I look at the 20th century as the century of American "progressivism" which was a failed experiment. As KOOK pointed out with the mice yesterday, once a rat can get one snack, it will be clearing out your kitchen within days. This is exactly how "progressivism" began. Once those supporting this agenda figured out not to try to openly implement such laws and to do so quietly and secretively, much like rats in your kitchen. They slowly implemented their agenda by changing the language we use, and pushed to make freedoms into "rights". Our current economic failure is proof that we must permanently end this flirtation with "compassionate fascism" as history shows that such forms of government rarely remain peaceful and imagine the threat to the world if we became a Weimar type state. As far as where American Progressivism originated, I have been reading about how Karl Marx had a direct influence on the formation of the Republican Party, out of the death of the old "Whig" party. It's really interesting. Really, the foundation for the American progressive movement was the post civil war Republicans who did so within the backdrop of "reconstruction". This is changing my view that TR was the first American progressive. The philosophy which T.R held was already well formed by 1898. The progressives started openly implementing this with "prohibition" of
Marijuana and catalogue medicines such as Coca-Cola which had cocaine and similar things. T.R. pushed this agenda, knowing that it was likely to be unsuccessful because of the Constitution. At the time, Marijuana was popular with Mexicans in the southwest U.S. and usage elsewhere was negligible. With conservative Churches as an ally, T.R. got this agenda through touting such things as a threat to the "moral fabric" of the country. The problem is, those churches did not practice what they preach. They say to treat others as you would have them treat you, yet when those others were doing something that had no impact on the rest of America, they needed to be jailed. Well, now the genie is out of the bottle, and that same government that was putting those people over there in jail for doing that could very easily be putting Christians in jail for practicing their religion, such as teaching that homosexuality is wrong. That is a "hate crime" now. So by pushing prohibition (which by definition is a restriction on an activity) stories about Marijuana, a little known intoxicant used by a tiny segment of the population, spread to the rest of the country leading to an explosion of usage AFTER it was banned. When such things are banned, a black market for them forms instantly. The mafia grew out of just such black markets when Alcohol was next on the list. Now pandoras box is open and powerful drugs such as methamphetamine and crack cocaine which turn people into addicts nearly instantly have taken the place of marijuana, which is the #1 cash crop in America and prohibition is about to spread into areas such as what foods you eat and how much you drive. Yet the elites will bypass those rules they put on everyone else, just as those who passed alcohol prohibition were able to have an occasional imported drink just as Barney Frank can get away with having his boyfriend growing a pot garden, even being on the property when it was raided. Would you or I be treated in a similar manner? So, has prohibition worked, has it helped the country by having it's desired effect? The answer, of course is no and the reason for that is that the Government cannot stop people from doing something if they really want to do so. Yet, we have the same thing now as we did a century ago. People want the government to tell everybody how much calories our burger should have or whether you can smoke a cigarette, but when it comes to obeying similar laws especially where marijuana is concerned, those people will be the first to break them. I am not advocating the use or legality of drugs such as pot. I believe it should be a states' rights issue. I believe voters in each state should decide where they stand on such things through representation or referendum, and actually I would vote against legalization here while I support the right of others to vote differently elsewhere. If Roe v Wade was overturned, the same thing would happen as it would become a states' rights issue and then each state could choose it's own path there too. So I am, if nothing else, consistent in how I believe our government should work. So my question is, in a decade, will I be getting a nice greasy steak and a case of non diet caffeine loaded soda from a grocery store, or the dope man?
No comments:
Post a Comment