What Is a Progressive?

Woodrow Wilson, our first Ph.D. in the White House, made clear his complete rejection of the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and classical liberalism in his books and other writings.

As Ronald Pestritto notes, liberty in Wilson's view was "not found in freedom from state actions but instead in one’s obedience to the laws of the state."


The primary domestic objective of progressives was to create in peacetime what Wilson had accomplished during war.

They were able to do so a little more than a decade later. Franklin Roosevelt was assistant secretary of the Navy under Wilson, and when he led Democrats back to the White House in 1932 he brought with him an army of intellectuals and bureaucrats who shared the Progressive-Era vision. Indeed, most of the "alphabet soup" of agencies set up during the Great Depression were continuations of various boards and committees set up during WWI.

At that time it was commonplace for intellectuals on the left to be enamored of Lenin’s communist regime in Russia. And almost everyone who was enamored of Lenin was also an admirer of Mussolini’s fascist government in Italy. For example, General Hugh "Iron Pants" Johnson, who ran Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA) kept a picture of Mussolini hanging on his wall. The admiration was often mutual. Some writers for publications in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy wrote of their fascination with Roosevelt’s New Deal. As Goldberg explains:

The reason so many progressives were intrigued by both Mussolini’s and Lenin’s "experiments" is simple: they saw their reflection in the European looking glass. Philosophically, organizationally, and politically the progressives were as close to authentic, homegrown fascists as any movement America has ever produced. [They were] militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of Darwinian eugenics, [and] enamored of the Bismarckian welfare state.

The progressives saw the state as properly involved in almost every aspect of social life. Herbert Croly envisioned a government that would even regulate who could marry and procreate. In this respect, he reflected the almost universal belief of progressives in eugenics. These days, there is a tendency to think that interest in racial purity began and ended in Hitler’s Germany. In fact, virtually all intellectuals on the left in the early 20th century believed in state involvement in promoting a better gene pool. These included H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (founders of Fabian Socialism), Harold Laski (the most respected British political scientist of the 20th century) and John Maynard Keynes (the most famous economist of the 20th century). Pro-eugenics articles routinely appearedin the left-wing New Statesman, the Manchester Guardian and in the United States in the New Republic.

One of the ugliest stains on American public policy during the 20th century was the internment of 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II by the Roosevelt Administration. Another stain is the resegregation of the White House under Wilson. Bruce Bartlett argues that these acts were consistent with the personal racial views of the presidents and that the Democratic party has a long history of racial bias it would like to forget.

The worst excesses on the right in the 20th century are usually associated with Senator Joe McCarthy; the hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), including pressuring Hollywood actors to reveal their political activities and name the identities of their colleagues; and domestic surveillance of political enemies.

Yet all of these activities have roots in the Progressive Era as well. Joe McCarthy started his political life as a Democrat (and later switched to be a Republican) in Wisconsin — the most pro-progressive state in the union. As Goldberg observes, "Red baiting, witch hunts, censorship and the like were a tradition in good standing among Wisconsin progressives and populists." The HUAC was founded by another progressive Democrat, Samuel Dickstein, to investigate German sympathizers. During the "Brown scare" of the 1940s, radio journalist Walter Winchell read the names of isolationists on the radio, calling them "Americans we can do without."

Civilian surveillance under American presidents in the modern era (for example under Republican Richard Nixon and under Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) are extensions of what went on earlier in the century. However, modern surveillance does not begin to compare in magnitude to what went on during the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies.

Bottom line: the next time you hear someone call himself a "progressive," ask him if he knows the historical meaning of that term.
What is a progressive by John C. Goodman Townhall 11/19/2011

America's Time For Decision

“Each man is questioned by life;
and he can only answer to life
by answering for his own life;
to life he can only respond
by being responsible.” ...

"Responsibleness is the key to freedom" ... Dr. Viktor Frankl




America's Time For Decision and Definition
By Star Parker

The Wall Street Journal calls the economic implosion now taking place in Europe “a crisis of the welfare state.”

The latest European nation to hit the wall is Italy, where national debt is 120 percent of GDP. That is, for every dollar their national economy produces, they owe $1.20.

The Journal calls this a crisis of the welfare state because this Italian national debt well in excess of the ability of Italians to pay for these obligations is the direct result of excessive government spending.

When the Republican presidential candidates were asked in the most recent debate if the United States should help bail out these bankrupt European nations, the consensus response was “no.”

This, I believe, is the correct answer for two very basic reasons.

First, the way to deal with irresponsible behavior is not to find new ways to finance it but to demand responsible behavior.

And second, we are on the same path here and we need to wake up.

Over the last five short years, our national debt as a percentage of our GDP has doubled to about 70 percent, where it stands today.

Projections show that, continuing on the path that we’re currently on, in a little over ten years, our national debt as a percentage of our total economic output will be exactly where Italy is today.

We’ve simply got to change and the big question is if we’re up to the task.

This is really the central issue of our time and what will define the 2012 presidential election.

We’ve got one view of the world in which government takes on a life of its own and takes responsibility for the care and feeding of the nation’s citizens. This is the European view, shared by our current president and Democrat leaders.

The alternative view is that freedom and responsibility begins with individuals. Free and autonomous citizens direct their own lives, create wealth and employment, and finance government to provide protection, domestically and internationally.

The machinations going on now with the so-called congressional “Supercommittee” are essentially a coming attraction – a sneak preview if you prefer – of next year’s election.

These 12 members of Congress – 6 from the Senate and 6 from the House – are charged with coming up with a plan for $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23. If they don’t, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts will be triggered, divided between defense and domestic spending.

Let’s recall that this is the result of Republicans earlier this year refusing to automatically sign off on an increase in the authorized debt ceiling for the nation.

Runaway spending and debt does not seem to faze Democrats. It is Republicans – specifically the young Tea Party Republicans in the House - who drew a line in the sand and why we’re being forced to deal with this issue.

Now, not surprisingly, the “Supercommittee” is at an impasse. Democrats want to raise taxes. Republicans want to cut spending.

The nation as a whole is becoming increasingly and more deeply divided, with Democrats moving further to the left and Republicans moving further to the right.

“Each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.” ...
"Responsibleness is the key to freedom" -- Dr. Viktor Frankl


Some would have us believe that compromise is what has always defined our political process. But compromise works only between parties that are essentially on the same page to begin with.

When what we’re dealing with are fundamentally, irreconcilably different views of the world, resolution is what is needed, not compromise.

This is a time for decision and definition. Not a time for splitting the baby.

Are we going to continue in the direction of materialism and bureaucracy and share the fate of Europe?

Or will we make the tough decisions to get back on the path of prosperity, the path of faith and individual freedom?

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

Supreme Court To Rule On Obamacare

The long-awaited Supreme Court showdown over the Obama administration's health care overhaul formally began Monday as the justices agreed to consider a high profile challenge to the law.




The court, in a short written order, agreed to hear a challenge brought by a group of Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs.

The case raises several issues, but chief among them is this: Did Congress exceed its constitutional powers when it required most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty?

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March, with a decision expected by the end of June. That timeline means the court will rule on President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement during the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether the law's individual insurance mandate is constitutional. The Justice Department, which is defending the law, and several challengers all filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.

The challengers, who view the insurance requirement as an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberty, argue that Congress cannot use its interstate commerce powers to regulate citizens who choose not to participate in the health insurance market.

The Obama administration argues the insurance mandate is a valid way to address a national crisis in which the uninsured impose huge costs on the US health care system. It also says the provision is an essential part of the law's insurance reforms, which require insurers to accept all prospective customers, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions.

In the event the justices strike down the individual mandate, the court also agreed to rule on whether the rest of the health care overhaul can remain intact. The law's challengers are seeking to void the entire law, while the Obama administration argues that most of the law's provisions are not connected to the mandate and should remain in place even if the insurance requirement is invalidated.

Many of the law's provisions, including state-based exchanges where consumers could comparison-shop for coverage, are scheduled to take effect in 2014.

The Supreme Court also agreed to consider a procedural question that could preclude it from issuing a major constitutional ruling: Do the insurance mandate penalties amount to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before? If the answer is yes, then courts would not have legal jurisdiction to consider such challenges until individuals start paying penalties after the mandate goes into effect in 2014.

Nearly all courts that considered the matter have decided that the challenges can proceed now. But a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., reached a contrary conclusion in September.

In addition to insurance mandate issues, the Supreme Court said it would consider the state challengers' legal attack against the health care law's expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to low-income Americans. Lower courts ruled for the Obama administration on this issue.

Only the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down the insurance mandate as unconstitutional, ruling that Congress could not command that individuals purchase insurance products.

Three other appeals courts have ruled for the Obama administration, which scored a notable victory just last week when a leading conservative judge, Laurence Silberman of the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that court's opinion upholding the law. The ruling served as a reminder that the outcome of the case may not fall strictly along ideological lines.

Conservative justices hold a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, and their views will be crucial.

Media Bias Update

HERE WE GO AGAIN ...

The MSM doesn't even attempt to hide their blatant bias to anything liberal or that supports their views.





Media Bias Gone Wild


1. Networks Curb Cain Obsession as They Pounce on Rick Perry's Forgetfulness After 117 stories over ten days, what would it take for the big three networks to ease up on their unending obsession with the Herman Cain sexual harassment story? The opportunity to go after another Republican, this time Rick Perry. From Wednesday night's evening newscasts through the Thursday morning shows, there were only two Cain stories (bringing the total to 119). Good Morning America, CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today all pounced on Perry's debate performance and an inability to remember a government agency that he wished to eliminate. The three morning shows only offered brief passing mentions to the Cain scandal. Instead, co-host Ann Curry pressed Perry, "Have you thought about ending your campaign? Are you staying in this race, sir?"

2. NBC's Curry Tries to Bury Perry: 'Have You Thought About Ending Your Campaign?' Interviewing Texas Governor Rick Perry on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry asked the Republican presidential candidate about a flub in Wednesday's CNBC debate and wondered: "One of your fundraisers told The Wall Street Journal, simply, 'He just ended his campaign.' Have you thought about ending your campaign? Are you staying in this race, sir?" On CNN's American Morning, Christine Romans struck a similar tone with Perry: "How is this not the end? Convince us that this is not the end of your – of your candidacy....across the board you're hearing folks say that this was one of the worst, if not the worst, debate moment, those 54 seconds, you know, in modern primary history."

3. Piers Morgan Kisses Up to White House: Obama Has 'Extraordinary' Demeanor. In a Wednesday interview with the White House communications director, CNN's Piers Morgan gushed over President Obama's "extraordinary" demeanor and praised Obama as "confident" and "assured." Morgan slobbered to Dan Pfeiffer, "Does he [Obama] know something we don't? Or is he just quite cool under pressure?"

4. Newt Mocks Bartiromo's 'Funny' Defense of the Liberal Media During Wednesday night's presidential debate, Newt Gingrich could barely restrain his amusement as co-moderator Maria Bartiromo defended the liberal media's reporting of the economy. Bartiromo took umbrage after Gingrich's asserted, "What is amazing to me is the inability of much of our academic world and much of our news media and most of the people on Occupy Wall Street to have a clue about history." The CNBC journalist responded by huffing, "I'm sorry, but what is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy?" An incredulous Gingrich mocked, "I love humor disguised as a question. That's terrific."

What will they do?

This is the Liberals Worst Nightmare ...

What will Obama do ...
when his base turns aganst him?
1. Here is a registered Democrat
2. A Black American
3. A Woman
4. Exposing Obama's false promises
5. A Proud Tea Party member from Harlem

On Hating America

A recent Superman comic book
has the hero saying:


"I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship"
because "truth, justice,
and the American way ...

it's just not enough anymore."





This is pathetic!

The constant brainwashing with this one world belief system is relentless, and it has permeated our culture ... even in supposedly kid-safe entertainment such as Superman comic books.


Though not addressing Superman's statement, Stanford University professor and Hoover Institution senior fellow William Damon explains how such a vision could emerge today but not yesteryear.


The explanation is found in his article "American Amnesia," in Defining Ideas (7/1/2011), based upon his most recent book, "Failing Liberty 101: How We Are Leaving Young Americans Unprepared for Citizenship in a Free Society."


The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that only 1 in 4 high-school seniors scored at least "proficient" in knowledge of U.S. citizenship. Civics and history were American students' worst subjects. Professor Damon said that for the past 10 years, his Stanford University research team has interviewed broad cross sections of American youths about U.S. citizenship. Here are some typical responses: "We just had (American citizenship) the other day in history. I forget what it was." Another said, "Being American is not really special. ... I don't find being an American citizen very important." Another said, "I don't want to belong to any country. It just feels like you are obligated to this country. I don't like the whole thing of citizen. ... It's like, citizen, no citizen; it doesn't make sense to me. It's, like, to be a good citizen -- I don't know, I don't want to be a citizen. ... It's stupid to me."

A law professor, whom Damon leaves unnamed, shares this vision in a recent book: "Longstanding notions of democratic citizenship are becoming obsolete. ... American identity is unsustainable in the face of globalization." Instead of commitment to a nation-state, "loyalties ... are moving to transnational communities defined by many different ways: by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and sexual orientation." This law professor's vision is shared by many educators who look to "global citizenship" as the proper aim of civics instruction, de-emphasizing attachment to any particular country, such as the United States, pointing out that our primary obligation should be to the universal ideals of human rights and justice. To be patriotic to one's own country is seen as suspect because it may turn into a militant chauvinism or a dangerous "my country, right or wrong" vision.

The ignorance about our country is staggering. According to one survey, only 28 percent of students could identify the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Only 26 percent of students knew that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Fewer than one-quarter of students knew that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Discouraging young Americans from identifying with their country and celebrating our traditional American quest for liberty and equal rights removes the most powerful motivation to learn civics and U.S. history. After all, Damon asks, "why would a student exert any effort to master the rules of a system that the student has no respect for and no interest in being part of? To acquire civic knowledge as well as civic virtue, students need to care about their country." Ignorance and possibly contempt for American values, civics and history might help explain how someone like Barack Obama could become president of the United States. At no other time in our history could a person with longtime associations with people who hate our country become president. Obama spent 20 years attending the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled sermons, which preached that "white folks' greed runs a world in need," called our country the "US of KKK-A" and asked God to "damn America." Obama's other America-hating associates include Weather Underground Pentagon bomber William Ayers and Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn.

The fact that Obama became president and brought openly Marxist people into his administration doesn't say so much about him as it says about the effects of decades of brainwashing of the American people by the education establishment, media and the intellectual elite.
From Failing Liberty 101; 7/13/2011 Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
*********************************************

We must understand the problem of our enemies: America and the freedoms it represents is the only thing standing in the way of a complete world takeover by this Marxist ideology.

In their minds we are the problem and we are the enemy!

This conflict was prophesied in God's Word and the fulfillment is in the process of unfolding before our eyes.

It was only a matter of time before the Cultural Marxism, liberal political correctness lies, and the one world socialist mentality would make a formidable attack on America and it's core beliefs.

We are a special nation, our freedoms are unique and when we stop teaching this to our children and instead teach this united nation world citizenship babble, what do we expect.

If and when a majority of America's young adults buy into this anti-American philosophy, the USA as we know it is as good as over. Spending taxpayer dollars to allow Marxists to teach hate for America is ignorant and counter-productive.

It is sort of like have a class on how to become an atheist at a church Sunday School meeting.

For America to remain the number one country in the world, our citizens must believe that we are the best and know why they believe it. They must understand the principles of truth, justice and the American Ways ... upon which America was founded.

And those principles are not only found in our history and our constitution, but also in God's Word which was the driving force in the hearts and minds of the majority of those who founded and fought for our freedom over the past two hundred years.

God bless America ... Always!

Guns And Freedom

Vermont has long stood behind it's right to bear arms ...

boasting some of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws in the country.


Currently the only state that allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, it may soon be the first to require a permit for the unarmed in its ranks. In what could be the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment's tricky syntax yet, a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine.

Representative Fred Maslack proposed the bill not to encourage Vermonters to protect themselves against crime (Vermont's crime rate is very low), but to demand that citizens do their part in defense of liberty. According to Maslack, "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

But defend the state against what? Vermonters, Maslack told me, have a constitutional obligation to respond to "any situation that might arise." Federal tyranny? Yup. Abuse of power by other states? Sure. "There could be a natural disaster that would send thousands of people into the state." Maslack's implication seems to be that in the event of such an influx, Vermonters ought to be able to shoot anyone coming over the border on sight. Good thing New Hampshire's tsunami season is short.

It's true that the Vermont constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and that those persons "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." And Vermont does have a proud history of citizen militias, going back to the days of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. But citizens' armies have not been needed in Vermont since the early days of this country's founding, when they were occasionally called upon to send New York State tax collectors back over the state line. To refresh Vermonters' dormant militia expertise, Maslack has also introduced a bill requiring compulsory military training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma in the state.

More important to Maslack than safeguarding against excesses of government, though, is upholding the letter of the law. With Vermont in the spotlight over gay marriage, Maslack says members of his state should look more carefully at the rights and obligations spelled out in the Constitution. If homosexual couples can sue the state because they are denied the benefits that accompany legal marriage, he says, then surely someone can sue over the unheeded militia mandate. "You can't ignore the duties and invoke the privileges."

Given that Second Amendment enthusiasts speak as much about individual freedom as they do about the joys of hunting, it's unlikely that a bill requiring mandatory gun ownership will find a groundswell of support. Determining whether everyone possessed a gun would require some form of gun registration, something NRA types staunchly oppose. reprinted from:
"Vermont's Right Not to Bear Arms" by Joanna Mareth; Prospect.org
*************************************************

I know this all sounds very tongue in cheek, and perhaps over the top. But it is a clearly established fact that those who would like to force their socialist Marxist views on America, see gun ownership as a huge wall that stands in front of their desired ability to confiscate America.

It has been estimated that America has as many as 300 million privately owned guns which represents potentially the world’s largest militia, and freedoms last line of resistance. An armed citizenry is in all Americans best interests. In these troubled times, all Americans need to own a 12 gauge shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun; plus a minimum of 500 rounds of ammunition.

America’s freedom has never been more in jeopardy than it is today. Police protection will be greatly diminished during times of crisis. Should the financial markets crash; the ability for average citizens to purchase a gun or ammunition to protect their family will become much more difficult and costly.

Hopefully most will never need to use their guns. In that event, the value of this investment will surely be as good as gold.