The Conservative Party Principles

The Conservative Party Principles

Saturday, January 9, 2010

The 100 Year WAR: How The Progressive Socialist Movement Has Fought For the Enslavement of America!

The Socialist Progressive movement is now in its 100th year of undeclared war on our Republic!

It started back in 1910 when a known progressive elitist was elected as the Governor of New Jersey and the President in 1912.
The following is from Wikapedia:
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856–February 3, 1924)[1] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912.
In his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[2] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. Wilson brought many white Southerners into his administration, and tolerated their expansion of segregation in many federal agencies.[3][4]
Wilson started Congressional Government, his best known political work, as an argument for a parliamentary system, but Wilson was impressed by Grover Cleveland, and Congressional Government emerged as a critical description of America's system, with frequent negative comparisons to Westminster. Wilson himself claimed, "I am pointing out facts—diagnosing, not prescribing remedies.".[31]
Wilson believed that America's intricate system of checks and balances was the cause of the problems in American governance. He said that the divided power made it impossible for voters to see who was accountable for ill-doing. If government behaved badly, Wilson asked,
" is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? ... Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government... It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The 'literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our Constitution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves... [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible."[32]
The longest section of Congressional Government is on the United States House of Representatives, where Wilson pours out scorn for the committee system. Power, Wilson wrote,
"is divided up, as it were, into forty-seven seignories, in each of which a Standing Committee is the court-baron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons, some of them not a little powerful, but none of them within reach [of] the full powers of rule, may at will exercise an almost despotic sway within their own shires, and may sometimes threaten to convulse even the realm itself".[33]
Wilson said that the committee system was fundamentally undemocratic because committee chairs, who ruled by seniority, were responsible to no one except their constituents, even though they determined national policy.[citation needed]
Besides its undemocratic nature, Wilson also believed that the Congressional Committee System facilitated corruption.[citation needed]
"the voter, moreover, feels that his want of confidence in Congress is justified by what he hears of the power of corrupt lobbyists to turn legislation to their own uses. He hears of enormous subsidies begged and obtained... of appropriations made in the interest of dishonest contractors; he is not altogether unwarranted in the conclusion that these are evils inherent in the very nature of Congress; there can be no doubt that the power of the lobbyist consists in great part, if not altogether, in the facility afforded him by the Committee system.[34]
By the time Wilson finished Congressional Government, Grover Cleveland was President, and Wilson had his faith in the United States government restored. When William Jennings Bryan captured the Democratic nomination from Cleveland's supporters in 1896, however, Wilson refused to stand by the ticket. Instead, he cast his ballot for John M. Palmer, the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Party, or Gold Democrats, a short-lived party that supported a gold standard, low tariffs, and limited government.[35]
After experiencing the vigorous presidencies of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson no longer entertained thoughts of parliamentary government at home. In his last scholarly work in 1908, Constitutional Government of the United States, Wilson said that the presidency "will be as big as and as influential as the man who occupies it". By the time of his presidency, Wilson merely hoped that Presidents could be party leaders in the same way prime ministers were. Wilson also hoped that the parties could be reorganized along ideological, not geographic, lines. "Eight words," Wilson wrote, "contain the sum of the present degradation of our political parties: No leaders, no principles; no principles, no parties."[36]

In summary Wilson was the first true sitting president to have written and espoused a New World Order and the destruction of our Constitutional rule of law.
When he realized that this document created over 130 years earlier could not be summarily dismissed he wrote the preceding work that calls for the amending of the Constitution to ratify the so-called injustices that he and other Progressive Socialist Elites felt were impeding their agenda to recreate our country from Republic to a parliamentary system of government abolishing states rights and freedoms.

It is through social programs not geo-political policy or economic fundamentals that became their path of least resistance and allowed them to test the waters of social re-engineering. The first was a moral issue:


In the history of the United States, Prohibition, also known as The Noble Experiment, is the period from 1919 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Under substantial pressure from the temperance movement, the United States Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 16, 1920. Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.
The "Volstead Act", the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919 and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor.[1] Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, it did little to enforce the law. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy in America. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.[2]
Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression, especially in large cities. On March 23, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages.
On December 5, 1933, the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.

The miserable failure to not only regulate behavior but the violence and corruption only further amplified the role that the government played as a complicit co-conspirator. The bribes at the local, state and federal levels were of such magnitude that it kept prohibition from being disbanded an extra 7 years from the first attempt to the final ratification.

Then in 1935 next great Socialist Progressive FDR created Welfare the next attempt at social engineering and this time it stuck:

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor.[10] By the 1960s, as whites moved to the suburbs, the city was having trouble making the payments and attempted to purge the rolls of those who were committing welfare fraud.[10] Twenty individuals who had been denied welfare sued in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court, Goldberg v. Kelly. The Court ruled that those suspected of committing welfare fraud must receive individual hearings before being denied welfare.[10] David Frum considers this ruling to be a milestone leading to the city's 1975 budget disaster.[10]
After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.[11] This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers,and federal and state housing benefits.[11] In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%.[11] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.[12] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[13]
Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs."[14] Prior to reform, states were given "limitless"[14] money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.[15] This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).[16] One child in seven nationwide received AFDC funds,[15] which mostly went to able-bodied single mothers.[13]
After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[13] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[16] The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).[15] It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance.[13][15][17] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[17] The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[15]
Millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[17] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[13] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[17] The reforms were "widely applauded"[18] after "bitter protest."[13] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[19] Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the reason for the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls in the United States in the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient.
Aspects of the program vary in different states; Michigan, for example, requires a month in a job search program before benefits can begin.[13]
The National Review editorialized that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s and again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[16] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.[19] The House bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states' welfare caseloads.[15] Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the block grant on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.[14]
Time line
1880’s-1890’s: There were attempts made to try and move poor from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.
1893-1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893-1894 recession.
1932: The Great Depression has gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The “Emergency Relief Act” was passed into law. It gives local governments $300 million.
1933: In March 1933 Roosevelt pushes congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.
1935: The Social Security Bill was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.
1940: Aid to Families With Dependant Children (AFDC) was established.
1964: Johnson’s War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly know as “the Great Society”
1996: Passed under Clinton; “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” becomes law.

Once the Progressive Socialists got their education that, through Social Programs they could effectively convert our Republic into a Parliamentary System of one country and no borders with no state governments and no Constitution their plan was created.


Now they are playing for the biggest controlling legislation that will effectively create their Socialist One State Rule of Law. HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION!

Their goal has never been or ever will be improving anyones life but to take every last freedom from us and force us to become subserviant slaves to their autocratic rule of law. The bills contain nothing in them that improve anything in the cost, delivery or administration of health care or insurance!

Their track record since 1965 and the administration of Medicare/Medicaid is a direct reflection of their incompetence, theft, financial malfeasance and overall complete antipathy for the Americans they were sworn to represent along with their Constitutional Rule of Law!
They have gone out of their way to destroy our freedoms and suppress our God Given Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
They are as Guilty of High Treason as Benedict Arnold or even more so and should be treated in the same manner as the Rosenbergs!

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo

Financial Services Professional specializing in health care risk mitigation and multi-layered retirment income planning.

Blood of Our ForeFathers

Blood of Our ForeFathers