Barack Obama is making Hoover and Roosevelt both look like pikers. Imagine this, in just one law (Obamacare), Obama has created more than 385 brand new government agencies about ten times what FDR did in 12+ years . . . in just one law. And, of course, like Hoover and FDR, Obama is raising taxes, raising spending, raising deficits, and raising the national debt while doing nothing about unemployment.
So what’s to be learned now that real history’s been unearthed? Well, the very first time (under Hoover and FDR) that government involved itself seriously in intervening to stop an economic downturn . . . just happens to coincide with the onset of the greatest downturn of all . . . almost as if government interference made things much worse, do you think? In comparison Harding 12 years earlier did what any sensible family or business would do in hard times . . . took in the belt a few extra notches. According to the Cato Institute:
“Harding inherited (Woodrow) Wilson’s mess—in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.”
So what did Harding do? He cut government spending from $6.3 billion in 1920, to $5 billion in 1921, and then again to $3.2 billion in 1922. This would amount to a negative stimulus package! Income taxes were left as is and corporate taxes were cut. There was no push for new regulations and the Federal Reserve did nothing.
What was the result of Harding’s negative stimulus package? By 1922, unemployment was down to 6.7% and the Roaring Twenties had begun. The economy set new production records year after year until the infamous Black Tuesday on October 29th, 1929 created by Hoover’s profligate policies.
Of course the Progressive historians have altered the facts significantly and made FDR a hero and Harding a villain. And befuddled by their own histories, they’ve made all the wrong conclusions over and over and over again and the country enamored of the false-legacy of FDR has eagerly joined them . . . .
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
My friend Tish Gance forwarded me the following which explains perfectly how false history comes to dominate our reality . . . .

Monkeys --

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string

and place a set of stairs under it.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon when another Monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the snot out of him. After another attempt and attack,

he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.

The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs

OR even why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally, after replacing all of the

original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

And that, my fellow monkeys, is how Congress operates -

And precisely why we need to REPLACE all the original monkeys this November

Read more…

Exactly Why Progressivism Sucks,

FDR’s/Obama’s Second Bill of Rights

and our Actually $212 TRillion PROBLEM

You do recall candidate Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? A pledge already worthless? Well consider this, in just a bit over five months, all the Bush tax cuts we’ve been enjoying will be rescinded, but that’s not a tax increase is it? Well, welcome to Bill of Rights Hell, Obamastyle . . . .

Barack Obama would like to take all the credit/blame for his radical legislative program but it’s been around since there have been left-wing progressives interested in “progressing beyond” the United States Constitution which they regard as “outdated” or even “an inferior and ill-conceived document.” Barack Obama himself calls it outdated and adds that it’s merely “a catalog of negative rights.”

Woodrow Wilson was the first recognized Progressive (Teddy Roosevelt was actually the first and mildest** one, however). Wilson, an educator and President of Princeton University wrote several books re-writing history and most particularly the history of the founding of the nation and of the founders. Wilson, according to real history – not progressive history, was an abject racist and the first to segregate the armed forces since Civil War Days. D.W. Griffith’s racist silver screen masterpiece “The Birth of a Nation” which glorified the Ku Klux Klan as the most vital element in post Civil War history, was premiered at the White House for Wilson and his Cabinet.

Herbert Hoover, a Republican like Teddy Roosevelt, believed in government involvement in peoples’ lives to a much greater extent than Teddy did. He sought to involve the government in welfare schemes and to give price supports to farmers among other progressive farm programs. He dramatically reversed the Harding-Coolidge trend of substantially lowered taxes and substantially lowered government spending (over a 45% reduction in both cases in response to the “Invisible Depression” Harding had inherited from Wilson). After the Crash of October ’29 under Herbert Hoover, the Depression was ending with the bottoming out of the stock Market three months after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s inauguration (in March, in those days). FDR had run on a promise to return to common sense and cutting taxes and cutting government spending which had cut Wilson’s Depression down to size very quickly and left it known as the “Invisible Depression.”

FDR’s policies extended the Depression another nine years from taking office and presumably would not have ended the Depression at all except for the U.S. entry into the war in December of 1941. In the United States that period in history is known as the “Great” Depression but the rest of the world had a rough three years and simple call it a little ‘d’ depression.

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights was aimed, as many progressive schemes are, at redistributing wealth and its been adopted in whole cloth by Barack Obama. The harm done by FDR was incalculable. Hoover only created two new government agencies, FDR created forty. Barack Obama’s Obamacare health care “reform” has created 390+ new government agencies in just one law. Again, as most people sense, Obamacare has little to do with health care and will NOT cut health care costs it is just a method of grabbing more control for the government and redistributing wealth.

Before FDR’s 1944 inauguration (his 4th!) speech he paid homage to the idea but he’d already come out specifically talking about his agenda of redistributing wealth during his earlier 1944 State of the Union Address. The “Second Bill of Rights” according to FDR are “positive rights,” that is what government can do for or to its citizens (after taxing them unmercifully for the money to do it with). He included:

1. The right to a useful and renumerative job

2. The right to earn enough to provide not only food and clothing but

also recreation

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that

would give him and his family a decent living

4. The right of every family to a decent home

5. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination from monopolies at home and abroad

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

7. The right to a good education

8. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

Quite the socialist agenda, whereas the Founding Fathers said, we’ll keep the government out of your hair and maximize the money you can keep from what you earn and thus maximize your freedom to take care of your needs as you perceive them, FDR said we’ll tax the hell out of you and then give you some of your money back in the form of cradle-to-grave Nanny-state protection, not noticing that this would destroy the economy’s ability to create jobs and make it a lot less likely that anyone would have money to be taxed. This is clearly virtually identical to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” progam.

Let’s look at item #4, in 1977 Jimmy Carter and his dual-chamber Democratic majority in congress passed the CRA of ’77 (Community Reinvestment Act) which for the first time required banks and local lenders to knowingly make bad home loans to otherwise ineligible clients. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were added to this travesty in 1992; these “rights” were expanded again twice in 1995; and the Bill Clinton final expansion in '98 (the third expansion under Slicky Willy) put the whole process on steroids and with the help of the Cloward-Piven Strategics of ACORN . . . created the sub-prime lending crisis at the root of today’s economic debacle.

And think of this, the United States had enjoyed for over half a century by far the world’s highest home ownership percentage (62-65%) so there was no problem. What exactly is wrong with renting a home, especially when one is young? What about the rights of landlords to operate their business and perform a clearly useful service?

Item #2 has raised its ugly head often since LBJ’s days, the right to a “guaranteed income.” Wow! Do you mean the right of the lazy and unproductive to extort money from those who earn it fairly by trading their goods and services and talent and education in the free market?

Item #8 is likewise quite interesting. This is the welfare “RIGHT” is it not? At present, our country not only has a $14TRillion national debt, but also $110 TRillion of UNfunded liability courtesy of Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid. No one ever talks about these things or this UNfunded liability . . . but something that’s even less obvious and even more secret: roughly $88 TRillion in UNfunded welfare liability is also coming our way in the next 44-45 years.

#6 is Obamacare and its travesties are just coming to light. It is a nightmare fiscally, will destroy the health insurance industry and the health care industry as we know it. Count on old folks dying courtesy of the rationing which the newly-appointed health care director openly expressed. As well, a lot of infants also will prove to be “not viable enough” to warrant all the health care bucks and services and time that would be needed to keep them alive. And from having the highest cancer cure rate in the world, count on the United States gravitating toward the rate of Great Britain where early intervention against cancer is somewhat of a joke.

#7 is the right to a good education. Wow, Ph.D’s for everyone? Rajjpuut went through college courtesy of the GI Bill he earned and five different jobs he held and wound up with a 3.92 GPA despite taking as many as 29 hours in two different quarters. A lot of people getting through on mommy’s and daddy’s money wasted their education and their time in Rajjpuut’s not-so-humble opinion . . . what’s wrong with people working to put themselves through college? Why should anyone be guaranteed a college education as Barack Obama has promised to provide?

#1 the right to a useful and remunerative job. Really? What about the right of an employer to hire who he needs and only who he needs and to pay them what he must to get good work out of them all the while keeping his company afloat? Study after study has shown that minimum wage laws just put more people out of work and threaten the solvency of more businesses . . . so much for government interference in the marketplace.

#3 means that an inferior farmer has the right to survive and charge enough to cover his ineptitude. He grows cotton in the north and succeeds in half the years but is frozen out in the other half, why should anyone give him more than top dollar for an inferior, at best crop?

#5 Sounds pretty nice. Actually, the policies of FDR favored big business and cut the throat of small business which is one great reason why the Depression lasted almost ten more years after FDR came to power. But if it really were true, big IF that, just as in the case of the farmer, why should someone be forced to pay more than top dollar if the product is inferior or the process to produce it is inefficient? So much for the “Second Bill of Rights!

In other words, FDR who gave the country almost ten extra years of Depression and who ran promising to cut taxes and cut spending but did just the opposite, was the king of the early progressives and the first clearly socialist president and was aiming to move the country toward something quite close to communism. And remember he only created 40 new government agencies Ol’ FDR, while Obama created 390+ just in one law: Obamacare. Gotta love them progressives, don’t you?

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

** Building the Panama Canal and establishing National Parks have to be called progressive by anybody, not that they were bad but that the people had NO say in their implementation; why not have a parks amendment voted on? Teddy feared it wouldn't pass or it wouldn't pass quickly enough or wouldn't set aside enough money, etc., etc., so he abrogated the people's right to decide the issue . . . .
Read more…


So, Obama thinks he's the second coming of FDR, but he has a rude awakening. He's not, and it's not the 1930's. America has come a long way in 70+ years, and once again the left wing radicals have underestimated the American people. It would also take someone far more experienced than this guy, who is the "least qualified, and least experienced guy in the room". But, that will not stop him from trying to 'fundamentally transform' us.


Students of history will recognize the method to President Obama's madness: http://bit.ly/c6FgeG

Read more…

China’s Rise, Episodic Stossel Career
Highlight Free Market’s Resilience and Power
Journalism, skeptical independent journalism, used to be called the fourth estate. The meaning of the phrase in American life was that along with religion, government and business . . . the institution of the free press served as a “watchdog” over our society while keeping a free citizenry informed as they must be in a democratic republic. Today that phrase “fourth estate” has lost all meaning. Some have talked about a “fourth house of government” meaning that as the government itself has become a special interest group whose main purpose is growth and self-perpetuation, the mainstream news media have virtutally become a fourth branch (after the presidency, house of representatives and the senate) whose major purpose is also self-aggrandizement and self-perpetuation based upon their pro-government symbiotic relationship. Certainly today’s journalism as practiced by NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN is incestuous, at best^^^ *** and at worst a relationship contrived to protect the leftwing darlings of the media and their projects.
They apparently have been taken in by revisionist history$$ and intend to propagate the benefits they believe that kind of government brings:
What does Rajjpuut mean? Franklin Delano Roosevelt “transformed” government with his “New Deal.” History tells us he was elected as an overwhelming popular choice to escape the uncaring government of the Hoover years. History, at least the history written in progressive history books (those that want us to progress beyond the Constitution), that history is a record of lies. Hoover was a progressive Republican who had the same dreams as Woodrow Wilson. Hoover departed markedly from the Harding and Coolidge years by creating programs for the unemployed and several government programs for farmers. So, by understanding Hoover we understand that Roosevelt could not have won by campaigning to be like Hoover. In fact, reading the newspapers of 1932 we get a totally different picture.
FDR ran against Hoover campaigning like Reagan and like Obama. He was elected president after promising pretty much what Warren Harding delivered in 1921-22 when the “invisible Depression was cut down to size by cutting taxes 40% and cutting government spending over 49%. To be precise: FDR won the 1932 election on the promise of a 25% reduction in federal spending, a balanced budget, a sound currency based on gold, to end the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs, and to remove government from areas that “belonged more appropriately to private enterprise.” The Progressive Woodrow Wilson had put us into a Depression and Harding’s efforts got us out; and Coolidge’s continuation of Harding’s policies gave us the Roaring Twenties “the single-most economically-positive decade in American history. For the first time in history a large percentage of people owned such devices as radios and refrigerators and their own automobiles and had electricity in their homes. For the first time in history, farm families mostly had both electricity indoor plumbing. So FDR ran on repeating Harding’s and Coolidge’s policies and then GASP kept NONE of his promises.
Now think clearly on this: FDR created 39 new agencies (and several others) concerned just with the three-R’s: relief, reform and recovery in his first eight years in office. Mr. Obama has already created over ten times that amount of new government agencies just as part of his Obamacare health care “reform” bill. One new law and 400 new agencies. Is that socialism?
Year after year, independent media overseers have attributed a pro-left (bigger government advocacy) bias that shows up in the news as a ratio of between 3-1-1 and 4-1-1 in story treatment. That is, for every single actually neutral treatment or every single negative reference to big government in the media, typically three or four stories glorifying Big Guv are printed or broadcast. Big journalism has thus become an advocate of Big Guv. Certainly what’s also been true is that for over 40 consecutive months now, mainstream journalists have also been unabashed supporters of today’s main messenger of the unending benefits that Big Guv can bring to all of us: Barack Hussein Obama.
While examining the role of journalism in our about to become socialist state, a very good place to start is with the career of John Stossell, an important individual in the field for well over thirty consecutive years now. He began as a crusader, a consumer-oriented reporter finding fault in big business and its products and its effect upon the every day lives of American Citizens. Almost immediately Stossel transformed into an advocate of higher taxes and bigger government which would protect the consumer from abuses of the voracious and greedy. Soon he was pro-left government all the way advocating deep government involvement in the marketplace and all sorts of watchdog Big Guv agencies to protect us from corporate greed, malfeasance and dare Rajjpuut say it? He was advocating greater government as a tonic for the evil nature of business itself, the misbegotten spawn of satan that it is . . . . Stossel gained a huge following and his career took of straight to the top at ABC News. But Stossel still retained his basic journalistic objectivity which came out in rare moments in revelations of the huge waste and continued abuses of government against both citizens and businesses. Suddenly, Stossel was seeing the world through different eyes . . . . and he stopped winning Emmy awards (he had won a total of nineteen early in his career. His coverage which used to attack corporations, now increasingly began to attack government.
He had seen in his long career, that increasingly the greater government intervention that he’d been calling for evolve into a greater problem than had existed in the first place. He began to re-examine his stance. “I viewed the marketplace as a dog-eat-dog cruel place. I saw people needing government and lawyers to protect them from business. But once I’d started seeing more and more government regulations at work, I came to believe that markets are ‘magical’ and the best protectors of the consumer.”
The magical link above, Rajjpuut avers, tells the story of the free market better than any other . . . .
Returning to Stossel after viewing up close and personal the costly failed debacles that resulted from virtually all the Big Gub solutions that he, his media friends, and the politicians they were backing had prescribed for society’s ills and watching these programs become expensive millstones around the taxpayers’ necks while making tolerable situations untolerable . . . Stossel changed dramatically. “Solutions invariable wound up creating larger problems at the cost of billions of dollars.” Stossel is now a free-market libertarian and author of two books. In October of 2009, tired of having his anti-big government exposes drowned out at ABC by the crescendo of cheerleading for Barak Obama’s prescription for America Stossel left ABC News after twenty-eight years with them, and took a position with Fox News, the clear and away “most free-market oriented network in America.” The public, by and large agrees with Stossel’s assessment. Survey after survey shows that about 64-67% of all viewers regard the mainstream media as too liberal while only 20-22% of viewers regard the media as too conservative. Those reports from Gallup over the last ten years have come as mainstream media have lost respect from the age 25-54 key demographic of consumers and viewers of news programming and suffered an across the board 40-45% drop in viewers. At Stossel’s new gig, Fox News program after program has soon viewership climb from 30-60% over the last couple years.
Today Fox has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC CONBINED and has been the nation’s top network for well over one hundred consecutive months. Stossel’s own program thrives not on Fox News but on Fox Business Channel but he is a frequent visitor to Fox News where he delights in the fact that he seldom gets “softball questions.”
The mainstream media today is about 90% caught up in advancing Obama’s socialist agenda without ever mentioning the word “socialism.” They have, for example, totally ignored the question of “Climate Gate” giving virtually no coverage at all to the story, which is clearly the single most important “scientific” hoax of the last sixty years. Climate gate is a clearly Socialist attempt to put huge portions of our economy under government’s thumb under the guise of protecting us and protecting the environment . . . so clearly Climate Gate deserves a neutral hearing in the mainstream media, one might guess. Rajjpuut, continuing the theme, asks you the reader the following series of hardball questions that never get broached on the mainstream media even by their comparatively most objective journalists. If you can’t answer these questions logically, but still favor Obama’s agenda, perhaps Stossel might describe you, like Big Guv, as part of the making the problem worse.
1. If leftism (larger government role, more government interference in business and individual lives and much more government spending) is the answer why did communism fail so spectacularly in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (eastern European) countries?
2. If socialism is so great, why was a wall around Berlin built and an “Iron Curtain” necessary to keep people from flooding out of Berlin and the socialist communist countries?
3. Why does the mainstream media never talk about the $108 TRillion boondoggle that the combination of Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid has become? Can they not understand that this is our children AND grandchildren’s future at stake?
4. Why does the mainstream media never remind Americans that while Hitler’s policies killed almost thirteen million CIVILIANS, Stalin’s cost the lives of almost twenty-eight million; and Mao’s policies killed fifty-five million CIVILIANS in PEACE TIME?
5. Why is it that the resurgence of Chinese power, culture and influence in the world juxtaposes with the adoption of capitalism there?
6. Why is it that Barak Obama’s “Dreams from My father” (his first autobiography) was never properly vetted by the mainstream media? . . . it clearly is a glorification of socialism, is it not?
7. Why did the mainstream media never explore Barak Obama’s communistic upbringing? We know fifty times more about the mercurial John-John Kennedy’s homelife than we do about the childhood of our 44th president, wouldn’t you say?
8. Why is Black racism never explored? 96% of Blacks voted for Obama while he received more White votes (almost 48%) than Kerry and Gore did, yet don’t the mainstream media repeat without any investigation every trumped up charge of racism, bigotry and hate-mongering against conservatives, is that neutral media coverage?
9. Why have Barack Obama’s connections to avowed communists; to violent radicals; and to out and out nutcases like the Ehrlichs and Holdren never been brought up, much less explored? Why despite one debacle after another has he had not one week since 2007 where his negative media coverage outnumbered his positive coverage?
10. Why has the mainstream media refused to explore Obama’s campaigning for a communist presidential candidate (Raila Odinga) in his father’s native Kenya? To show pictures of Obama dressed in Muslim garb twice? To explore Odinga’s “memorandum of understanding” (sharia) with the Muslim community in Kenya which in the event of an Odinga victory would have made Kenya a Muslim nation by law; banned missionaries; and banned religious programming other than Muslim on radio and TV. Why was nothing reported about Muslim riots, arson, and rapings and murders against Christian Kenyans? The nature of Obama’s connections to Kenya is a real news story, is it not?
11. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s name has become corrupted to Barack with a ‘C’ and why is it that there is no history of the names of Barack our president by the media? Barak Obama, Jr. , Barak Soetoro (his second father’s last name – at the time Barak was attending Muslim schools in Indonesia), Barry Obama, Barry Soweto and finally Barack Obama are all significant moments in Barack’s young life, no? And why has Barry Soweto’s (his name as an undergraduate during his clearly most communist and radical years) existence been completely covered up? Didn’t President G.W. Bush’s youth receive roughly one-hundred and fifty times as much coverage?
12. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s defense of 100% taxes in Kenya not deemed important, his son wrote a whole worshipful book about “Dreams from My Father” and this is an important part of those dreams? In the first paragraph of Obama’s father’s most famous economic monograph (Problems with Our Socialism) he defines the “scientific socialism” he prefers as “communism,” shouldn’t that have been of interest to neutral journalists?
13. Why is it that Stanley Anne Dunham and Stanley Armour Dunham’s unabashed communism, never been explored in the mainstream media? Isn’t the influence of the two most key people in raising our president important?
14. Why have Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Americanism; Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Americanism and anti-semitism; and Al Sharpton’s anti-semitism never been seriously discussed . . . these are three key Obama supporters, no? And why does the media give Obama a free pass on not placing his hand over the heart or repeating the words when the Pledge of Allegiance is given? What is it about this man that encourages the media to look the other way as one red flag after another is revealed to them? Perhaps the question should be re-phrased, what is it about the media that makes them willing overlook serious warning signals that Barak Obama is NOT really good for America?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
*** http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dstanley%2Bann%2BDunhan&w=488&h=641&imgurl=www.judenfrei.org%2Ffiles%2Fobama%2Fobama-mother-stanley-ann-dunham-3.jpg&size=46.8kB&name=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&p=stanley+ann+dunham&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=293&oid=21d2de8c9586d00a&tit=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&sigr=120k2b3sr&sigi=123rns0su&sigb=11sebjmrp&fr=chr-yie8#FCar=0c445d5e120caf6a
$$ One issue often discussed is the difference between socialism and communism: revisionists see NO relationship between the two. However, socialism begins with government interference in markets and progressively in the lives of private individuals; communism begins as government involvement increases and may progress to say, 100% taxes (as advocated by Obama's father) 100% control of the means of production; and even 100% control over or at least dominance of virtually every act of the individual. The United States has had socialistic aspects since Hoover and especially since FDR. Should Obamacare stand we are definitely a socialist country. Socialism is an economic approach that stifles creativity and freedom and does not produce abundance for its citizens . . . the greater the degree of socialism, the less creativity, the less freedom and the less abundance.

Read more…