Promised Paper on Progressivism

As promised oh so long ago, here is my final paper on Progressivism. Now that it has been graded and I aced it, I can safely post it without the graders doing a google search and thinking I plagiarized myself. I have posted the entire thing here including references. It is a rather long post. I am thinking of setting up my free webspace with my internet provider to have it listed at. Of course, that will have to wait until later this week. Until then, I hope you enjoy. Remember, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.

Progressivism and Individual Liberty

The Progressive movement of the early 20th century is often viewed as a small period of reform, merely a footnote in the history of American politics. Progressive ideals are at odds with the vision of the Founding Fathers and their views of individual liberty. The Progressive movement started in the late 19th century and included people from all walks of life. Progressives viewed individuals as selfish and disinterested in the needs of the community. The needs of the community should come before those of the individual and the government should have a role in determining what is best. Elite groups of government experts can see where history is taking us and ensure the needs of all individuals are met creating a balance with the needs of the community as a whole. Our nations’ founders felt government should be small and led by representatives from our own communities. They felt that individuals are inherently good and in improving their own lives would also improve the lives of those in their communities as well. Progressive ideals implemented throughout the 20th century have strayed from the intentions of the Founding Fathers and have slowly chipped away at some of the liberties they desired to protect.

Who were the Progressives? The Progressive movement had its beginnings in the late 19th century as the United States and most of the world was experiencing an economic boom from the advancements brought about by the industrial revolution. The turn of the 20th century has come to be known as the Progressive Era. (National Archives, 2009b)

Along with the advancements that came with the Industrial Revolution, there were a score of social ills that many felt needed to be addressed. A large number of those social ills were viewed as coming from the big cities as industry continued to grow. Among this diverse group of reformers were people from all walks of life; most notably, “politicians, labor leaders, religious leaders, and teachers.” (National Archives, 2009b) In looking at all the issues of the day they found several that were of common concern to their various groups. As a lot of the issues of the day had become large in nature, they felt that the federal government should take a hand in addressing these problems. (National Archives, 2009b) Progressivism started as most political movements in America, in the universities, and progressed into the political sphere to include such notable leaders of the day as U.S. Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, President Theodore Roosevelt, and President Woodrow Wilson. (National Archives, 2009b)

Can individuals do what is good for the community while pursuing their own success? Progressives viewed individuals as selfish and therefore not capable of knowing how to best meet the needs of the community. In the attempt to better their own station in life, individuals may forget the needs of those around them and therefore needed guidance. It was felt that the state has a responsibility to mold individuals. Laws and institutions were viewed as a “means of creating individuals.” (West & Schambra, 2007) Evolutionary theory was viewed as an ideal model for the government to follow. If nature followed an evolutionary process, it made sense that “scientific principles” should be applied to political and economic decisions. (Anderson, 2009)

What is the best form of government for a free people? Progressives looked at the initial history of our nation and disagreed that an individual should be left with so much decision making ability. Too much was left in the hands of the individual on a smaller local level. The ideal government would be led by an elite body of experts. These experts would be men who had been properly educated at the best universities. Progressive elites viewed history as an evolutionary process. These enlightened experts could change with the times as they were able to see where history was taking us. (West & Schambra, 2007)

It was not enough for Progressives to have the people represented by elite experts; the whole of government itself would be best managed by professional administrators. (Tallant, 2001) Administrators could manage the affairs of the populace on a local level much better than a city council or county commission. On the national level, the day to day operations of government would best be handled by these administrative experts. Since these individuals were not politicians, but professionals, they would not let personal agendas get in the way. Politicians are widely noted as doing what is best to get themselves reelected, not necessarily what is best for the community. Legislators on a state and national level could then be guided by experts who could shed light on their various fields as had been done in the Wisconsin State Legislature in conjunction with the University of Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2004)

What is the best way to ensure an individual’s needs are met? Is there a role for the government to play in meeting the daily needs of an individual? It has already been noted that progressives viewed individuals as selfish. The best way to ensure everything is fair would be to eliminate those ideas that were felt to promote selfishness. The government needed to step in and ensure everyone got an equal portion of success. One of the many ills the progressives viewed coming out of the industrial revolution was the formation of corporations. In particular, it was felt capitalism was detrimental to the greater good. Most progressives felt that big business needed to be reigned in through regulation to make things fair. That if you were going to bring about social justice, there needed to be an extension of national control. (Chase, 2004) One of the first targets of progressives was the railroads. It was felt that they had too much control and needed to be broken up. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) From there it moved on to other large industries the government felt had a monopoly.

Every generation strives to view itself as having made some major accomplishment. That they have contributed in some great way that will be noticed by the history books. Progressives felt that every generation must use their sovereign power to establish “equal opportunity and industrial justice.” (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) If the goal of every generation was to ensure that everything was fair, how can one point to any type of meaningful progress. By the very nature of making things fair, you take from a group that is moving forward to one that is falling behind. When those that are at the top start to feel they are punished for their success, they will stop working as hard making it more difficult for the government to keep an equal balance.

To assist in making sure things were carried out in an equal and fair manner, Progressives pushed the view that professional social workers were better qualified and equipped to handle charitable works. (Tallant, 2001) How could an individual being selfish in nature, know who is more deserving of their charity. In having all charitable work accomplished by professionals, the government can ensure that charity was given to the most deserving groups of individuals. This also set up the frame work to distribute income from the highest on the success ladder to those at the bottom. It also creates a larger government bureaucracy where more individuals are dependant on the government for work.

With the rise of industrial capitalism, progressives felt that there were too few hands in control of the wealth. As businesses grew, corporations made huge profits while the working class man made indecent wages and worked in intolerable conditions. Progressives declared in 1912 that the purpose of business should be to secure the general prosperity of the people. The profits of business should go to the community as a whole and not to a small group of individuals. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) A push was made to regulate working conditions in the various industries. If the government were to have so much control over industry, one can view them as having a say over a person’s chosen profession. If there is enough of one profession to sustain the needs of the community, there would be no room for anyone else in that profession.

Progressives believed in working within the existing framework of the government to slowly bring about the changes they desired. This is evident by their goal of changing how the members of the U.S. Senate were selected. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) They were originally selected by the state legislatures. Through progressive reform, the 17th amendment was passed which changed the selection of Senators to a popular vote.

As changes wanted by progressives were made, the role of government they felt was the most proper would begin to take shape. It was felt by progressive thinkers that the people had a responsibility to put the needs of the state first. This would solve the issue of selfishness and people would always think about what is best for the community. The “origin of the state” was felt to be “the result of historical development” and that mans rights originated with the state. (West & Schambra, 2007)

If the people’s rights were derived from the state, then the state always knows what is best for the community. Centralized decision making could create better efficiencies and serve the community better as a whole. (Tallant, 2001) The less that people have to decide on, the easier it is to put the community’s needs first. This cut in decisions people would have to make didn’t end at just the basic needs of life, career, and property. The state has the right to make decisions over almost every aspect of your life. John Burgess, a noted progressive political scientist wrote, “the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood” was “the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects.” (West & Schambra, 2007) So it wasn’t just the basic decisions mentioned above. The government is even supposed to choose your friends.

With the progressives claiming government control over so many areas of an individual’s life, why would they not foresee a huge potential backlash? After all, most Americans are ruggedly individualistic. Most people take pride in being able to determine their own path. This was especially true at the turn of the 20th century. Progressives felt the development of human reason would overcome individualism. (West & Schambra, 2007) We would essentially become smart enough to realize that we need to put aside what we want to do and concentrate on what is best for the collective good.

As the United States entered World War I, there were many programs put into place by the progressive politicians that found themselves in power. It was felt that as the country went about the great goal of spreading democracy, everyone was to do their part under national control to achieve our national goals. (Rothbard, 1989) The best way to achieve this is through nationalized programs that direct the participation of not only the community but the individual as well. You could gain a lot more popular support for your programs under the auspices of doing it for the war.

The notable leaders of the American Revolution commonly referred to as the “Founding Fathers”, similarly wanted to improve the conditions of their fellow citizens but came from a much different background. The Declaration of Independence notes that these men had lived under oppressive governments, including the British Crown which they then resided. (Jefferson, 1776) Due to this collective experience, the Founders strove to found a nation that would not limit the potential of the individual. In studying the various forms of government throughout history, the Founders felt that the right form of government is one that is responsive to the needs of all the people, not just the majority. (Madison, 1787) A pure democracy left too much to chance. It would enable a simple majority an opportunity to quash the rights of smaller groups. Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that every individual could exercise their God given liberties. (Madison, 1787) Through the protection of these rights, the success of individuals could lift not only themselves but also the community to a better life.

The Founding Fathers viewed all individuals as being inherently good. Most individuals in their race to improve themselves would also recognize the need to help those around them. The Founders believed that there was a “natural moral order”. (West & Schambra, 2007) As all men recognized that there is a natural law it made sense that individuals would have a strong moral compass to guide them. It is easy to follow the logic of these men when you add their belief that man’s rights came from their Creator. (Jefferson, 1776)

The founders of our nation did not always agree on the best course to secure the freedom of their fellow citizens. This is evident amongst the debate at the Constitutional Convention. Out of that debate they recognized that although individual liberty can bring about a strong difference of opinion, it is essential to life. (Madison, 1787) It was recognized at the creation of this nation that individuals were best left alone to make decisions regarding their own lives.

As mentioned above, the founders of the United States looked into many of the governments of the past. The Founders established a representative republic as the best way to preserve the freedoms they fought so hard for. It was felt a republic “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America.” (Madison, 1788) A republic would allow for representation by the people but would be kept from descending into mob rule as in a true democracy. The rights of the individual would be protected.

It was noted by these men that government should be derived from the people as a whole, not from a “favored class of it.” (Madison, 1788) The Founders strove to put into place checks and balances in the hopes of keeping an elite class of rulers from rising up. In their experience with Great Britain, although they were said to be represented, the majority of the people’s representatives came from the noble class. The nobles were far more interested in doing what was in their best interest than what was good for the people. Many of the Founders also felt it was “vain” to feel that enlightened statesmen would always be available to lead and that they would be unable to lead all “clashing interests” to do what is right for the common good. (Madison, 1787)

Our nation’s founders declared the first object of government is to protect “the diversity of the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.” (Madison, 1787) All men are blessed with different talents, the government should not dictate where that talent is best put to use. An individual’s right to choose is their greatest gift. Men should be allowed the freedom to succeed in their own chosen path without government interference.

We often see the statue of justice outside our courts. In this depiction of justice, she is blindfolded. This infers that justice is to be blind. The Founders felt that justice must be balanced between opposing parties. (Madison, 1787) How can anybody say that justice is blind if the success of one individual is spread to another all in the name of fairness? Our Founding Fathers declared, “an equal division of property” to be an “improper” and “wicked project.” (Madison, 1787)

The progressive viewpoint could not be further from the Founding Fathers idea of the proper role of government. Government needed to be limited and should be concerned with preserving the freedoms of the individual. The Founders views of an individual’s rights were the complete opposite of those spouted by progressives. All men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Jefferson, 1776) If the rights of an individual come from God, they are then lent to the state to take care of the basics that need to be attended to in order to ensure an individual’s rights are not trampled upon. The Constitution was founded on the assent of the governed. (Madison, 1788)

One of the major concerns delegates of the Constitutional Convention had was the national government would overstep its bounds. That if left unchecked, eventually those freedoms they fought to preserve would be whittled away. It was decided that a Bill of Rights was needed to ensure some of the most basic rights. The 10th amendment states that powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are the purview of the states. (National Archives, 2009a)

Many of the ideals championed by progressives have slowly been implemented over the last 100 years. One of the first major reform successes enjoyed by Progressives was the prohibition of alcohol. They felt that alcohol limits the potential of mankind and should be eliminated for the greater good. (Tallant, 2001) This was a major victory as it was accomplished via the Constitutional amendment process. (National Archives, 2009a)

Since the beginning of the progressive movement it was noted that they should achieve their goals through moderate reform. A hard lesson was learned after the success of passing prohibition. These reform efforts did little more than to encourage many more Americans to break the law. It was all too much to just take away the alcohol in one fell swoop. The reform they fought so hard to win via amendment was later rescinded by that same amendment process. (National Archives, 2009a) Other than prohibition, many progressive reforms were moderate and
incremental. This made it more palatable to voters who might otherwise oppose a “fundamental shift” in the established orders. (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2004)

One of the pillars of progressivism is social justice. One of the biggest programs pointed to by progressives as reaching that goal is the “Great Society.” The entire goal of the “Great Society” was to get the poor to change their behavior. Even notable progressives have later said it did not have the effect they wanted. (West & Schambra, 2007) It has been said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Just because a group of experts has said you can get a person to change their behavior if you follow a certain program, does not mean it is going to work. The point missed by many progressives was the individual’s choice on whether they want to follow that program or not.

Have progressive ideals further protected the individual rights our Founding Fathers worked so hard to protect? There are many that believe once the government has been given power over something, it seldom gives it up. For example, many of the policies implemented during World War I as necessary to the war effort disappeared, with the exception of the income tax and the Federal Reserve. (Anderson, 2009) The government now controls the regulatory flow of the money supply, and everything you make isn’t yours anymore. Depending on what state you live in you may pay more or less than your fellow citizens. As you go up the economic scale and achieve success, you have to pay a larger percentage of your income to the government. This goes against the Founders’ belief that income should not be taken from one man and given to another. As previously noted, the founders believed that social justice was evil.

In looking to the progressive ideal that the people need guidance in their decisions by experts, one need only look to the increasing size of what some refer to as the “nanny state” style of government. A law meant to catch methamphetamine users nabs a grandmother buying cold medicine for separate family members. (Trigg, 2009) The State of California is increasing regulation over large televisions by requiring them to be more energy efficient. (Lifsher, 2009) A 12-year old and his mother are violating school policy by biking to school. They feel they have a right to decide how he will get to school. (Yusko, 2009) All of these show a gradual loss of individual control of one’s decision making process to serve the greater good of the community.

In comparing the differing ideals of these two groups, one can see a fundamental difference. Progressives feel the state and the experts know what is best for the greater good and therefore have the duty to reign in the individual. The Founding Fathers believed that man was best left alone to his own devices. The greatest goal of the Founders was to ensure that individual liberty was protected. The greatest goal of the progressive movement has been to make everything fair and equal.

The use of individual rights and the ability to improve upon ones circumstances is one of the largest differences between our nation and others. The more freedom an individual has, the higher they can reach. This was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Progressive ideals and policies enacted go completely in the opposite direction and have slowly chipped away at those individual rights. Today’s ordinary American relates more to the ideals of our Founding Fathers than to the “Greater Good” approach of progressivism. This is evident by their strong attachment to “property rights, self-reliance” and a “wariness of university-certified ‘experts.” (West & Schambra, 2007)

The Progressive movement started in the universities of America in the late 19th century with several ideals and goals in mind. Due to the many ills that came about with the progress made throughout the world from the Industrial Revolution, progressives felt that people were either too selfish or not intelligent enough to notice these ills and the obvious solutions to them. By putting the needs of the state or community first, elite progressives could lead the people to where history was taking us. Everything would be fair and equal. The Founding Fathers showed us that individual liberties enjoyed by the people would propel these individuals to newer and greater heights. If government were to remain small and protect the differences that exist among men, then as individuals lifted themselves up they would lift up the community. Government control was best left to representatives selected from the peoples own communities, not by a body of elite experts. The progressive ideals and programs reviewed here from prohibition, the income tax, and attempts at social engineering such as the “Great Society” have chipped away slowly at some of those liberties that were once enjoyed by Americans. As more and more progressive ideals are implemented through government regulation, the further we are taken from the intent of the founders in keeping government small, and more of the people’s liberties no matter how small, will be slowly lost.

References

Anderson, W. (2009). The legacy of progressivism. Foundation for Economic Freedom. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from
http://fee.org/articles/not-so-fast/legacy-progressivism/

Chace, J (2004). 1912 Progressivism’s high tide. Smithsonian, Vol. 35 Issue 7, 57-59 Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the Academic Search Complete database

Jefferson, T. (1776). The Declaration of Independence.
Retrieved November 10, 2009, from
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Lifsher, M. (2009). California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzzling big- screen tvs. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigtvs14-2009oct14,0,4908205.story

Madison, J. (1787). The union as a safeguard against domestic faction and
insurrection. The Independent Journal.
Retrieved October 9, 2009 from
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm

Madison, J. (1788). The conformity of the plan to republican principles The
Independent Journal. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed39.htm

Platform of the Progressive Party (2009) Great Neck, NY: Great Neck Publishing.
Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the Academic Search Complete database

Rothbard, M. (1989). World war I as fulfillment: Power and the intellectuals The
Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1 (Winter 1989). Retrieved
October 10, 2009, from
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_5.pdf

Tallant, H. (2001). Progressivism (1900-1920). Retrieved October 15, 2009,from
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/courses/his225/progmovt.htm

Trigg, L. (2009). Wabash valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase
violated drug laws. The Tribune-Star. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from
http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_246225916.html

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (2009a). Bill of rights.
Retrieved November 9, 2009, from
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (2009b). Teaching with documents: Political cartoons illustrating progressivism and the election of 1912.
Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/election-cartoons/

West, T., Schambra, W. (2007). The progressive movement and the transformation of
american politics. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp12.cfm

Wisconsin historical society. (2004). Progressivism and the wisconsin idea.
Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-036/

Yusko, D. (2009). School district could backpedal on policy. Times Union Retrieved
September 29, 2009, from
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190

Presentation Final

As promised, here is the final that I aced for my presentation course.

Shredding the Constitution

Well, it has finally happened. The Executive branch is pretty much shredding the Constitution and admitting to it. Well, the anointed one isn't exactly dancing around the west lawn of the white house ripping up a copy shouting yahoo! Pretty close though.

Last week the EPA ruled that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) was a dangerous polutant and a threat to the population. I find that amusing because whenever I exhale a breath it means I am creating a danger to myself and my family. It's like saying, you better watch out or i'll breathe on you!They then stated that they don't have to wait for congress to pass a cap and trade law, they can just "regulate" it. This is a push by progressives to bully congress, in particular the Senate, to pass extremely damaging legislation that will produce no visible benefit.

The head of the EPA announced in Copenhagen, say it with me...Co pen hog in... that the President did not need for Congress to pass a cap and trade law or to sign off on any international agreement the President may want to sign. This goes expressly against the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. It states that the President may enter treaties or agreements with foreign nations only with the advice of the Senate, which has to have a 2/3 majority to approve it.

In further opinion on this, progressive think tanks are stating the President doesn't need the approval of Congress to enact any changes outlined in Co pen hog in because he can issue an executive order. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the king making a decree. Our founding fathers did not want to be Europe or use their system of government. They intentionally set up our nation as they did to shed the old ways that hold individuals back. Now the President and several progressives in Congress are all trying to swim back to Europe and be like them.

Next on the Constitutional shredding list is Congress itself. Yep, when asked by reporters where in the Constitution it allows the goverment to mandate that you have to buy something, here are a couple responses.

Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious, are you serious?" She really did say it two times.

Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, the $300 million dollar woman, "We have constitutional lawyers on our staff that can handle that."

Ok, the oath of office states they will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is their sole job responsibility. You would think they could tell you what is in that simple document. After two hundred years it has gone from 13 pages to 17. That is a drop in the bucket compared to 2,000 page congressional bills.

I just wanted to close out making a mention of government math. His exaltedness stated that if we don't pass healthcare and spend the money (it's $2.5 trillion) the nation will go bankrupt. In what universe do you avoid bankruptcy by spending $2,500,000,000,000? It seriously boggles the mind. It'd be like telling your spouse the debt collectors will stop calling only if we buy 100 billion xbox 360s. Oh yeah, as of this posting the government has officially reached the debt ceiling. They even raised the ceiling with the so called stimulus bill passed at the beginning of the year. According to Congress' own rules they can't borrow any more money. I wonder if our elected representatives would stop receiving their paycheck until we brought it down. I doubt it. They are looking for some excuse to raise it again.

By the way, the debt ceiling is $12.104 trillion. The current national debt is $12.135 trillion. That is just what is on that set of books. The government engages in accounting methods that would make Enron look like the Salvation Army. The total debt that we Americans are on the hook for, including unfunded liabilities like medicare and social security, is right around $200 trillion. That is over $350,000 per citizen. If anyone has that kind of change lying around please send it my way. :-)

Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out!

Smearing Donahue?

.... no, not that Donahue.

In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" he talks about smearing the other side. The basics is this. You know you cannot win in a debate of ideas. You do not have the truth on your side. Therefore, you take out the other side personally to make them less effective in spreading their message.

I see things in the news now and then that remind me of this. There were two today but the latest nugget was this one.

It basically goes like this. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, the institution charged with promoting business in America, had the gall to stand up against both Health Care Reform and Climate Change initiatives. Mr. Donohue is right in that both of these measures will kill economic growth in the U.S. Just about completely. Once again, the progressives on the left cannot argue and debate based upon facts, so they just smear.

Someone else who touched on this today was Glenn Beck. He mentioned how he spoke with his family before he set out to expose everything that he has in the past year and said, look, these people are going to come after me for what I am going to say. He is right. Progressives from all sides of the aisle come after him regularly. Do they actually say he said something wrong? If so, do they point out his errors? Of course not. All they do is try to make fun of him. They try to smear and make him look like an idiot.

Progressive elites have no facts to back up what they are trying to ram down our throats. Now that the people are actually paying attention, they are having a hard time justifying. They cook the books, see Climategate, and they inflate the numbers to try to make their cause look just. They use the touchy feely arguments, but most of us believe you should be able to pull yourself up and improve your lives. So, they call you every name in the book to try and silence you. I read in a comment thread today someone say that calling people racist for not agreeing with something has lost pretty much all credibility. I do believe I agree.

Remember, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.

I Like This Old Guy

I looked this up on Snopes and this guy is for real.

95 Year Old WWII Sailor Tells OBAMA to "Shape Up or Ship Out...

Wow! Read this one. It is really good. And this gentleman says it just like it is.

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country..

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.

There Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens

Amidst the swirling thoughts of my brain today with all that is going on, it was nice not to have it pounded by H1N1. Sorry, ADD moment. Back to my swirling thoughts. I was thinking about one of my favorite songs to dance to. There Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens by Louis Jordan. I thought it was a nice little view on the President's 1 billionth prime time address. (I was mad because they preempted A Charlie Brown Christmas).

Here you have the leader of the mightiest nation on earth say in one breath, i'm going to send half the troops my field commander requested, and then in the next say, we are going to start bringing them home in 18 months. If I were the enemy I would just lay low until the 18 months is up and we're good and gone and then start wreaking havoc.

I can imagine our soldiers going door to door doing searches for insurgents and they hear from the other side, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens." Oh, that's right, our soldiers have to give residents advanced notice of when they will be carrying out a surprise search. The Washington Examiner has put together a list of the rules of engagement that our troops must follow in this war against the terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. I have yet had a chance to read the entire thing, but besides this nugget just discussed were a couple I have picked out.

To engage an insurgent placing an IED, said insurgent must be actively setting up the IED. If they catch him and can't engage until he is walking away, they are too late.

Before engaging the enemy they must be able to show that the enemy is about to fire on them first. I could understand this one in the cold war when you didn't want the Soviets to nuke us, but we have actively declared war against these guys.

If you are going to fire on any insurgents, you cannot do so if they are in proximity to any civilians.

No wonder the only time the President got any applause last night was when he voiced support for our men and women in uniform. Here's a little hint, they weren't applauding him, but their fellow servicemen. He looked extremely uncomfortable giving this speach in front of this crowd and it looked like a lot of people were falling asleep.

I love our men and women in uniform. I have family members that are currently serving. They need leadership back home that is going to have the backbone to get the job done right. If you are not going to give the support that your hand picked general has asked for, then don't wait 18 months to bring our troops home. Bring them home now. Otherwise, what are they fighting and dieing for over there. Don't get me wrong, I want to get the scum who attacked us and get the job done right. However, if you don't want to give the troops what they need to get it done then don't waste their time. General McChrystal asked for 60,000 additional troops with 40,000 being the minimum. He needs these troops immediately. Obama is going to send 30,000 across the next 5 months. The media spin on this is that 30,000 out of the 40,000 requested isn't that bad. They are conveniently forgetting the fact the real numbers requested was much higher.

Abraham Lincoln was constantly ridiculed for his handling of the Civil War when it began. He constantly stood by the decisions of his generals and gave them what they said they needed. Lincoln did fire the generals that didn't get the job done and finally found success with Grant. If President Obama doesn't agree with how his chosen general wants to run the war, then fire him and get somebody that you do like.

Our enemies are being given the blueprint by our own leaders on how to defeat us. When you go to war, especially as the most powerful nation on earth....you decide you are going to win, pound the enemy with everything you have, get the job done as quickly as possible, and get out. If we actually went after our enemies with the full power we possess they would think twice about attacking us. That is the big stick part of speak softly but carry a big stick.

At the end of the day, I believe it is our national leaders crying to the world, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens."

Remember to keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.