Americans Are Destroying America

In the LDS Church General Conference of April 1968, Ezra Taft Benson, a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and former Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower administration, gave a talk called Americans Are Destroying America.  The full text of the talk can be found in a couple of places online, http://rogmo.com/98.html, and http://www.ldsinfobase.net/liberty/ETB_68apr.html.

My friend Greg McMurdie shared the article with me recently, and I found it to be a fascinating read.  I guess what amazes me most is that if the situation was bad when President Benson gave this speech 40 years ago, how bad must the situation be now!

The first source mentioned above even says that the talk was entered in the Congressional Record by Senator John McClellan of Arkansas with the following  introduction on the Senate floor:

“Mr. Benson’s speech . . . should be read by every American citizen, and I hope the central truth it conveys that Americans, by their lack of self-discipline, by their apathy and indifference, and by their lack of will and resolve, can succeed in destroying America.”
(See Congressional Record, April 22, 1968)

President Benson’s main point is that no outside force can or will destroy America.  The United States of America was conceived and built by men that God raised up for this very purpose.  And it is only by Americans turning their back on God and the founding principles of the US Constitution that America can be destroyed.  Unfortunately that is happening; the moral fabric of America is eroding at an alarming rate, and the Constitution is being trampled by scheming politicians.  All the while, average everyday Americans are frequently blind to these changes, being lulled to sleep by a culture of entertainment and entitlement.

All Is Not Lost: A Plan of Action

Though America is in dire straights, all is not lost.  As President Benson points out in his talk, there are things we can do to save America and preserve it as a great nation.  Here are some of his suggestions:

  • Stand up now for freedom. It is a celestial gift bestowed by the God of Heaven. Don’t allow yourself to be an idle onlooker while our freedom and nation are destroyed.
  • Return to a nation of morals. Honesty and integrity.  Law and order.  Allow police and law enforcement to do their jobs.
  • Educate yourself on the Constitution. Acquaint yourself with our nation’s history and founding principles. And do not support the world’s greatest evil: the Godless, Socialist-Communist conspiracy.
  • Reign in an out of control Federal government. Return power to the people and their communities. Reduce taxes and dependency on government.
  • Elect good leaders. Put politicians in office who will abandon the self-destructing course, and return to the Constitutional, founding principles of this country: life, liberty and property.

The bullet points above are my summary of President Benson’s main points.  Here are just some of the many highlights from the talk, in his own words:

  • “No government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”
  • “No people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.”
  • “The function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.”

Breakdown of Law and Order

  • “Through the exercise of political expediency, the government is condoning the breakdown of law and order.”

Qualifications for Liberty

  • From Edmund Burke: “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.”

Greatest Threat

  • “I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles…I think it will die when we no longer care, when the spiritual forces that make us wish to be right and noble die in the hearts of men.”
  • Abraham Lincoln said: “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.”
  • “If America is destroyed [it will be by] Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free—Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.”

Erosion of National Morality

  • “Great nations are never conquered from outside unless they are rotten inside. Our greatest national problem today is erosion, not the erosion of the soil, but erosion of the national morality.”
  • Teddy Roosevelt said: “The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first.”
  • “I mention only a few of the reported startling evidences of our national illness, our moral erosion…We continue to move in the direction of more federal intervention, more concentration of power, more spending, more taxing, more paternalism, more state-ism.”

Our Responsibility

  • Babson’s Washington Forecast Letter said: “Unless those in authority in the United States can be influenced to abandon the suicidal course on which they have embarked—or unless they can be replaced by men who will—we cannot hope to restore in our nation the kind of domestic peace and order which has made our many generations proud to be Americans . . . living in a land of freedom, security, opportunity, and justice under law.”

Gradual Encroachments

  • James Madison said: “There are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
  • “If America is to withstand these influences and trends, there must be a renewal of the spirit of our forefathers.”
  • “National character is the core of national defense.”

Appreciation for the American System

  • Americans have “grown up to believe in politics without principle, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without effort, wealth without work, business without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice.”
  • “We can never survive unless our young people understand and appreciate our American system.”

Heritage Threatened

  • “Those of us conscious of the seriousness of the situation must act, and act now.”
  • Alexander Hamilton warned that “nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves.”

The Way to Safety

  • “Can we cope with these threatening realities? Yes, we can; if we would allow the local police to do their job… if we have the courage and wisdom to return to basic concepts, to recall the spirit of the founding fathers.”
  • “With an aroused citizenry and the help of Almighty God it can be accomplished.”

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

20090128-thomas_paine Common Sense was the name of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in January of 1776, just prior to the American Revolution. Common Sense presented the American colonists with a powerful argument for independence from British rule and was written in a style that common people understood.  The pamphlet became an immediate success; at the time, it was the best selling book in American history.

Though not a signer of the Declaration of Independence or a participant in the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Paine is considered one of our country’s founding fathers for the influence he had on those men.  Paine’s great contribution was in initiating an open public debate about independence, which had previously been rather muted. Due to his influence on the revolutionary generation through the Common Sense pamphlet and other writings, Thomas Paine rightly claims the title of Father of the American Revolution.

Thomas Paine is also the author of these famous lines, read by General George Washington to his inspire his troops:

“These are the times that try men’s souls…Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.” –Thomas Paine, The Crisis

Here are some of the Common Sense principles set forth by Thomas Paine:

  • “Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.”
  • “Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens…It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot.”
  • “For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever.”
  • “Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness…Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.”
  • “O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe.”
  • The American colonists “have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth.”
  • “Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake let us come to a final separation.”

Now, 230 years later, we have another man, inspired by Thomas Paine, who is advocating similar Common Sense principles. It is Glenn Beck in his new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government.  Some of the common sense principles that Glenn Beck is advocating are:

  • Reduce the National Debt. The government has spent way too much money over the last decade.  Paying it back will be difficult or impossible and it will create a huge burden on future generations.
  • Reduce the Size of Government. The vast expansion of government has taken away the voice of the people, and has put power instead in the hands of an elite few.
  • Reform the Tax Code. The tax code is way too large and complex. The Internal Revenue Code is more than 10,000 pages in length.  Such convoluted, lengthy legislation invites manipulation and corruption.  Even Obama’s Secretary of Treasury can’t figure out how to pay his taxes.
  • Self-serving Politicians Need to Be Reigned In. Politicians  look out for themselves, their special interests and their re-election first and foremost.  This must change.
  • Eminent Domain Has Gotten Out of Hand. The government should not be allowed to seize your house in order to build a shopping mall.

Says Glenn about the book, “if you believe it’s time to put principles above parties, character above campaign promises, and Common Sense above all — then I ask you to read this book.”  The purpose of the book is “to galvanize Americans to see past government’s easy solutions, two-part monopoly, and illogical methods and take back our great country. ”

The book is non-partisan, though liberals who hate Glenn Beck may not believe it.  But to prove that the principles of the book transcend party lines, please watch the video below.  The book’s principles really are in line with common sense, whether you are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.  Though it is very funny to see the reaction of liberals in the video below when they find out they agree with Fox News commentator Glenn Beck.

Eisenhower’s D-Day Message

Today marks 65 years since the D-Day invasion of Normandy by the US and Allied troops, and 65 years and one day since Eisenhower’s D-Day Message to his troops. “June 6, 1944, 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which “we will accept nothing less than full victory.” More than 5,000 Ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-Day invasion, and by day’s end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot- hold in Normandy. The D-Day cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded — but more than 100,000 Soldiers began the march across Europe to defeat Hitler.” (from the D-Day memorial page on the US Army official site, army.mil)

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, wrote a letter to the troops had had it read to them just prior to the D-Day invasion. In the letter he invokes the blessing of God and tells the troop that the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere rest upon them. Below is a YouTube video of Eisenhower reading it, and below that is the transcript the letter.

“Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have in­flicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Al­mighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”

Signed Dwight D. Eisenhower (Source: General Eisenhower’s Message Sent Just Prior to the Invasion)

Conclusion

I am grateful, especially this day, for these troops who so bravely stood up to fight the forces of evil brought upon the world by National Socialism (Hitler’s Nazi Germany). I have heard a lot in the news this weekend about ‘Never Again’ referring to the Holocaust and the other horrors of fascist Germany in the 30s and 40s. And I pray that such evil does never again come upon us, and I pray that the Americans and people all over the world will recognize such evil regimes and remove them from power before they get strong enough to commit such acts like that again. I hope the day never comes that the freedom-loving people have to again stand up to tyranny. But if that day does come, I hope that generation has the fortitude of character and the faith in God to do what America’s Greatest Generation accomplished.

Correlation Between Economic Freedom and Income

I was recently reading the Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings developed by the Heritage Foundation which is a measure of the economic freedom and opportunity in countries. In 1776, economist Adam Smith, in his influential work, The Wealth of Nations, formulated a theory that when institutions and governments protect the economic liberty of individuals, greater prosperity results for all.

Today that theory has been measured and proven, as you can see in the chart below. In red is plotted the economic freedom score of 157 countries, and in blue is plotted the GDP per capita in those same countries. As you can see, the greater the economic freedom in a country, the greater the economic prosperity of its people.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is a primary indicator of wealth and economic prosperity; it represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced by the country and is divided by the population (per capita) to adjust for population size difference.

What is Economic Freedom?
Economic freedom is defined as the right to control one’s own labor and property. “In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.” (See http://www.heritage.org/Index/FAQ.aspx)

The economic freedom score is determined based on each countries performance in 10 areas:

  • Business Freedom: the ability to start, operate, and close a business. Takes into account the overall burden of regulation, as well as the efficiency of government in the regulatory process.
  • Trade Freedom: the absence of tariffs and other barriers that affect the import and export of goods and services.
  • Fiscal Freedom: the burden of government taxes both on individuals and corporations, as well as the overall amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP.
  • Government Size: the level of government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Includes government expenditures on all levels federal, state, and local.
  • Monetary Freedom: price stability including an assessment of inflation and price controls. Price stability without government intervention is the ideal state for the free market.
  • Investment Freedom: the free flow of investment capital (foreign investment as well as internal capital flows) in order to determine its overall investment climate.
  • Financial Freedom: the extent of government regulation of banks and other financial services; the difficulty of opening and operating financial services firms; and government influence on the allocation of credit.
  • Property Rights: the ability of individuals to accumulate private property; the degree to which a country’s laws protect private property rights and to which its government enforces those laws. It also assesses the likelihood that private property will be expropriated and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts.
  • Freedom from Corruption: Corruption erodes economic freedom by introducing insecurity and uncertainty into economic relationships. The score for this component is derived from Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.
  • Labor Freedom: the legal and regulatory framework of a country’s labor market. It considers regulations on minimum wages, laws inhibiting layoffs, severance requirements, and measurable regulatory burdens on hiring, hours, etc.
  • (see Methodology for the 10 Economic Freedoms)

    Conclusion
    As shown in the graph above, there is empirical evidence that economic freedom, as defined by the ten factors above, leads to economic prosperity. Despite that, there are still many doubters, particularly in the moderate and left-leaning political philosophies. With the so-called stimulus bill, our president, most in his party, and some in the opposition party, are currently engaged in one of the largest expansions of government in our country’s history. This expansion of government brings with it a reduction of economic freedom, and consequently the economic prosperity of all will be diminished. Thus this stimulus package, passed in the name of helping people, will in fact hurt the economic fortunes of individuals and businesses in our country.


    Economic Freedom scores taken from the Heritage Foundation
    http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

    GDP per capita by country was taken from Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    More Examples of Corporatism. Goodbye Capitalism.

    The New York Times recently posted a table that tracks the spending of the $700 billion bailout bill passed last October (see Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout). It lists, line by line, each of the companies that received money and how many billions each got. Here is the top ten:

    Free Market Capitalism Is Gone
    I was against the bailout from the beginning (and I’m certainly against putting the US in another trillion dollars of debt as the Obama administration is proposing) but it really hit home when I saw the report above. Capitalism is an economic system that gives you the freedom to thrive and the freedom to fail. If you work hard and have a good business, the sky is the limit, but there are no guarantees. Yet, in that bailout bill of October 2008, the government hand picked companies that it deemed were too big to fail. And the complacent American people went along with it for fear of economic ruin preached by politicians on both sides of the isle.

    Government Controlled Corporatism Is Here
    With billions upon billions of tax payer dollars flowing into these companies now, of course, politicians, media outlets, and a great many Americans want a say in how these companies spend that money. “No corporate jets.” “Salary caps for executives.” Etc. This all makes for a dangerous mix of government and big corporations as I described in my recent article on Corporatism.

    Obama on Abortion

    It took only three days for our new President Obama to begin to do his part to expand the number of abortions performed throughout the world. In an effort to “promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations”, on Jan 23, 2009 Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. This policy prohibited nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from receiving US federal dollars “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” (see the president’s memorandum titled Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning)

    FoxNews says this immoral stance on abortion is “a new foreign policy confrontation is in the making — with the Vatican.” In an article called Obama Administration, Vatican Clash Over Abortion, they say Obama is taking heat from the Roman Catholic Church after he ended the ban on federal funding to international groups that perform or promote abortions. “Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst,” said Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, a top official with the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.

    Of course, Obama’s move to expand abortion should come as no surprise to any American voter who paid the slightest bit of attention to the recent presidential campaign. As you can see in the video below, when a reporter asked Barack when he thinks a baby begins to have “human rights”, Obama fumbled around and eventually said it was “above my pay grade.” The video contrasts Obama’s response with that of his defeated opponent, John McCain. Without hesitation, when asked when a baby has human rights, McCain said “at the moment of conception.”

    I have heard of people, otherwise opposed to abortion, that nevertheless supported Obama saying the President has little say over the issue and that Barack actually wants to reduce the number of abortions, as mentioned in the video. But as we have seen in the first week of the Obama presidency, the President does have a big say on the issue of abortion in the way of executive orders (not to mention Supreme Court appointees). And any so-called desire by Obama to reduce abortion, it seems to me, is merely lip service to his supports of religious faith and a moral conscience. But Obama’s belief and actions are firmly pro-abortion, because, as we know from this second brief video clip below, Obama feels an unplanned pregnancy is a “punishment” women should not have to endure.

    Defining Corporatism and Examples in America

    Defining Corporatism

    Corporatism is a relatively new term for me and perhaps some of you readers as well. Wikipedia defines corporatism as “a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.”

    Not a bad definition, but let me put it in a little plainer English. Corporatism is the collusion of big corporations and big government. Democrats call it right-wing when corporations exert undue influence on government. Republicans call it left-wing when government exert undue influence on corporations. But whether it comes from the right or from the left, corporatism stinks of progressivism and fascism.

    Examples of Corporatism in America

    Jonah Goldberg provides numerous examples of corporatism in his book, Liberal Fascism. In each case of corporatism, government power and influence grows while individual freedom shrinks. Corporatism gives more power to government and corportate bureaucrats and does so under the guise of helping the little people. Here are just a few examples:

    • During FDR’s administration, corporatism reached new heights as the government began imposing strict regulations on business. “The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated…It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed…In business after business, the little guy was crushed or at least severely disadvantaged in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.'” (p. 293)
    • In this same time period, “the meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection would become a marketing tool for their products and, eventually, a minimum standard. Small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.” (p. 291)
    • A more recent example of corporatism is the ‘Big Tobacco’ settlement with the government. “Why would the tobacco companies agree to a settlement that cost them so much money and that forced them to take out ads disparaging their own product and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers? The reason, quite simple, is that it was int heir interests. The tobacco companies not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought government approval of a new illegal cartel. ‘Big Tobacco’ raised prices above costs imposed by the settlement, guaranteeing a tidy profit. Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments…The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of ‘Big Tobacco.'” (p. 308)
    • So-called campaign finance reform laws, such as the McCain-Finegold bill passed a few years ago, are also corporatist in nature. “Speech regulations in turn give an unfair advantage to some very big business–media conglomerates, movie studios, and such–to express their political views in ways exempt from government censorship…The New York Times is pro-choice and supports pro-choice candidates–openly on its editorial pages, more subtly in its news pages. Pro-life groups need to pay to get their views across, but such paid advertising is heavily regulated, thanks to McCain, at exactly the moment it might influence people–that is, near Election Day.” (p. 313)
    • Efforts to force private companies to produce “environmentally friendly” products, like efforts Obama is proposing to force car makers to produce “green” cars, is also corporatist because it imposes “technologies the government was smart enough to pick even though the market wasn’t.” (p. 342)

    Corporatism on the Rise

    With the bailouts of financial giants (like Citi Bank), insurance companies (like AIG), automakers, and home mortgage companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), it is becoming increasingly more difficult to tell where the private sector ends and government begins. Many companies that were once proudly free-market can suddenly find themselves making arguments in favor of protectionism and corporatism.

    Some companies have fought the onslaught of government but it seems to be a losing battle. Take the example of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, again quoting from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. “For years both Wal-Mart and Microsoft boasted that they had no interest in Washington. Microsoft’s chief, Bill Gates…had one lonely lobbyist hanging around the nation’s capital. Gates changed his mind when the government nearly destroyed his company. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to Washington, D.C., to atone for his success, and the senators, in the words of the New York Times, ‘took a kind of giddy delight in making the wealthiest man in America squirm in his seat.’ In response, Gates hired an army of consultants, lobbyists, and lawyers to fight off the government. In the 2000 presidential election, Wal-Mart ranked 771st in direct contributions to federal politicians. In the intervening years, unions and regulators began to drool over the enormous target the mega-retailer had become. In 2004 Wal-Mart ranked as the single largest corporate politcal action committee.” (p. 303-304)

    Corporatism, A Word You’ll Be Hearing More Often

    Hillary Clinton, a high-profile member of Barack Obama’s new cabinet, has long been a fan of corporatist fusion of big government and big business. In her book, It Takes A Village, she states her belief that “socially minded corporate philosophies are the avenue to future prosperity and social stability.” Clinton further lauds the fact that “a number of our most powerful telecommunications and computer companies have joined forces with the government.”

    I have long thought that the left’s stance regarding business was to have government regulate it to within a inch of its life. And while that is often the effect, I now see that they don’t want to kill business, they want to harness it for their own political purposes. And with liberal Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government now, we can all, unfortunately, look forward to a lot more of the kind of socialism inherent in corporatism.

    Labor Statistics and Jobs Effect Elections

    With much news recently about raising unemployment rates (California’s Unemployment Rate Hits Highest Point Since 1994, Microsoft announces first massive layoff in company history), I wondered if I could determine a relationship between employment rates and the outcome of presidential elections. As you will see below, the correlation turns out to be quite strong (data below comes from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics).


    1980 Election
    The incumbent party, the Democrats, lost to Republican Ronald Reagan. In the six months leading up to the election there was a net loss of half a million jobs, which did not bode well for Jimmy Carter.

    1984 Election
    The first two years of Reagan’s presidency was pretty rocky, but he finished strong with a net gain of 3.8 million jobs during his fourth year. This made him a pretty formidable opponent for Democrat Walter Mondale. The incumbent Republican party won in a land slide.

    1988 Election
    Reagan ended his presidency with a net increase during his two terms of almost 16 million jobs. The incumbent party, Republicans, and their nominee, George H. W. Bush, had little trouble beating the Democrats nominee, Michael Dukakis.

    1992 Election
    The six months leading up to the election saw a net gain of only 600,000 jobs, which was relatively weak growth. Combine that with a net loss of half a million jobs from 1990 to 1991, and it was enough for the incumbent Republican party to lose to Democrat Bill Clinton.

    1996 Election
    With stellar job growth only rivaled by Reagan’s second term, Bill Clinton’s first term saw 11 million new jobs produced and he had no trouble staying in power and defeating the Republican challenger, Bob Dole.

    2000 Election
    Though another 11 million new jobs were created during Clinton’s second term, the lackluster 456,000 new jobs in the six months prior to the election to not bode well for the incumbent party and Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore.

    2004 Election
    George W. Bush’s first term started out rough and got even worse after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Overall, his first term had flat job growth, but the six months prior to the election saw a healthy 1.1 million new jobs created. This was enough to keep the incumbent Republican party in power and defeat Democrat John Kerry.

    2008 Election
    With monthly job loss numbers that had not been seen since 1980 when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, things did not look good for the incumbent Republican party in 2008. And indeed, with a loss of 1.1 million jobs in the six months prior to the election, the Democrats and Barack Obama had no trouble defeating John McCain.

    Conclusion
    It’s pretty clear from the data that as jobs go, so goes the White House.

    NAACP: History and Agenda

    In 1909 William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, Mary White Ovington and other like-minded individuals founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The association’s charter delineated its noble mission:

    To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

    The Advancement of the Liberal Agenda
    At some point after its founding, the NAACP’s objectives changed from advancing colored people to advancing a liberal political agenda. Their current objective, as stated on their Web site, is first an foremost to advance their liberal, socialistic political agenda. “The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons.” And secondarily they now add, “and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.” On the same Web page referenced above, the NAACP has a strategic plan posted which outlines their definition of equality, which for some reason almost always includes advancing a liberal agenda. Here are some of their goals; notice how firmly left-wing they are and how many have nothing to do with racial equality:

    NAACP’s Goals My Comment
    “Goal 3.1: Expand the National Office’s legal work and staff.” Clogging up the courts with more law suits.
    “Goal 4.2: Expand the advocacy capacity of the National Office, the Washington Bureau, and state conferences.” More lobbyists to expand the influence of their special interest group.
    “Goal 5.1: Raise public awareness about the inequities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.” So are you saying the criminal and juvenile justice systems are not fair?
    “Goal 6.1: Develop an initiative to address the recent erosion of government resources.” When it comes to government, the NAACP believes that bigger is better.
    “Goal 6.2: Advocate for more equitable distribution of government benefits to African American, other minority, and impoverished communities.” By more equitable, I think they simply mean more benefits.
    “Goal 7.1: Advocate increased access of African American and other minority communities to credit, capital, and financial services.” Give blacks more loans regardless of credit-worthiness. (Isn’t giving un-credit-worthy people loans what got us into the financial mess?)
    “Goal 7.4: Advocate for the Fair Share and affirmative action efforts of public and private employers.” “Goal 8.3: Promote affirmative action and funding equity in higher education.” I’m sorry, but affirmative action is a condescending, demeaning practice that lowers standards and promotes discrimination and will not help us achieve a color-blind society.
    “Goal 9.2: Advocate for universal health insurance.” Socialized health care is not the answer; it will only lead to less choice, longer lines and worse health care.
    “Goal 9.4: Increase attention within the Association to the issues of environmental justice.” The NAACP seems to be suffering from Global warming Delusion Syndrome.

    The Advancement of Liberal Colored People
    If you are not a liberal, then the NAACP has no interest in helping you advance. If the NAACP was really about advancing colored people, they would have endorsed Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice, and been behind Condoleezza Rice as the first African American woman to be Secretary of State. But these were conservative blacks and instead of supporting them, the NAACP actively fought against these individuals because, as I stated from the beginning, their political agenda supersedes race.

    NAACP Leaders Past and Present
    PAST: Du Bois, co-founder of the NAACP, was a friend of Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, and shared many of her views on eugenics and birth control. In 1932, he contributed an essay on birth control to Sanger’s Birth Control Review magazine. In the article, he stated that “the more intelligent class” exercised birth control, which meant that “the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.” He further said that African Americans “must learn that among human races and groups, as among vegetables, quality and not mere quantity really counts.” (from W. E. B. Du Bois, “Black Folk and Birth Control,” Birth Control Review 16 (June 1932): 166-167)

    PRESENT: Former Georgia state representative Julian Bond has been the chairman of the NAACP since 1998. As NAACP chairman, Bond has repeatedly denounced the Republican Party and has been a strong critic of the Bush administration since it came to office. In July 2001, Bond said, “[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics.” And in 2006 he compared the GOP to Nazis saying, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.” (from WorldNet Daily). Bond has also said the black members of the Bush administration such as Condoleezza Rice have been used “as kinds of human shields against any criticism of their record on civil rights.”

    Conclusion
    Agree or not with the NAACP’s political views, the point of this article is that you cannot deny that they are a partisan political organization. And despite their name, the NAACP is an organization more interested in advancing its left-wing political agenda than the interests of black people. It’s no wonder that Rush Limbaugh calls them the NAALCP: the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People.