They are still using the same tired rhetoric, about inheriting the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. The truth is that the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression is the Obama administration. Barack Obama stands with Herbert Hoover as the only presidents with negative job growth during their administrations. As if stuck in the 1930s, Obama dusted off FDR’s playbook, since he had no personal executive experience to draw on, and that playbook didn’t work then and it’s not working now.

So along comes an opportunity for a major “shovel ready” project, backed by unions, that can create thousands of jobs, move us closer to energy independence, help us depend less on getting oil from Middle East despots, and what does Obama do? He kills it. What he wanted to do, was defer a decision on this until after the election, eleven months away. He wanted to do what he does best, vote “present”.

Congress, particularly the Republicans who seem to be the only adults working on Capital Hill, included a provision in the payroll tax holiday extension, to make a decision within sixty days. People are hurting, gas prices are creeping up, unemployment benefits have been extended to extraordinary lengths, and this incompetent president says that sixty days was not enough time to review the proposal so he had to, sadly, reject it. Perhaps if he hadn’t played all those rounds of golf, perhaps if he had studied it a little closer instead of spending all that time in Hawaii, perhaps if he put this job creating proposal on the top of the EPA’s to-do list instead of their focusing on the job killing regulations to limit power plant emissions, he would have gotten his job done. But no, sorry, I don’t have my homework, teacher, I dunno, I forgot, my dog…. Enough!

Let China make an oil deal with Canada. We can always buy the oil back from them at a premium. Why not, they probably don’t have enough of our dollars as it is now. Why not give them more? This president is making decisions that will cobble together a coalition of supporters to get him reelected. This is about appeasing the environmental movement so that they won’t abandon him.

At an event in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Dec. 31, Rick Santorum mocked the idea that the pipeline posed the threat of environmental damage, noting that there were already many other pipelines in the area it would go through. “This is just, again, pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” Mr. Santorum said.

The State Department, which has authority over this since it goes between us and Canada, “said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the environmental harm.” Bullfeathers. It’s a 1700 mile pipeline. The area in question is a fraction of that length. Agree to the pipeline, get started hiring people and building it in areas not in dispute, and work to resolve the section in question. But unless it is killed, Obama risks losing the green vote and what is more important, America or Obama’s reelection?

I’d like to ask my Congressman, Tim Bishop, to weigh in. What do you have to say about this, Tim? Or are you too busy manufacturing your own campaign issue around outsourced phone center jobs. If jobs are really important to you, you would stand up and challenge Obama for killing an opportunity for good, high paying, union jobs in America. On the other hand you can stay silent, not challenge President Obama’s error and risk his ire and possibly lose campaign funds and support. So what do you stand for, Tim? Putting America first or putting your interests right up there with President Obama’s and above America’s.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.

The positive, knowledgeable “Uncle Newt” has left the stage to be replaced by his alter ego, “Nasty Newt.” These two personalities seem to be behind the lack of support for his candidacy from those who have worked with him in the past.

Gingrich is now going after Romney on his track record at Bain Capital and like the Obama administration that likes to pick winners and losers, Gingrich has decided what it good capitalism and what is bad capitalism.

“If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism,” Mr. Gingrich said on NBC’s “Today” show.

I think what Gingrich is describing is robbery, not capitalism and he should call the police. How does someone come in and take all the money? You are either brought in by management or you buy your way in. In the former case you are a hired hand and you get paid a fee for your services, you don’t dip that hand into the till. If you buy your way in, you own the company and that includes the cash.

When you buy your way in you are putting your own capital at risk which includes losing it. If a company is in a turnaround situation it means there is a problem. If the problem isn’t fixed the company will probably go under and all jobs will be lost. In conducting a turnaround, yes some jobs are eliminated; uncompetitive plants are shut down; the resources consumed by those inefficient plants are put to better use elsewhere. That is capitalism. On balance it creates more jobs than it eliminates in the overall economy, because capital is free to move to where it is most productive. If Gingrich doesn’t like that, well, neither does Obama and we’re trying to get rid of Obama, not just change the name on the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I Like to Fire People

That quote from Romney was taking out of context. The context being ObamaCare. Romney was saying that if our only provider of health services is ObamaCare, we have no choice and health care will not improve. He said if his health care provider was giving him lousy service he would fire them. He likes to fire people who give him lousy service. This is not about firing your own employees. That is always a difficult an unpleasant task. It is no wonder that Debbie Wasserman Schultz took that snippet and is making an ad to imply that Romney likes firing his employees. For proof of Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s intellectual dishonesty here in an appearance with Chris Wallace she tries to say that Romney is a bad guy because people lost their jobs at companies he invested in, but President Obama is not a bad guy for taking taxpayer dollars and investing in Solyndra which went bankrupt costing 1,000 jobs. At least Romney was not using our money for his investments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPAjxij9MZM

So the Democrats are attacking Romney because some people lost jobs in turnaround situations, and Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry are doing the same. Ron Paul is holding his fire.

The term “firing” is completely different if shown in the full context. Many management books today say you should fire some customers. By that they mean that if a customer takes up more time and resources than they generate in revenue for you, let them go be someone else’s customer. Is that “firing” in the same sense of letting one of your employee’s go? No. Is firing the guy who cuts your lawn because he keeps running over your rose bushes  the same? No.

I am undecided on who I support for president. I have, at various times, considered Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. But if this line of attack is perceived as a winner by any Republican or conservative, it is more likely to push people into backing Romney. Capitalism is not always pretty, but if Americans want a shot at a better future, capitalism is the system that gives them the best long-term chance at it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

In his recent telephone town hall meeting, Tim Bishop expressed his support for the continued payroll tax holiday but making it clear that it would have no impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. Money for Social Security would continue to go into the trust fund from other sources. What other sources you might ask? I may have an answer for you.

In an article in HousingWire magazine, the author points out that:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency will increase guarantee fees on single-family mortgage-backed securities charged by the government-sponsored enterprises by 10 basis points effective April 1, 2012, in response to the new funding mechanism for the payroll tax cut extension passed by Congress.

So it seems that the Social Security Trust fund will get its money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more accurately, from new home buyers. So for a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday that will prevent taxpayers from paying an additional $130 into the Social Security Trust Fund, that everyone expects to get back anyway, new home buyers will have to pay thousands in new fees.

The g-fee increase will remain in effect through Oct. 1, 2021. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the g-fees would offset about $35.7 billion in the costs of the tax cut. Mortgage Bankers Association CEO David Stevens said the increase could mean an extra $4,000 in fees on a $200,000 mortgage.

One of the problems facing Long Island is affordable housing. Our young people are leaving Long Island for areas were there is a larger rental stock that they can start out in, rather than living in mom and dad’s basement, and where they can afford to buy a house after saving a down payment for a couple of years. Apparently for the benefit of a political talking point Tim Bishop votes to slam an already weak housing marking with additional fees. After all who can really call a two month anything sound fiscal policy? Notice there is no spending cut mentioned here, it is an increase in taxes and fees. This is what Tim Bishop was telling his constituents not to worry about in his town hall meeting? What will become of his district, if nobody lives here but retirees? Is that his plan to solve the unemployment problem? Drive enough young people away until the number of jobs fits the remaining population?

The problem is spending. It was only last week that Joe Biden was attacking Mitt Romney’s policies by saying:

“His proposal would actually double down on the policies that caused the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression and accelerated a decades-long assault on the middle class,” Biden added.

Decades long assault on the middle class? I guess he means you too, Bill Clinton. The greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression has been the Obama administration and if he were to get reelected it would finish America off. We have had the worst consistent unemployment since the Great Depression for the entire Obama administration. We have had the worst record of job creation, loss actually, since Herbert Hoover. The National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession ended in June of 2009. Does it feel like it to you? Most recoveries from economic downturns are mirror images of the slump. A gradual recession is followed by a gradual recovery; a sharp downturn is followed by a sharp upswing. Not this time. Just look at the job creation record of Team Obama.

This chart goes all the way back to Harry Truman and Obama’s performance stands alone.  Let’s put to rest the “eight years of failed Bush policy, yada, yada, yada” and face the fact that Obama and his spending, heavy-handed regulations, and insatiable appetite to fix everything by taxing more has put us into an economic winter. Tim Bishop has happily ignored the needs of his constituents to buy favor from the Democratic leadership and their special interest pals. They have done an awful job and we need to turn them out, before they turn us into Greece.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by cursedthing

We saw the beginnings with the Battle of Wisconsin. The one place were unions were growing robustly was in the public sector, surpassing the private sector for the first time in 2009. But then 2010 happened.

With states’ fiscal situations worsening and the runaway spending in Congress, voters across the country turned to Republicans, or should I say, the Tea Party. Promising to return to Constitutionally limited government and to go to Washington and state capitals, not to start a long new career but to fix the problem, the Tea Party backed candidates wasted no time getting to work.

From Chris Christie in New Jersey to Scott Walker in Wisconsin, they did not flinch from taking on the public sector unions. They knew that the current trajectory was unsustainable. In Wisconsin, the unions descended on Madison and threw everything they had into the fight. Democrat senators fled the state to prevent a quorum from voting on Governor Walkers measures, union thugs took over the state capital building, inflicting millions in damage to the people’s property, tried to defeat a conservative judge so that the law, if passed, could be struck down by the court, and if that didn’t work they tried to recall six Republican senators at the ballot box. All measures failed, Walker’s policies were implemented and job growth in Wisconsin started chugging along.

In other states like Ohio, Tennessee and Indiana similar setbacks for unions were proceeding more quietly. Meanwhile in the private sector, which has only about 7% union representation, the next major showdown is coming to a head.

The United Auto Workers’ contract with GM, Ford, and Chrysler expires on September 14th. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. As written in a previous post, the unions will be sitting on both sides of the bargaining table, as the Obama administration granted them large chunks of GM and Chrysler stock as part of the bailout package, while stiffing the bond holders, and now the unions as labor will be negotiating with the union as owners. And if they drive GM and Chrysler out of business again, who gets stuck with paying for the cleanup? That’s right, the American taxpayer. Why?

Because the Obama administration couldn’t keep their nose out of the automobile business, thinking if their didn’t bring their collective genius to the limited intellect possessed by the average business owners, how on earth could the auto companies ever function? They should have let the bankruptcy courts handle it, but they decided to drag the rest of us into the mess and now we own a stock that is worth about $31 per share that must climb to $52 for us to break even.

So will the unions commit suicide by making unreasonable demands, drive the auto companies out of business and at the same time kill their own investment in their stock? Or, will they quietly get rid of all of their stock before they trash the auto companies and then demand that the government step in again and bail them out?

Get ready to take it in the neck again, America. The most inexperienced president in US history with his most excellent panel of advisers who never worked in the private sector are about to tell the rest of us how it is supposed to all work. Brace for impact, my friends.

That’s my opinion; I’l like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by wstera2

Obama has a jobs plan, or so we are told. He will unveil it after he returns from Martha’s Vineyard. I hope it is a little more detailed than his budget plan to cut $4 trillion that no one can find by meticulously searching the Oval Office. I don’t even know what is in the plan and I have a better one. Stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Mr. President. Set a goal to play eighteen on every PGA sanctioned golf course in the country. Don’t you have some friends and family in Hawaii that miss you?

If we can just keep you out of Washington, so we’re not grappling with your non-leadership, leadership, things may not get a whole lot better until November 2012, but at least they might not get worse. Anyway, isn’t that your new campaign theme, “Just Imagine How Bad It Could Have Been! Vote Obama”?

Take North Carolina for example. Boeing opens a factory there to build its 787 Dreamliner. It hired 5,000 workers and they are ready to go. Then along comes our helpful friends in Washington from the National Labor Relations Board. They say, “Oh, no, this is retaliation. Boeing asked the unionized workers in Washington state for a moratorium on strikes and the union reasonably said they wanted Boeing to promise to never manufacture anywhere but Washington state and Boeing refused. How DARE they?!” So not only did Boeing add 3,000 jobs in Washington state, somehow opening up another factory in South Carolina, a Right to Work state, is retaliation. In an economy crawling along with unemployment stuck at north of 9% Washington is killing 5,000 jobs. When our intrepid leader, President Obama was asked about this he boldly proclaimed that the NLRB was an independent agency and his hands were tied. The President of the United States meekly says he is powerless against a panel of five bureaucrats.

If you asked some of those pesky evil Tea Party freshmen over in the House of Representatives who haven’t spent their entire lives in government service, they would probably say, give us a shot at it. First, we will drain their budget to $1; second tell Boeing to go ahead and make the NLRB’s day; and then sit back and see what action the NLRB will take with $1 in the petty cash drawer. Next step would be to legislate the Department of Labor out of existence, and the NLRB along with it. There are plenty of agencies in the individual states to take up any slack.

Other Award Winning Jobs Moves by the President

As we watch oil rig after oil rig sail out of the Gulf of Mexico to friendlier climes, the Obama administration’s mismanagement of the BP oil spill fiasco adds to the misery. Thousands of jobs were lost or put on hold. Trouble in the Middle East, disruption of oil production in Libya, we should increase domestic oil production but roadblocks to that keep getting thrown in the way. No, green energy is the answer as we watch another heavily subsidized solar energy company file for bankruptcy sending more workers to the unemployment line.

The American people are still waiting for GM stock to his $53 per share so we can break even on this wonderful investment. So how does Washington help? Let’s start by punching a bigger hole in the deficit by subsidizing the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car in tax credits. Oh, that’s bad. No, that’s good. Chevy can’t sell them, so there won’t be much in the way of tax credit damage to the budget! Instead, the Obama administration comes out with new CAFE standards to require car companies to produce cars that get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. If that doesn’t drive a stake through the heart of GM and Chrysler and saddle the American people with more debt, nothing will. With a $2,000 per car disadvantage over their foreign rivals GM and Chrysler are not going to be able to make small, light cars capable of this standard competitively. Well at least we’ll put those workers on unemployment slowly over the next 14 years.

How much more punishment can this economy take until we put President Obama on permanent retirement? So, please, Mr. President, I would rather you work on your golf handicap than give our economy more handicaps than it can handle.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

This is a story you are not likely to hear about from the mainstream media. As previously reported on this site the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton, came down hard on the sovereign country of Honduras for upholding their constitution and fighting against a Chavez style, “leader for life” power grab by their president Manuel Zelaya.

To summarize, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was coming up against term limits. His buddies, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Castro brothers in Cuba, wanted to help Zelaya transform Honduras into another socialist enclave.  The Honduran legislature and Supreme Court blocked his efforts as unconstitutional. When the head of the army tried to enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court, Zelaya fired him and then with his thugs stole referendum ballots from an air force base where they were being held after the Supreme Court ruling.

Zelaya was removed from office and exiled. The presidential elections proceeded on schedule, a new president was elected and democracy was preserved. As a result of the commotion an inquiry panel of the Organization of American States (OAS) was formed to investigate what happened. Here are some of the conclusions they reached.

“the political crisis was set off” in January 2009. That’s when officials from the president’s office met with congressional members of his own Liberal Party and “threatened them with the rupture of the constitutional order if they did not choose—as supreme court justices—lawyers who were not on the list of 45 supreme court candidates” officially nominated through a legal selection process. According to the full report, Mr. Micheletti testified that U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens was party to this pressure on Congress to break the law.

Why is American Ambassador Hugo Llorens pressuring legislators in Honduras  to break the law and to pack the Honduran Supreme Courts with Zelaya puppets?

The report also says that ahead of the crisis, the international community did nothing to help defend the democracy. On the contrary, the OAS decided to send a mission for the referendum, “despite the fact that every state institution with competency in the matter had issued resolutions that it was illegal and that it should not take place.”

When the Honduran government acted against its rogue president, Hillary Clinton immediately labeled it a coup d’etat and pulled the visas of the fifteen members of the Honduran Supreme Court so they could not travel to the U.S. So why does the United States immediately come to the defense of Manuel Zelaya who is backed by Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers instead of the rule of law? Everyone who has looked into this has come down on the side of the Honduran government and democracy.

There are many people who are bending over backwards to claim Barack Obama is not a socialist merely because he hasn’t taken over all of the means of production. When it starts to rain, I don’t need to wait until I am drenched to head for cover. This is just one more piece of the puzzle that this is someone we have to get out of office in November of 2012, before he does more damage than we can recover from in our lifetime.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

As I check the current price of GM stock this morning, $31 per share, and I contemplate how in the world it is going to reach the $53 per share price Americans need to fully recover their “investment” in the automaker, a recent news story lays it on the line. It’s not going to happen. The Obama administration has announced that it is demanding that auto companies double the mileage that their fleets get, to 56.2 miles per gallon, by 2025.

Once again we have the statists thinking that they are the smarter version of soviet planners who can demand that the wind blows, the sun shines, and the seas fall, and can just order that private industry do something and it will be done. As I point out in my book Liberty’s Lifeline, U.S. auto companies have about a $2,000 per car disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors due to health care benefits. So unless people think environmental green is superior to the green in their wallets, they are not going to pay a premium for high mileage cars. After all, the point of a high mileage car is to save on  the rising cost of gasoline, but if you never get the savings because the of the high price of the car, why do it. The clear example of this is the Chevy Volt.

The Chevy Volt is a $40,000 electric car, that is General Motors pride and joy. To encourage people to pay the ridiculous sticker price, the government offers a $7,500 subsidy, that is, you pay for the privilege of your neighbor driving his green car. The good news is that March sales were more than January and February combined. The bad news is that March sales were a total of 608 cars. For the first quarter the number of Volts sold totaled 1,210, compared to 50,000 for the Chevy Cruze.

GM makes money when it sells a Cadillac. Ford makes money selling F-150 pickup trucks. But the government has to get involved and tell these companies that they must sell cars in a sufficient mix that their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) meets the government mandate, which will rise to the aforementioned 56.2 miles per gallon.

The market consists of demand for a variety of vehicles. Some companies can produce small, light, high mileage vehicles. Others can produce stronger, heavier trucks and luxury cars. Who is Washington to say what each can build? Let the market decide. If gasoline prices continue to rise, the car company that can continue to build high mileage cars will do well. GM and Chrylser are caught between the unions and a hard place. Their higher labor costs put them at a serious disadvantage in the low end, high mileage market and then Washington says that they have to sell more cars in that space to hit the CAFE averages. It is a recipe for disaster. But don’t worry, you have their back. You wallet is just a stroke of the pen away from this administration doling out more money to their friends and sticking you with the bill.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Eliot Engel writes a letter to the editor of the New York Times titled, “Banning Gun Imports.” He was prompted to write because of an editorial in the Times titled “Hypocrisy, Locked and Loaded,” but I’ll address that one later. Here is how Congressman Engel sees it. There is a tremendous illegal drug business in Mexico. It has gotten so big and contentious and violent that thousands are killed every year. His solution to the problem in Mexico? Ban the importation of guns into the U.S.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives created a program that would allow the illegal purchases of guns in the U.S. and let the guns walk across the border to Mexico with the idea that it would lead them to the cartel bigwigs. Instead the program backfired, they lost track of the guns, and the guns turned up at the scene of a shootout with U.S. Border Patrol agents where an agent, Brian Terry, was killed. When Congressman Darrell Issa’s government oversight committee started investigating what happened, Democrats circled the wagons to deflect criticism of the Obama administration and instead brought out that old bromide gun control. Chairman Issa would have none of it, provoking the ire of the New York Times editorial board and thus their editorial.

Why not focus on the root causes? The root cause is not guns. The root cause is drugs. Why doesn’t New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg, instead of launching crusades against trans fats and table salt, launch a crusade against the glamorization of recreational drugs? Perhaps if he could get his Hollywood pals to stop taking drugs and stop glamorizing drugs then maybe there wouldn’t be cartels in Mexico killing each other to supply the drugs, or would that be too uncool?

These drug cartels are swimming in money. They are as well equipped as some armies. Do we really think that instead of buying fully automatic AK-47s at one of the world’s arms bazaars, they instead are buying “cheap AK-47 ‘knockoffs’”, to quote Congressman Engel, at retail in the U.S.? No doubt there are guns flowing into Mexico, where gun ownership is tightly controlled. When there are reports of guns being smuggled across the border in containers of powdered milk, do you think that is destined to a drug cartel, or perhaps a frightened citizen who is trying to protect himself and his family from the cartels?

The left doesn’t want to totally alienate gun owners in America because they could never win another election if all gun owners voted against them. So what you will typically hear is, “I support the right of Americans to own guns, but…” You will hear that from Carolyn McCarthy, who along with Bloomberg is perhaps the most anti-gun politician in American and you will hear it from Congressman Engel:

While I support the right of American citizens to own firearms for legal purposes, there is nothing sporting about AK-47s, which are military-style weapons.

Excuse me, Congressman, but my copy of the Constitution doesn’t include the word “sporting” in the Second Amendment. It is not about sports, it is not about hunting, it is not about target shooting. What it really is about is the people being protected against the tyranny of government. So instead of focusing on guns, perhaps you and your Democrat colleagues all the way up to the White House, should start a campaign with your pals to make drugs “uncool”. While you waiting for the guffaws from your friends to die down, perhaps you should work on sealing the Mexican border. Third, perhaps you should convince the Mexican government to relax their gun control laws so that their citizens won’t be coming here to buy guns to protect themselves, since their government won’t or can’t because they are too corrupt. Focus on solving the problem, not on getting an applause line from your base.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The above question could and should be applied to a number of individuals including Attorney General Eric Holder and even President Barack Obama. The subject is a program, run out of the Justice Department, called “Fast and Furious.”

The intent of the program was to allow the illegal purchase of guns that were destined to Mexico with the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels and winning some battles in the war on drugs. What happened was that Washington lost track of the guns once they crossed the border into Mexico until the guns were recovered at crime scenes in the U.S. where some border patrol agents were killed.

The progressives claim that there is widespread illegal gun sales to criminals that must be stopped and here you have a case of Washington and the Obama administration actively promoting such illegal gun sales. How far behind this should we expect new legislation curtailing or banning the sale of firearms? Those who are responsible for this program, whatever its ultimate aim, that resulted in the deaths of US Border Patrol agents should be found and held accountable, no matter how high up in government they may be.

Congressman Darrell Issa of California is leading an investigation and it appears the stonewalling has begun.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHkaRU9EoVM&feature=player_embedded

Where are gun control advocates Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on this subject? Are they too busy tinkering with what American citizens are allowed to own, to bother with the illegal actions of the government they are a part of?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

PERFIDIOUS PORTRAYAL OF HITLER AND UNIONS
The labor union was the chief tool of the early twentieth century demagogue. Modeled after the success of arousing the discontent of the French peasants of the late 18th century, it was the natural place to amalgamate the passions and tensions of workers and lead them into revolt. The basic tenet of both the Russian and German revolutions was labor based social/political revolt (“Workers of the world unite!”). The differences were in style not substance.

Stalin preached the crisis of capitalism would raise the consciousness of the working class to revolt. The Communists in Germany however, competed poorly with Hitler’s Fascistic nationalism, which was rooted in the same discontent. His message to the wealthy however, was not to take everything they owned, but to threaten it. He told them to either work within his system or risk losing your estate. Some prescient individuals understood working with Hitler was better than allowing Hitler to take their property. His message to the worker was, “above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates” (Mein Kampf). He was so totally aligned with labor that he used terms like, “social justice” and “national community” to confirm their importance.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler goes into great detail about how National Socialism must realign all aspects of society to the goals of trade unions, to create an equality of outcome. And if those aspects of society are not willing, they will be taken over (co-opted). Hitler emphasized the Nazi union (German Labor Front) should be the only union, and one way to make it so, was to infiltrate the Marxist unions and slowly transform them (Mein Kampf Vol 2, Ch.12). This is a stunning admission of how similar Nazism was to Marxism, that its members could infiltrate it and transform its labor union. It was not about espionage or sabotage, but simply occupying the Marxist union and moving it the short distance from following Stalin to following Hitler. This is why when combined with his co-opting of the military and the wealthy, Hitler is associated with right wing fascism. If there even were such a thing, Hitler could not have been further from it.

His extreme socialist impulse explains perfectly his hatred of Marxism, as a competitor for the constituency he so needed to take over the German government. The Communist Party, although failing to garner political majorities, by its numbers foiled Hitler’s objectives of doing the same and caused his utter hatred for Communism…not because he was right wing. Adolf Hitler was really an alloy of Socialism and Fascism, and not purely either one by itself. His relationship with private business and was a matter of a pragmatic approach to controlling the German government.

Hitler and Conservatives

He played up German nationalism as a way to appeal to the conservative elements of rural society, while playing down his economic plans, because he needed at least some conservative support to achieve his goal of winning the majority. During the Weimar hyperinflation the farmers did not fare as badly as those in the cities because they were dealing in commodities such as food that they could live off and barter with rather having to rely on the worthless currency to buy them. So he carefully crafted a messianic myth about the resurrection of the medieval German Empire, which emanated from the Holy Roman Empire, to create a new Third Empire, the German word for which is Reich. This “Third Reich” would restore the national pride missing since the humiliation suffered as a result of the terms of the armistice of WWI.

There was no question when he was appointed Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg in 1933, that Hitler was a far left progressive (socialist) until history was rewritten by those trying to disentangle their own alignment with his legacy, lying that he morphed into a right wing despot. His alignment with conservatives was a transparent attempt by both the National Socialists and conservatives in parliament to stop the surging Communists, their common enemy. But there were no illusions on either side. And the evidence is pretty convincing: Once in office, Hitler’s depression era blend of socialism mixed with co-opted private enterprise was attractive to other countries. Roosevelt started his first term of presidency in 1933 about the same time Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Roosevelt’s approach in his first term was strangely reminiscent of Fascism and Roosevelt even complimented Hitler’s mode of “organizing society”, citing it was “necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole”. There was a common spirit of collectivism among them, Hitler, Mussolini and Roosevelt, a coalition of business, government and labor.

This gets lost in the fog of history rewritten. Nobody doubts Roosevelt was left of center. It’s no secret he is pretty far left of center, considering his big government impulse. But it is also a fact that he was an admirer of fascism. These relationships get lost in history because Hitler was an inconvenient megalomaniac. Had he not embarrassed those relationships, I doubt the fascistic impulse would be so stunted among progressives today. I believe it has remained an essential yet latent impulse, and I believe it was subsumed into modern progressivism if there every really was a divergence.

Hitler Transformed the Unions He Didn’t Eliminate Them

Instead of allowing the left to propagate the lie that Hitler did away with unions, the truth is, he created the German Labor Front, complete with a swastika flag as its symbol, because he could control it, and barred the formation of future unions (such as Marxist unions). This would control competing political forces from using unionization for the purpose of consolidation of power, as he did.

The progressives in America painfully extricate their historic relationship with Hitler by assigning Hitlerian characteristics to members of the right in American politics. It is a “thou doth protesteth too much” knee jerk reaction, and it is attended by great animation and even violence. Not that the American left actively advocates government overthrow. Oh wait! That is exactly what progressives have been doing since the sixties. In fact, Andy Stern who is very close to the Obama administrator and a frequent visitor to the White House said, “Workers of the World Unite is not just a slogan any more, it’s the way we are going to have to do our work.” 

Hitler was a leftist, a union supporter and wrote in his manifesto that unions were an integral part of the much needed social justice in Germany and the entire nation and its “chambers of estates and economic parliament” must be aligned with that ideal. His entire power structure was based on this power to the people code. Along with universal healthcare, expanded animal welfare laws, support of healthy, organic foods and vegetarianism, a minimum wage, progressive taxation, and tight gun control — policies all shared by progressives from Roosevelt to Clinton to Obama, it is impossible for the left to separate themselves from Hitler. So they try a little “I’m rubber you’re glue” on the right. But it just doesn’t stick when you take a closer look.

CORRECTION: In the initial release of this post it stated, “In fact, some in the Obama administration have recently been quoted saying “Workers of the World Unite is not just a slogan any more, it is a way of life”. It should have said, “In fact, Andy Stern who is very close to the Obama administrator and a frequent visitor to the White House said, “Workers of the World Unite is not just a slogan any more, it’s the way we are going to have to do our work.” We regret the error.

Please share your opinions below.