Mark Alexander wrote that in Mein Kampf (1925), Hitler's autobiography regarding the BIG LIE, he indicated"the lie must be so 'colossal' that the public would be confident that no national leader could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." --patriotpost

Does "if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period" and "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period" along with all the other promises made regarding transparency, oversight and accountability, qualify? Maybe not; but boarders on the following premise where Hitler further says:

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Goebbels, affirmed: "the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. ... It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion." Does mainstream media's "love affair" with this administration possibly fit this narrative? Mainstream media goes whichever the wind blows in supporting or protecting the administration.

Alexander references Hitler's assessment of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or NAZI: "The party ... must not become a servant of the masses, but their master." With respect to the socialist state and individual Liberty, he wrote, "The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."

Hitler's regime was founded on the premise that, "We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system ... and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Goebbels reiterates: "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

Alexander provides another example for those failing to comprehend the comparisons he makes by citing Liberal economist Hayek's comment: "There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and a regulated economy."

Obama said: "Make no mistake, we are headed in the right direction, but … we're not headed there fast enough for a lot of Americans." Many might interpret this to mean that our economy is improving? The following might reflect just the opposite:

US Debt Clock:


US Workforce

Official Unemployed

Actual Unemployed

Not in Labor Force

Living in Poverty














Source: usdebtclock +/- factors and variables used to compile unemployment figures not considered

The table above is self-explanatory. However, just visually comparing actual unemployed, those not in the labor force, and those living in poverty, not impressive. Considering all the legislation to "stimulate" employment and our economy; one could come to the conclusion that 1) all the money was wasted and subsidized mainly special interest groups and 2) there has been no "recovery. The poverty level is deplorable and inexcusable. So much for resolving issues regarding the "war on poverty." Still, the actual "non-working" labor force number is approximately 91,469,765 is astounding.

Wholeheartedly believe that all the rules and regulations coming out of the many agencies in DC is a contributing factor with respect to the above statistics. They are killing entrepreneurial spirit in America for all races, ethnic and age groups. Maybe, that's what this administration and elites want. They talk a good game, but their actions convey just the opposite. This moral outrage is a joke, and we are being played.

Referencing an article Alexander wrote in 2010, entitled: "Breaking the Back of Free Enterprise along with an analysis regarding Obama's agenda, policies and his objective to 'fundamentally transforming the United States of America.'" If "breaking the back of capitalism under the weight of national debt accumulation associated with welfare spending, and in the ensuing crisis, implement "emergency" government intervention which will, ultimately, replace the last vestiges of free enterprise with a democratic socialist framework (centralized economic planning and regulation with full-spectrum income redistribution), then one would conclude that we probably need really examine the consequences if his agenda actually succeeds."

Alexander makes the case that the model being employed by this administration resembles the Cloward–Piven strategy. Strategy in simplest of terms - overload the government welfare system to critical mass resulting in the replacement of current system with a state-directed national system of "guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty."

In 1970, Cloward told The New York Times that "rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; collapsing the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would 'the rest of society" accept their demands.'"

If their intentions were truly meant to help the poor by destroying the whole welfare system, then the very tactics being utilized by those in power are just maintaining status quo in order to control a large segment of the population. Emotional appeals and handouts are always a way to gain political support and acceptance of policies that have done nothing to end poverty and votes needed to win elections. Most currently signing up on state exchanges are ending up in Medicaid. Think about that and all that being on Medicaid entails.

When Cloward-Piven implemented their strategy in New York City (1975), not only did the welfare rolls overwhelm the system, it resulted in the city filing bankruptcy. The dangers of this on a national level would be catastrophic, yet Democrats continue to implement policies and entitlement programs that only compounded the problem.

The ensuing financial market collapsed weeks ahead of the 2008 presidential election resulted in the election of a charismatic radical leftist community organizer becoming President. The above comments regarding the use of the Cloward-Piven strategy tend to support his conclusion. "Never allow a crisis to go to waste." Alexander's correct on this point - every few weeks a new crisis.

I would suggest Cloward-Piven strategy is being utilized – i.e. push for immigration reform to overload electoral system. Making an appeal for common sense – overload welfare/electoral system, increase spending and national debt along with implementing policies that strangle anyone's chance to achieve the "American Dream." Is this the intent of this administration? Collapsing our entire economy is not beyond elitists seeking a one world government.

A basic tenant shared by Socialists, Marxists, Communists and Progressives is centralization of power. Basic philosophy is collective, reactionary, and opposition to the freedom of the individual. They fear individual freedom, because of the uncertainty on how that freedom will be used; thus the need to control all aspects of human activity. Individual freedoms are the essence of creativity and in most cases spiritual with respect to morality and a common set of values. The very nature of freedom is what enabled those in power to amass the wealth they currently have; yet, these same individuals want to prevent the rest of us from doing the same.

History has shown that once centralization begins, and the momentum grows the more ruthless those in power become in exercising their authority and enforcement of policies to remain in control. Each step is always at the expense of the people. Entitlements take away the power of the individual to make their own decisions along with personal identity and respect. Population becomes complacent and apathetic not realizing individual responsibility and basic freedoms have been eroded, and any resistance would be futile.

Most view freedom as that of - choice, self-development, economics, personal responsibility which includes ownership of private property, decentralization and a genuine competitive free enterprise along with the right to inherit any form of property or money from one's forebears, dividends from investments and above all the right to make a profit.

Progressives tout that labor produces all wealth and any individual or entrepreneur who enjoys any economic benefit through inheritance, dividends, gains from capital investments, or just plain hard work is nothing more than a "'parasite living off the workers." The idea of an individual who is untethered and free to enter into an entrepreneurial, competitive system, based on private ownership of property where the government's main function is to uphold the rule of law ensuring that no one infringes on another's right terrifies those who want a more centralized form of government where some bureaucratic decides winners and losers.

The idea that the government should provide jobs only brings back something once read: "The pyramids of Egypt were used to provide employment thousands of years ago; but the slaves who toiled all day would have probably preferred to be working on a project that would have benefited themselves and their families!"

Those in power claim to be for the "underdog," the middle class, the poor, the "have nots," but they have no intention of doing anything for these individuals or society as a whole. Power, control and greed seem to be the driving force and once the "ruling elite" have complete control and power, you can forget all the "entitlements." The ultimate goal is to create "trained workers" (common core) needed for the production of goods and services that generate the sustainable wealth they desire.

Progressives are hypocrites - profess to be against "profits" yet most build up their own assets using "inside" knowledge through the legislative process often organizing their own investment companies or portfolios to further their own private interests. During the 2008 crisis, who lost most of their savings and investments – the little guy?

Keynes at Harvard (1960), issued by the Veritas Foundation, found "elitists manage to live high on the hog through speculation, profit-making or by drawing high salaries in government, tax-exempt foundations, universities or unsuspecting corporations . . . Prominent agitators against "Capitalism," according to data in Who's Who in America, have profited, as individuals in all the above categories." The double-standards of Progressives and/or Socialists are similar to those of the Communist Commissars, who live in luxury while the rest of the population live in abject poverty or basically live in a "classless society!" What is good for them may not necessarily be good for the rest of society.

This is Part 1 in a series. Click here to read Part 2.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.