A Black Veil of Mourning Hangs Over America - Updated

By AskMarion

I went to bed at about 2a.m. the night of Election 2012 hoping I would wake up to a news cycle miracle along the lines of the correction after the famous 1948 Election Chicago Tribune headlines: Dewey wins over Truman (It would have been poetic justice!)  But when I woke up Obama had still been re-elected, Florida was still too close to call definitively and whispers of voter fraud were everywhere.

Per the Tampa Bay Online and other sources, at 3:30p.m. on Wednesday November 7th, President Barack Obama was still holding onto a slim lead, but too close to call, in Florida the largest swing state, which the President ended up not needing to win for re-election because he captured several other battleground states.  At the time of the writing for this piece Obama's lead in Florida was much less than last night — 46,666 votes, or 49.9 percent to 49.3 percent for Romney. All precincts were in, but provisional and absentee ballots were yet to be counted, which raises a red flag in the mind of the informed voter.  If you have paid attention to the voter fraud fears. warnings and issues around the country and  the voter machine problem reports, the Allen West loss in Florida… who is asking for a recount, along with the slim lead in that state for President Obama, raises questions… as does the Mia Love loss when she was way ahead in Utah, a state that Governor Romney carried.  After all the only people the left dislikes more than tea partiers and conservative women is conservative blacks.  Amazingly Michele Bachmann survived and was re-elected.  But how easy would it be to set a few machines in precincts like those of Allen West or Mia Love that would favor their opponents as well as President Obama?

The reality is that America either committed suicide or was murdered through voter fraud on November 6, 2012 as the mainstream media remains silent and is still spinning the story of Obama’s re-election victory.

Investment guru and financial advisor Porter Stansberry put out a piece before the Election warning investors and Americans in general that the Obama machine and the major powers supporting him would guarantee that President Obama won re-election by any means necessary.  And when you look at the polls, analyzed by experts like Karl Rove, Michael Barone, Dick Morris, Joe Trippi, and the list goes on, who predicted a very close election or a Romney win, as well at the enthusiasm on the right and the size and enthusiasm of the crowds that appeared at the Romney and Ryan events verses the scant and often paid for crowds at the Obama and Biden events throughout much of the election season you have to shake your head… the numbers just don’t add up!  Many feel that Mitt Romney should have contested the election instead of being the gentleman and man of character that he is.  I am among those!

Here Are the Responses of 5 Top Conservative Thought Leaders to Obama’s Victory  Are we conservatives so guileless that we simply cannot fathom the theft of a US presidential election? Instead much of the GOP just turns on itself?!?  More and more information is surfacing about voter fraud do to the voting machines, military votes not counted and variances between exit polls and results and Obama numbers in precincts where GOP inspectors were removed.

Mitt Romney is a decent, patriotic, kind and God-fearing man with exactly the background and skills needed to turn America around and put people back to work.  He and Paul Ryan would have put our country on the road to fixing our debt crisis and would have returned us to a place of respect in the world community.  We chose the sly candy man (or Santa Claus as Rush said) instead of the honest ‘meat and potatoes man’, even though there is poison in the candy. 

After decades of dumbing down our population and 4-years of the Obama Administration actively creating a dependency culture added to the changing demographics of the electorate including 11 million Latinos breaking for Obama (A higher percentage of Hispanics voted for Obama this time than in 2008), months worth of negative ads by Team Obama in the swing or battleground states against Governor Romney  that tainted the electorate while Romney was still in a contentious primary fight, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul’s Libertarians siphoning off Republican votes in some key states like Colorado, Hurricane Sandy, Team Romney deciding not to go after Obama directly on Benghazigate and the photo op vision left in voters’ minds of New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie bear hugging President Obama and even if Ronald Reagan could have swooped down from Heaven riding Shadowfax, he wouldn't have been elected yesterday in the culture we live in now.

But perhaps the two greatest contributors to the Obama re-election added to the factors above are voter fraud around the country including the registration of dead dogs, cartoon characters and dead people, the rigging of voting machines and the DOJ’s efforts to block voter ID laws… plus the lack of turnout in large enough numbers by Evangelicals, Caucasians, seniors and Constitutionalists for Romney and the lack of awareness of the true issues and facts by Obama voters that can largely be attributed to the liberal mainstream media that have protected Obama since 2007.  Only one third of Americans eligible to vote, exercised their right and privilege.  And how many of those were duplicates or ineligible or changed votes is another question, plus what happened to the approximately 200 million Americans that did not vote in the most important election of our lifetime(s)?

Election 2012 was a game changer, a defining election, that decided whether America would continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans chose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system (that has failed miserably and is now falling apart) over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.  By re-electing Barack Obama we chose the latter.  Dennis Miller said on the Factor on Wednesday that “America will never be the same, at least not in his lifetime” and truer words were never said.

Whatever comes as a result of this election if you did not vote or help spread the information you knew to be ‘true’; or if you voted for Obama without knowing what is going on in Benghazi or what is really in the ObamaCare bill (which you can read it on the Internet); if you are Hispanic and could not see past the immigration issue: if you are black or a minority voter who could not see past the issue of race; if you are a Christian and couldn’t get past Romney being a Mormon or your type of Christian; or if you are a single woman and put ‘free’ birth control and abortions before all else, or if you allowed people to scare you without doing your own homework, you can only blame yourself!  It will be your legacy and yours to explain when you children and grandchildren ask, “What were you doing and who did you vote for the day America died?”

Thomas Sowell said today, "Like so many people, in so many countries, who started out to "spread the wealth," Barack Obama has ended up spreading poverty", yet so many still are blind to the reality judging from the election.  Others, like many in abusive relationships, just can’t seem to break away.  That is perhaps the most frightening lesson on the election.

It has been an unusual day filled with emptiness and sorrow for many… for most who understand history, the Constitution and follow current events, as if a black veil of mourning has covered America.  Many felt God would jump in at the last minute and give voters wisdom to right our ship.  I think God gave Americans the tools long ago in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, like he gave us the Bible to follow, and he inspired the Founding Fathers to guide our path but we have lost our way.  He gave us endless clues over the past 4-years that we made a mistake in 2008 and gave us another wake-up call when the Benghazi terror attack facts were leaked, and again too many people chose not to listen, not to do their homework and not to vote.

We must not give up the fight… but we, as a country, missed ‘the moment’ by re-electing Barack Obama instead of the right man for the job, Mitt Romney.  Conservatives will now be called on to work and fight even harder and to start immediately at a grassroots local level.

Since this was originally written, we suspect that many military absentee ballots were perhaps not counted and the reports of suspected voter fraud and discrepancies between exit polls and the reported results could have brought a victory in several states for Governor Romney that might change the entire outcome of the election. Demand that these votes be counted and applied honestly and correctly, whatever the outcome. Our troops give their lives daily for our rights and freedoms, so if there is some truth behind the Duffel Bag’s satirical piece, their votes must be counted! And if there was voter fraud within the U.S. that would changed the outcome of the election, it must be addressed and the votes must be applied correctly. Remember Al Franken… Stand up and join the fight… get out the word to everyone to demand that everyone’s vote is counted and counted honestly and those votes that are ineligible must be pulled!

I have heard speculation that voter fraud on the Democrat side could be as high as 5% of the total ballots cast. The Dow dropped 400 points the two days after the election and layoffs and even companies closing their doors began the morning after Election 2012, once companies and especially small business owners knew that President Obama had been re-elected and that ObamaCare and many of its costs would begin going into affect in January 2012. And the by Friday General Petreus had resigned and the Benghazigate cover-up was moving to page one.

Whether the black veil of mourning continues to hang over America, grows even darker or is lifted is up to ‘We the People’. Will we demand an honest count and even a redo (new balloting) in some areas until we know the outcome of Election 2012 is true and honest and the right people are in office, from President down to the local dog catcher? Will we demand answers, the truth, explanations, and resignations, recalls and impeachments of those responsible for the cover-up(s) in Benghazi and then go back to Fast and Furious. And will conservatives (Republicans) realign the delivery of their message and reach out move effectively allowing more people to feel comfortable in their tent without compromising their values; hence continuing to give people in the future a choice. Or will we grumble in our soup and whine on our computers while let it all slide again… changing the traditions, values and legal precidents of the greatest country on earth forever, as our Founding Fathers spin in their graves? The choice is ours and whether we choose blue sky, the black veil or total darkness, is up to us as individuals, communities, political groups and parties and the whole nation.

Related:

We Must Remain In The Fight

Election 2012: Obama gets his “revenge,” but conservatives must stand tall

Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney

How Romney Lost

Tens of thousands report voting problems in Battle Ground States

It’s the turnout stupid… updated

Not by the color… by Character

Romney Concedes, Obama Wins Second Term

Allen West lost in Florida… who is asking for a recount

GOP Rising Star Mia Love Loses Tight Congressional Race in Election Day Shocker

Election Day November 6th 2012 Tweets

GBR: Elections Have Consequences

‘Cooling Out’ the Voters

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

More Electronic Voting Machines Changing Romney Votes to Obama: We Looked Into It and Here’s What a Vendor Told Us – Updated

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

Obama United Progressive Coalition by Dividing America

Obama’s Hidden Bread Lines

GBR:  A Caller Who Grew Up in the USSR

CNN’s ‘Liberal’ Erin Burnett Takes Apart Obama… (VIDEO)

Technorati Tags: Election 2012,2012 Election,voter fraud,politics,Dewey wins,elections,MSM,Shadowfax,dumbing down of America,demographics,Santa Claus,Rush Limbaugh,Limbaugh,Mitt Romney,Romney vs. Obama,Obama vs. Romney,Ronald Reagan,Latinos for Romney,Latinos,Porter Stansberry,Karl Rove,Michael Barone,Dick Morris,Joe Trippi,Hispanics,getting out the vote,Benghazigate,military votes,uncounted military votes,stealing elections

American Progressivism – Parts Four and Five

Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

R.J. Pestritto  -  Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

American Progressivism

Progressivism and Socialism

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism.  There are several things to consider in answering this question. 

First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible).

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it.  In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs).  The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes.  The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception.  Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual.  Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.”  Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing.  He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness.  He wrote:

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today.

Progressivism and the Current Crisis

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels.

The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution.  The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama.  Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20^th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem.  Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily.  

Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives.  As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be.  This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized.

The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy.  The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it.  So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies.  They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies.  Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way.

The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan.  Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly.  That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell.

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism...  which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

Source:  Daily Thought Pad

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:

• American Progressivism – Part One
• American Progressivism – Part Two
• American Progressivism – Part Three
• Conservatism 101

American Progressivism – Part Three

How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency

Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

R.J. Pestritto  -  Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

 

American Progressivism 

 As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government.  As a practical matter, how was this to be done?  It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency.

Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution.  The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers.  As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government.

The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind.  So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle.

Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole.  In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people. 

It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required. 

In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists.

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism...  which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

Related Articles:

•  American Progressivism – Part One
•  American Progressivism – Part Two

Source:  Daily Thought Pad

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

American Progressivism – Part Two

The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

R.J. Pestritto  -  Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

 

American Progressivism 

by Ronald J. Pestritto

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government.  While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.  

The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded.  The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly.

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government.  They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.  “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.  

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.  Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.  And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!”  This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.  

In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR.

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism...  which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

Related Articles:  American Progressivism – Part One

Source:  Daily Thought Pad

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

American Progressivism – Part One

Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

R.J. Pestritto  -  Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

 

American Progressivism
by Ronald J. Pestritto

Glenn has asked me to expand a bit on our discussion of America’s Progressives from Friday’s television show, which I’ll do in this and four subsequent pieces for the newsletter.  In today’s piece, I’ll explain who the Progressives were and why they were important.  

Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I.  Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement?

The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.  Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today.  While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal.

We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself.  When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.  

In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so.  The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America.  There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20^th century.  Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today.  I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles.

As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.  Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow:

1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles?

2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives?

3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism?  Were the Progressives actually Socialists?

4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today?

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism...  which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.