Barack Obama and the Bad Ideas of Progressivism

okBarack Obama’s serial gross incompetence has elicited all sorts of explanatory theories. He’s a closet socialist, an Alinskyite radical, a secret Muslim, or an anti-American internationalist. Though some of Obama’s words and deeds give support to all these speculations, I prefer a simpler explanation. Obama is a Progressive––not a vague “progressive,” the elastic moniker liberals started using when the word “liberal” became politically toxic. I mean a Progressive of the sort that flourished between the 1890’s and 1920’s, and that laid down the principles and tactics that have animated modern Democrats for decades: faux populism laced with class warfare, disregard for the Constitution, and the desire for a mammoth federal government. These are just a few of the old Progressive ideals that comprise the political philosophy of Barack Obama and much of the Democratic Party.

Faux Populism and Class Warfare

Obama’s pose as a champion of populist democracy against elitist cabals of bankers, rich people, and corporations is consistent with Progressive rhetoric about the “people.” Theodore Roosevelt, for example, in 1910 touted “the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” But such anodyne phrases were in service to class warfare. A year later he railed against “those other men who distrust the people, and many of whom not merely distrust the people, but wish to keep them helpless so as to exploit them for their own benefit.” In contrast, the Progressives “propose to do away with whatever in our government tends to secure to privilege, and to the great sinister special interests, a rampart from behind which they can beat back the forces that strive for social and industrial justice, and frustrate the will of the people.” The Progressives’ aim is “adequately to guarantee the people against injustice by the mighty corporations.” Woodrow Wilson in his 1913 book The New Freedom agreed: “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

No different are the many attacks by Obama on corporations and the rich. Remember in 2010 when he said, “I do think at a certain point, you’ve made enough money”? Or his constant harping on “millionaires and billionaires,” a category including those making $250,000 a year? Or his 2011 attack on oil companies, when he vowed that his Justice Department will “root out any cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, and that includes the role of traders and speculators. We’re going to make sure that nobody’s taking advantage of American consumers for their own short-term gains”? Or his claim during last year’s presidential election that Romney “thinks that someone who makes $20 million a year, like him, should pay a lower [tax] rate than a cop or a teacher who makes $50,000”? Such exploitation of envy and resentment was rife during the Progressive period.

Disregard for the Constitution

Obama’s selective obeisance to the Constitution he has sworn to uphold––refusing, for example, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article 2.3) when he delayed legal provisions of Obamacare ––has its precedence in the Progressive presidents and theorists. They believed that social, technological, and economic changes had made the Constitution an anachronism. “The old laws,” Theodore Roosevelt said, “and the old customs which had almost the binding force of law, were once quite sufficient to regulate the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Since the industrial changes which have so enormously increased the productive power of mankind, they are no longer sufficient.” Indeed, during the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, Roosevelt dismissed concerns that his interference was contrary to the Constitution by shouting, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

So too the most influential Progressive theorist, Herbert Croly. In 1909 he counseled that Americans discard the “strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink with horror from modifying it even in the smallest detail.” Woodrow Wilson agreed that the Constitution was outmoded. “The laws of this country have not kept up with the change of economic circumstances in this country; they have not kept up with the change of political circumstances.” Invoking Darwinian evolution, Wilson continued, “All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

Obama exhibited the same critical view of the Constitution when he complained in 2001 that the highest law of the land “is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” In office he has acted on this belief, selectively enforcing laws from the Defense of Marriage Act to immigration laws and the legal provisions of Obamacare. And he bragged about violating the Constitution’s defining principle of the separation of powers in his 2012 and 2013 State of the Union speeches when he said, “If Congress won’t act . . . I will.”

Big Government

Progressives were impatient with the Constitution’s dispersal of power through structural checks and balances and federalism. They thought the novel problems created by modernity needed a powerful central government wielding the power necessary to solve such problems without the cumbersome interference from the state governments. Theodore Roosevelt asserted, “The national government belongs to the whole American people, and where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government. The betterment which we seek must be accomplished, I believe, mainly through the national government.” In his address to Congress, Roosevelt said, “The danger to American democracy lies not in the least in the concentration of administrative power in responsible and accountable hands. It lies in having the power insufficiently concentrated, so that no one can be held responsible to the people for its use.”

Herbert Croly agreed: “The realization of a genuine social policy necessitates the aggrandizement of the administrative and legislative branches of the government.” Elsewhere he added, “Only by faith in an efficient national organization, and by an exclusive and aggressive devotion to the national welfare, can the American democratic ideal be made good.” Another influential Progressive theorist, Mary Parker Follett, in 1918 similarly wrote, “The state has a higher function than either restraining individuals or protecting individuals. It is to have a great forward policy which shall follow the collective will of the people, a collective will which embodied through our state, in our life, shall be the basis of progress yet undreamed of . . . Democracy is every one building the single life, not my life and others, not the individual and the state, but my life bound up with others, the individual which is the state, the state which is the individual.”

Consistent with Follett’s remarks is Obama’s frequent “you didn’t build that” rhetoric in which he equates citizens with the federal government, and privileges the collective over the individual. In July he said, “We all have a stake in government’s success, because the government is us.” This attitude lurks as well in the rhetoric of his Ohio State commencement address earlier this year, when he decried the “voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems” and “that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.” Of course, the Constitution is founded precisely on the opposite idea: the legitimate fear of centralized power, which as George Washington once said is “of an encroaching nature.” That’s why the Constitution created checks and balances, limited the power of the federal government, and preserved the sovereignty of the states, so that no one branch could become powerful enough to compromise the freedom of the rest of us.

Obama and the Democrats share many other tenets of Progressivism, which have penetrated our politics to the point that many people take them for granted. When Obama told Joe the plumber, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,”  he was simply repeating the numerous Progressive demands to equalize incomes and redistribute property. At the 1912 Progressive Party presidential nominating convention, for example, former Indiana senator Albert Beveridge orated, “We mean not only to make prosperity steady, but to give to the many who earn it a just share of that prosperity instead of helping the few who do not earn it to take an unjust share. The Progressive motto is ‘Pass the prosperity around.’” Punitive taxation of the rich, metastasizing government regulations, creeping collectivism, all have their origins in the Progressive Party.

We need to recall this history to understand just how embedded in our political culture is the Progressive ideology, and just how outdated and reactionary it is. Doing so––and studying the responses of Progressivism’s now forgotten challengers like Calvin Coolidge, William Taft, and Elihu Root––can be useful for understanding and fighting the political ideology now running and ruining the country.

*

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Daniel Greenfield on “Obama’s Shutdown Strategy” and the administration’s overall destructive endgame:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests…”

    The bosses and their employers, the special interests are actually robots and not people. Right? Or extraterrestrial aliens?

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      The idea of cronyism and special interests goes back to the American Revolution. The Whig tradition opposes the corruption by central government. It wasn’t just the King but also the House of Commons that was corrupt by power. Those made rich by government’s power–pensioners, stock jobbers, etc.–were often sent to the seat of the national government to represent the interests of people around the country. The corruption became the problem.

      The big difference is that our founding fathers saw paternalistic government as the problem and liberty as the solution. The progressives see government as the solution despite the historical record.

  • justquitnow

    “We built it” has to be one of the most cynical campaign slogans in a long time. No matter what Obama does, FPM and Horowitz churn it into the same argument they always want to have. The result is… the cult thinks even sharing is communist, working together as a society is evil, and if you want fair taxes on the uber-rich then you are envious. What a load of crap. Bruce, like most of the FPM writers have nothing new to say.

    And respect for the President…like FPM screeched throughout the Bush administration? Gone…none….screw the black guy…let government burn until the cult gets power back. What a bunch of shameless turds.

    • Guy Fromage

      Being forced to share, on the basis of means and needs, is communist.

      Keep trying to make it about race. We’ll keep laughing.

      • justquitnow

        Yes, “Each according to his ability and each according to his need”…this is a communist ideal. Super. Now you just need reality to be completely different and someone that believes in that ideal to come along, and you will be all set to argue your “points”.

        • Well Done

          Just, that saying about “from each, to each” assumes an impartial, all powerful gov’t able to judge fairly on some incredibly subjective issues. In other words, it’s BS. Look at the hard left’s recent decision to harp on “economic equality”. It’s nothing but a response to the oncoming rationalization of the public sector, which will be rolled back to private-sector wage, benefit, and pension levels. Period. These creeps don’t care about “equality” at all, just more money for their support “community”(TM).

          • The March Hare

            And worse yet, “from each, to each” all depends on everyone involved being honest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The people who believe in that have always been free to form non-coercive communes. Coercive communes are often referred to as cults. 0′Bama and others want to turn this nation in to yet another socialist cult.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          *Being forced to share* on the basis of means and needs, is communist.

    • nomoretraitors

      “the cult thinks even sharing is communist”
      Since you seem to favor the idea of “sharing,” why don’t you pay my bills?

      “if you want fair taxes on the uber-rich…”
      Isn’t it “fair” to require someone receiving public assistance to give back by performing community service? Why did Obama drop that requirement?

      Class warfare appeals to the weak and simple-minded. Instead of being envious of someone who has more, why not find out how they did it and join them?
      Sorry, quit, you’re out of your element here. You should really go MSNBC or the National Memo and join your fellow idi*t travelers

      • justquitnow

        What requirement? Link please.

        Of course you think it’s “class warfare”…that’s what the whole “you built it” cyncial bs was about.

        • Graig

          It is class warfare.

          • pfbonney

            You are right. Justquitnow doesn’t realize that, Graig. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid.

        • nomoretraitors

          It’s not cynical to those who’ve actually built a business. It’s only cynical to those who don’t have the ambition

          • justquitnow

            It’s cynical because it’s based on purposefully getting something wrong that the President said…what’s hard to understand about that. The President was talking about infrastructure and the entire American system…Romney isn’t saying that he built all that….they just pretend that the President told them they didn’t build their own businesses. That’s why it’s cynical.

          • nomoretraitors

            No, those were his exact words. And it’s a ridiculous statement. Just because you didn’t build the entire infrastructure of the country does not mean you didn’t build your own business. It’s like saying the winning team in the Super Bowl didn’t really earn their win since they didn’t build the stadium they played in.

          • justquitnow

            Obama never said you didn’t build your own business. Go look up his actual words man….

            And he didn’t make the comment in a vacuum either. Only in this strange environment with the faux libertarianism and the tea party does the President of the United States have to remind people that we got here together. That no man is an island.

            If the President had said that the Romney folks would have told everyone Obama said they can’t be self sufficient….and their slogan would have been “Islands of Freedom” or something equally stupid.

          • Biff Henderson

            See if the progs could work a 40 hour week to support his family, RISK his life’s savings on an idea, miss out on everyday pleasures most folk take for granted, weather economic downturns, not pay yourself a salary for 4 years and put in an additional 50 hours almost working yourself to death side by side with your employees knowing they depend on you for the bread on their table to say nothing of the 90% failure rate in the first 5 years for new businesses. It ticks you off you’re seem as the bad guy for putting in the work and were glad you had time during your commute to catch up on a cellphone with the goings on of your own family. Create American jobs, contribute to the GNP, take alot more guff then your staff would tolerate and government keeps piling on more regs by the minute. I guess I should have walked away, put my hand out and sat on my rump. **** Obama.

    • carpe diem 36

      you said too many wrong things all at once. why bring in a black guy, it has nothing to do with him black, yellow or purple. it has to do with what he is, which is a communist moslem, america hater. as to the sharing is communist of course it is, and why don’t you define what is “fair taxes” on the uber rich, had obama not been president we would have had many more uber-or just plain- rich, but he is nothing but stifling the growth of the economy and making the poor poorer, and the few very rich even richer by his bad policies. as they say Capitalism makes more millionaires, Socialism make more poor people.

      • justquitnow

        Sure, that has nothing to do with it. You hate him for his “policies”…don’t worry…I understand.

        • carpe diem 36

          because you understand so well you probably voted for this horror.

          • justquitnow

            No I voted for Romney. I wan’t going to but then he said if you’re in financial trouble, go borrow $20,000 from your parents and start a business…and a light went off…of course! I’ll ask mom and dad and I’ve been very successful.

          • Juan Motie

            You have been successful only at being an extreme left wing obama vomit regurgitator, if you want to call being a moronic leftist who lets his mouth be flapped by his political god’s “successful”! Admit it, you are just a racist and bigoted fool of the left who is very good at projecting your own faults onto other people, just like the rest of your extreme left-wing fascist comrades.

          • justquitnow

            Juan don’t start trolling around to every one of my posts now…I took care of you above. K.. weirdo, you run along now.

          • Juan Motie

            You are hilarious! An extreme left wing fascist troll posting inane and infantile comments on a conservative website, such as what you do here, is the classic definition of a troll! Are you, like your other extreme left-wing comrades, getting paid by some extremist left-wing organization for all the trolling you do? Are you paid by the word or just by the comment? Do they pay you cash under the table for trolling or do you have to declare all that troll money on your income taxes? Is there a line on the income tax 1040 form for reporting trolling income now?

            By the way, you extremist left-wing fascist, you took care of nothing above except show the world that you are a ranting and raving lunatic and a complete inane and infantile fraud. Claiming to be republican, then ripping to shreds anything right of center in the political world. That does make you a fraud, and a liar as well. But keep banging your head up against the wall, it’s one of the things you extreme leftist fascist do best! Beating that foolish head of yours against the wall so much is just another reason why you are incapable of any type of logical thought process and rational discourse.

          • justquitnow

            Yes…yes…you run along now before your head explodes.

            I can post where I want and you don’t get to tell me what I believe…OK cupcake?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You should love that since the fed is your daddy.

          • pfbonney

            “… he said if you’re in financial trouble, go borrow $20,000 from your parents and start a business.”

            It’s now hard to tell whether you’ve just drank the Kool-Aid, or are on mind-altering something or other.

          • justquitnow

            I was making a joke, but yes Romney did say that….and he meant it.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Obama is more than half White. What does anti-Black racism have to do with him?

          • hiernonymous

            Every quadroon and octoroon under the old racial designation system was “more than half White,” and yet was legally considered black. Legally (for as long ‘legally’ applied) and socially, anyone in the U.S. with a black parent was considered ‘black.’ It’s interesting that you are developing a sudden case of social amnesia when the traditional treatment of race doesn’t fit your agenda.

    • Juan Motie

      justquitnow, like all regressive extremist leftist, have nothing new to say – justquitnow should do as his screen name says and JUST QUIT NOW posting infantile and moronic comments.

      • justquitnow

        A #1 sign that you area cultic loon is that you start slinging your boogeymen around right out of the gate. Just keep walking if you don’t like the article getting any criticism.

        • Juan Motie

          “Cultic loon?” Why, yes, you are a cultic loon! You subscribe to the cult of extreme illiberal regressive fascist leftism and preach its evil, vile and twisted “values” nonstop. You are nothing but a regurgitator of the vomit that is fed to you by your political leaders and you come on here and spew your filthy hate and anger, your bigotry and racism, as you are ordered to do so by your lord god obama, who you worship faithfully five times a day on your prayer rug.

          If any of your comments made any kind of adult sense maybe it could be called criticism, but what you contribute, and I use the word contribute very lightly, is nothing but moronic, childish and infantile far left wing fascist talking points. One can go to any number of your favorite extremist left-wing fascist websites and find the same bovine manure you write here. Once again, you should do as your screen name says and just quit now, or are you one of those extreme left-wing fascist perverts that likes being abused?

          • justquitnow

            I’m not handing you a belief system….you seem defined by how you hate the “other” and you try to give me all this, filled in with meaningless adjectives. Anything else I believe?

            You sure I’m a bigot, racist, full of hate, and a muslim because I didn’t like Romney’s campaign slogan? You sure you didn’t go far enough….lol. Your hysterical. If we were in person I would have to lean over and wipe off the foam coming out of your mouth. Just move along and keep practicing “accuser the accuser” because you can’t start a debate without a good “I know you are but what am I”.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          What bogey man?

    • zoomie

      Why is new necessary ? Wasn’t National Socialism new in the 1920′s ?
      We’re not discussing a marketing campiagn, or perhaps is that what you have been conditioned to crave ?

      • justquitnow

        Sure that makes some kind of twisted sense. Good luck winning an election. Freedum!

    • pfbonney

      “…screw the black guy…”

      I look forward to you voting for Dr. Benjamin Carson, then, since you obviously don’t see a person’s politics, only skin color. You, and all the other liberals. (Yeah, right.)

      The only people you fool, are yourselves, you know.

      We conservatives have seen too many black conservatives, such as Herman Cain, get called Uncle Tom, Oreo, etc. because, all of a sudden, once a black person starts posing a threat to your power, you can start seeing something besides the tunnel vision of the color black.

      Amazing how that works.

      To borrow a quote, “What a bunch of shameless turds.” – justquitnow

      (The below image reads,

      “Surprise Tea Party Patriots October 15, 2013 Surprize, AZ.

      In contrast to repeated claims by mainstream media that Tea Party extremists are just “angry that there is a black man in the White House” the Surprise Tea Party Patriots tonight cast a unanimous vote 80 to 0 at its membership meeting to support the Draft Dr. Ben Carson for President Movement.

      The resolution was worded as follows: “We the Surprise Tea Party Patriots hearby [sic] announce our support for the Draft Dr. Ben Carson for President Movement and declare our clear willingness to vote for him should we decide that he is the best candidate in the field at the time of the primary elections.” )

      • justquitnow

        A threat to “my” power….I’m just a citizen dude. Sorry I mentioned he was black. Ben Carson is perfect for you…run that guy. He’ll make 9-9-9 look like a genius plan.

        • pfbonney

          “A threat to “my” power….I’m just a citizen dude.”

          The power so sought after by the left, my friend, not your personal power.

          “He’ll make 9-9-9 look like a genius plan.”

          So you are a racist bigot. Not that I’m surprised that you are, with you being a leftist, just that you make no effort to hide it.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Let’s not pin the whole blame on Obama. The ground was prepared for him by Democrats and Republicans of old alike, beginning with the Sherman Anti-
    Trust Act and Teddy Roosevelt’s handing the 1912 election to Progressive Woodrow Wilson and the Income Tax and the popular election of Senators and just a general disregard for the Constitution that antedates Obama’s birthday. Obama is simply cashing in on the statist and collectivist account established by his predecessors. Plenty of accountability to spread around. Obama is merely the symbol of Progressive tyranny and its latest heir.

    • justquitnow

      If it’s tyranny why aren’t you promise keepers rotting in a FEMA concentration camp by now.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Give them time. They’ll get around to it. It’s in the cards if we don’t have an open revolt first. But the question is: Do you want to see us rotting in any kind of camp? Would you have the cajones to join us? Or would you just rather roll over and play dead? How much screwing of you by the government will you take before you say, “Enough already”?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

        tyr·an·ny

        noun ˈtir-ə-nē

        : cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others

        : a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant

        Yes, the “tyranny” of liberty and freedom from government tyranny. You’re a dupe of the communists. The “tyranny” of freedom from losers demanding whatever they want from the productive people.

        Constitutional “tyranny” I guess. The US constitution is tyranny to leftists. I hadn’t thought of that before but there you go.

        • justquitnow

          So it’s just inflammed rhetoric…gottcha. I know right….stupid leftist and their hate of the Constitution.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…stupid leftist and their hate of the Constitution.”

            That is indeed the root of the problems.

        • Juan Motie

          When the United States has a president such as this community organizer occupier in the white house, the Constitution no longer matters. It was obama who said our Constitution is a charter of negative rights. He claimed it is a document which states what the government cannot do to American citizens, but does not contain a single word as to what the government can do for/to American citizens. So you are correct by stating that the U.S. Constitution is tyranny to the extreme leftists such as justquititnow. These people have no respect for the Constitution as evidenced by their political god leaders, which they vote into office time and time again while cheering the destruction of American society, American traditions, our Bill of Rights, indeed, the entire Constitution.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It was obama who said our Constitution is a charter of negative rights. He claimed it is a document which states what the government cannot do to American citizens, but does not contain a single word as to what the government can do for/to American citizens. ”

            Precisely. And as soon as he starts handing out promises about what “the government” can do for the people past what the constitution already calls for…

            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-26/politics/42411084_1_president-obama-health-insurance-health-care-law

            …he’s violating the constitutional rights of everyone. Which is precisely why he hates the constitution. He wants a socialist constitution. He wants the government to have any sovereignty it wants to take. Which is another way to describe tyranny.

            Leftists think that productivity, law and order and so forth are more or less organic to man. And evolution calls for us to keep “progressing” in how we manage things. So we don’t need to worry about how the USA became great. So passe! Our leaders prove their bona fides by promising us good stuff and hugging gay couples at their weddings. Of course they can deliver because that’s what progress means! New ideas are always better. Darwin said so. Darwin PROVED it. So did Marx. “We just have to get rid of the human equivalents of the dinosaurs.”

            I think they’re talking about us.

      • pfbonney

        I guess that SHOULD amaze you, justquitnow.

        That is, considering how you Dems put the good, law-abiding Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.

        And enslaved blacks on Democrat-owned plantations so you could make loads of money at their expense, before that.

      • Drakken

        A little puzzy like you wouldn’t be caught dead near someone in uniform much less join an organization that you hold in complete contempt.

        • justquitnow

          What?

      • krowbro

        By definition, a tyrant does not necessarily thwart opposition by throwing them into a prison. Tyranny is an unrestrained excersize of power. Taxation for the purpose of redistribution of wealth is a form of tyranny and is most definitely supported by progressives everywhere.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I might have added that at root is the wholly erroneous notion of “democracy.” The Founders worked hard to establish a constitutional, rights-protecting republic, not a democracy, which they abhorred. Progressives from Day One have taken the meaning of “democracy” at heart, and built their agenda on its true meaning, which is “mob rule,” with a statist government playing off one mob against another. Conservatives no less than liberals and leftists commit that error.

  • Tony Christensen

    American Progressives don’t realize their views advocating big government and the big State come from German philosophy: Hegel, Fichte, et al.

  • MacMac1000

    I just cannot and will not call the Marxists/Commies by that their chosen COVER name that softies on the Right use: “Progressives.”
    Folks here at FPM should no better than most not to cover for them. They are Communists. They should be loudly and forcefully labeled as such and not allowed to hide behind softie self-chosen cover labels.
    You will NEVER win against an enemy that you are afraid of pointing a rightfully accusing finger at!

    • Juan Motie

      I believe the term “illiberal regressive” is a very clear and concise definition of the extreme leftist who are doing their best to “fundamentally change America” into a Third World banana republic tyranny of rule by man rather than remaining under Constitutional Rule of Law, Essential Liberty, and First Principles, which worked so well for so many years prior to the advent of the extreme left with their twisted and tortured views of how society should work.

      • MacMac1000

        Juan, that’s better than allowing them to pick and choose how we address them. When we allow them to make the rules, we lose. When the Right does as it is told, it only breeds further and even worse contempt for us. Best way to win is to defy them at every turn. Never compromise. Always offense. Never defense unless it is a deception.

  • RatedBestComment

    Why do they keep referring to Barry as president? The gay negro is a PHONY.

    All his laws and acts he signed are NULL and VOID and need not be obeyed and can be confidently ignored lest we commit treason as an accomplice.

    I think it is called civil OBEDIENCE! That is something more and more of must practice to get these monkeys off our backs!

    • justquitnow

      You really want to commit treason against the United States of America because you don’t like the black guy? Seriously?

      They sure get you whipped up into a froth though…don’t hurt anyone. Can’t you just set yourself on fire or something on the capital steps? It’s good enough for the tibetan monks and if you think about it Obama is like China coming in and ruling you with his scary black…um…fist.

  • Flowerknife_us

    When the Government controls all, the Courts provide neither Justice or protection. Just like now. We have Obama Justice. It’s called Slavery.

  • justquitnow

    Dude…it was a joke. Of course I don’t want to see Americans in concentration camps. There are no such camps and our government was elected and isn’t a tyrannical power. But thanks to objectivefactsmatter, I now see that when those here accuse Obama of being a tyrant, they just mean he is being unfair…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “…our government was elected and isn’t a tyrannical power.”

      It’s tyranny to systematically attack and deny rights of your political enemies in order to fortify power illegally. It’s the maximum he can get away with.

      It might not be “absolute tyranny” but absolute tyranny doesn’t actually exist.

      “But thanks to objectivefactsmatter, I now see that when those here accuse Obama of being a tyrant, they just mean he is being unfair…”

      Right. Specifically, he is Illegally unfair with regard to constitutional rights of his political adversaries. He violates the constitution and abuses the power of his office.

      • justquitnow

        You can not like something, but being a criminal and doing things that are unconstitutional, those aren’t subjective things….you’re dislike and disgust can’t grow so large that these things become true objectively.

        And I imagine if I asked you for examples of “criminal” and “unconstitutional” behavior, it would be based on an interpretation of events that is equally opinion based.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You can not like something, but being a criminal and doing things that are unconstitutional, those aren’t subjective things…”

          I’d agree with that. The problem is that constituents that gain from these acts or from remaining loyal add a tremendous amount of subjectivity by publishing deranged justifications for these actions and by the time people are discussing it broadly you have a divided nation that isn’t actually debating but instead attacking one another with talking points. Therefore if you examine the discourse, you have a lot of rhetoric rooted in completely subjective ideas that virtually deny the very existence of objectivity if that serves their victory and their interests.

          “…you’re dislike and disgust can’t grow so large that these things become true objectively.”

          That’s hard to disagree with. Why would I? At the same time, recognizing that your opponents are angry is not even close to showing that there is not an objective case supporting their positions.

          “And I imagine if I asked you for examples of “criminal” and “unconstitutional” behavior, it would be based on an interpretation of events that is equally opinion based.”

          There would be subjectivity involved because of the immense volume of discourse and broad controversy about how important the constitution is and how much power POTUS has. But objectivity is more than eliminating all subjectivity. It’s controlling and accounting for subjectivity and carefully weighing evidence.

          But in the end, especially with respect to law and order, it’s the objective facts that matter most. Unfortunately when politics are involved, that is not enough to win because more and more we don’t care about constitutional rights and what most people care about is their personal sense of right and wrong and the sense that their side is “more democratic.” That’s not objective in any way.

          Unfortunate, most people today don’t even understand the salient objective facts about how our government was designed to operate, how societies produce the highest standards of living for all (without trying to be egalitarian) and don’t understand the absurd fallacies that Marxism and modern socialism are built on.

          So to them, objective facts don’t matter at all. They can call those facts subjective because they fail to understand. Therefore it is subjective to them based only on their ignorance.

          Which is sad. The only objective facts that matter to them are how much the government is going to subsidize their expectations in precise USD quantities. In order to remain so selfish, one has to remain in denial about the true costs and risks of supporting such destructive policies. Which is why so many people are in denial about socialism and Islamic supremacism. They don’t see how these ideas will effect them directly, therefore it’s in their self-interest to continue the denial.

          • justquitnow

            It’s a real good post up until you call out your enemy and start talking about “most people”.

            Executive power is a concern…but not over ACA. The potent mixer of NSA and legal drone warfare targeting Americans without trials…that is all very alarming and believe me, it’s not just the tinfoil hat crowd that is putting pressure on Obama when it comes to these issues.

            Frankly, if the ACA was going to be a disaster then the Republicans should have allowed it to go into effect and then feed off the cluster*ck in 2016. But what they fear is that the dust of their insane rhetoric will settle and people will benefit from and like the new laws and regulations. That is their biggest fear.

            Rhetoric is a huge problem at FPM and with Horowitz, but what’s new? This place was designed to kick up dust. Calling all socialism…Marxist or communist and implying that it has the same ends is just more extreme. There are different words for them for a reason. So we can be clear and understand the difference between concepts. Conflating something via political snark may be effective in swaying opinion but it doesn’t help one understand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Executive power is a concern…but not over ACA.”

            Do you have even a vague clue how much information is being consolidated and administered in one place, in a compulsory program?

            “The potent mixer of NSA and legal drone warfare targeting Americans without trials…that is all very alarming and believe me, it’s not just the tinfoil hat crowd that is putting pressure on Obama when it comes to these issues.”

            The ACA is worse. Much worse.

            “Frankly, if the ACA was going to be a disaster then the Republicans should have allowed it to go into effect and then feed off the cluster*ck in 2016.”

            Some argued for that, but others pointed out that once these programs are in place, the solution is always to make it bigger when it becomes f-ed up. And look at the web site already. The justifications will always be that we invested X amount already and additionally established that these beneficiaries (official class victims) are now entitled, no matter what the costs. And nobody will ever tell the truth about costs. Just like now. The longer they wait, the worse it will get.

            “But what they fear is that the dust of their insane rhetoric will settle and people will benefit from and like the new laws and regulations. That is their biggest fear.”

            Maybe that’s part of it. But if they liked it for good reasons that would be a reason for the Republicans to simply support it. Some times people love the poisons they take. And many people love getting free stuff paid for by others.

            “Calling all socialism…Marxist or communist and implying that it has the same ends is just more extreme.”

            The ideas are not unrelated. It’s Marxist ideology. It’s socialism as a transition to communism. That was Marx’s idea. So it’s all related but there are distinctions. Most people understand this but if you don’t take the time to ask for details it’s always easy to assume the other guy is an idiot if he says something you don’t want to hear.

            “So we can be clear and understand the difference between concepts.”

            Press for details if you’re unclear where someone’s going. Generally speaking there is a fear that these socialist style programs are Trojan horses for people that want to grow the government. And that is a big risk. It’s an especially big risk when an barely-vetted POTUS was raised by communists and does nothing all of his life but get involved in communist and socialist programs that are aligned with people that want a radical revolution. What does “transformation” imply to you from POTUS?

            Take off your blinders. You do know who Frank Marshall Davis was, don’t you? Look it up.

    • jfdyates

      Do you understand what a dictaror is ?

      • justquitnow

        Yes. You?

    • DogmaelJones1

      Justquitnow: After I’ve finished one of my columns, I’m not in an amusing mood. Please see my latest piece here. http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ I take ideas seriously.

      • justquitnow

        With all due respect to you and Locke, I’m not going to read all this right now. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, property rights, and equality under the law are all the bedrock of what we have going on here. I am a big proponent of Capitalism, but too often those that champion it, do so divorced from any civic or moral responsibility that I find inherent in it. You look back in history and pick out the anti-trust laws as one of the “beginnings of the end”…but those laws didn’t come about because government wanted tyrannical powers…those laws became necessary because the rich and powerful can and often do abuse the system, abuse their power and through the exploitation of money can usurp the entire idea of one man’s freedom from another.

        Look at what just happened in 2008. When given the chance, people will cheat and steal…they will invent new “revenue streams” new schemes to scam their customers, new financial tools where the public takes the risk and they take the profit. So if anyone wants to champion capitalism and take out a megaphone and yell that capitalism is great, it better be with a sober knowledge that it’s only enemy is not “communism”.

        • DogmaelJones1

          Justquitnow: Two transitional things would improve the chances of this country surviving the leftist agenda we see being implemented today: Repeal of the 17th Amendment that allows the election of Senators by popular vote, instead of by appointment by the states. The Senate, after all, was created to serve as a bulwark against populist legislation originating in the House (modeled on the House of Lords) and to act as the
          states’ representation in the federal government. Today, the Senate more often than not acts as a partner with populist representatives in the House to pass such liberty-killing legislation and so is absolutely useless except as a co-nemesis. We saw this in the recent budget/shutdown theater. A second thing would be to prohibit by Amendment the suborning of Senators and Representatives by special interests with bribes or any other kind of inducement, punishable by censure and/or dismissal, coupled with financial and/or criminal punishments. Of course, the biggest task would be to get the government out of the economy (and out of our lives, out of our pockets, out of our education, etc.) This second Amendment would go far to accomplishing
          that end. There’s nothing wrong with capitalism that a separation of state and economics couldn’t handle. At the end of Atlas Shrugged, a “striking” judge is writing on a copy of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of trade.” That would mean no Senator or Representative could get passed any bill favoring one “class” over another.

          • justquitnow

            Senators “appointed” by the State….never gonna happen.

            Instead of stricter punishment for breaking the law (because so much corruption is legal these days) why don’t you support very strict campaign finance laws so they don’t HAVE to raise so much money from questionable sources.

            But if there is anything said between us that I can agree 100% on, it’s that we need corruption and the influence of money out of the system.

            I’m glad you like Atlas Shrugged. So did I…twenty years ago. laissez faire is a utopian ideal as much as pure communism. You cannot say that communism ignores people’s natures but then pretend that people aren’t greedy, self-serving, short-sighted, cruel bastards to each other and if the government would just “get out of the way” the free market would sort it all out. It won’t. It’s doesn’t.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m glad you like Atlas Shrugged. So did I…twenty years ago. laissez faire is a utopian ideal as much as pure communism.”

            It’s not Utopian. It’s a world you don’t like. It’s fine if you want to argue that we need to take care of the downtrodden. It’s how you make your case that matters. Socialism makes things worse. There is plenty of compromise between pure, unrestrained free market capitalism and what we have even today, never mind what 0′Bamacare does.

            And the ACA is jumping the shark in terms of how much tolerance we should have for these ideas.

          • justquitnow

            “It’s not Utopian. It’s a world you don’t like.”

            It’s a “world” we have never really had and never will have…where the magic hand of the market solves all the human problems. If you were a real diehard commie, that was actually dedicated to Marxist ideals, you could say that “pure or real communism” has never been tried and therefore never has it really failed. It’s not Utopian…it’s just you don’t like it. What you don’t like is the word “utopian” used in any context that you’re not used to and you’re used to it being a smear against commies.

            We’ve had a mixed economy, and we will continue to have a mixed economy. I wasn’t really making a case for the poor and downtrodden. What I was trying to get across is that it never seems to get factored in that the highborn, wealthy, job creators…whatever you want to call them are not saints or superpeople. With all the imagination around here that goes into vilifying commies, you would think I wouldn’t have to outline how people with power can be greedy, immoral, arseholes to the detriment of society and mankind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s a “world” we have never really had and never will have…where the magic hand of the market solves all the human problems.”

            That’s a Utopian version I’ve never heard of. You made it Utopian.

            “If you were a real diehard commie, that was actually dedicated to Marxist ideals,you could say that “pure or real communism” has never been tried and therefore never has it really failed. It’s not Utopian…it’s just you don’t like it.”

            I don’t like it because it’s built on lies and false promises. It’s not possible. It’s only possible to spend other people’s money and call it socialism in transition or democratic socialism or whatever, and what works is the free market. They just siphon off of the income of productive enterprises and pretend they’ve done something magic to make things more fair and efficient. That’s where the delusion comes in.

            And yes, pure communism was attempted but not achieved. There is no such thing. It only exists in theory.

            “What you don’t like is the word “utopian” used in any context that you’re not used to and you’re used to it being a smear against commies.”

            I have no problem with any particular words. It’s the ideas that have meaning. I think you don’t know what is being communicated. Utopian implies that there is no place truly like that. It was coined to imply delusion.

            ” What I was trying to get across is that it never seems to get factored in that the highborn, wealthy, job creators…whatever you want to call them are not saints or superpeople.”

            Neither are poor people saints or superpeople. Neither are delusional leftist politicians.

            “With all the imagination around here that goes into vilifying commies, you would think I wouldn’t have to outline how people with power can be greedy, immoral, arseholes to the detriment of society and mankind.”

            It’s not that anyone denies people are flawed, but we refute that you can engineer a society that forces them to be better.

          • justquitnow

            Right…so you are still arguing that communism is bad. I would have thought you’d have established that by now.

            You say the “free market” would “work” in the context of laissez faire. “work” for “whom”? I tell you that the abuse of people in power (with money and resources) would keep it from working for most people. We’ve seen it in our own history….that is what brought about the regulations in the first place.

            Your answer to this is that poor people and leftist politicians aren’t saints either. Yeah no kidding…communism is bad…I @^#*@)@!_ remember. You didn’t seem to need to be reminded of that.

            Look, I guess if laissez faire and it’s accompanying philosophies are really what you want to champion, then everyone should just be open and honest about it. But I would like to hear more about our future if we did…tomorrow…embrace completely laissez faire capitalism, close up two thirds of the federal government and dismantled every socioeconomic law that’s come about in the last century.

            Paint me a picture.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You say the “free market” would “work” in the context of laissez faire. “work” for “whom”?”

            It works for people that work. It works for enterprising people. It works for people who earn rewards.

            “I tell you that the abuse of people in power (with money and resources) would keep it from working for most people.”

            What kind of abuse of power? That’s vague. We still have laws. Hands off is not anarchy. If you’re talking about law breakers, we still need to enforce our laws. If no law is broken, how do you define abuse? Laissez-faire approach is creating a high requirement for adding new laws and regulations. Public safety concern? Show your evidence. Social justice? Get lost.

            “Your answer to this is that poor people and leftist politicians aren’t saints either. Yeah no kidding…communism is bad…I @^#*@)@!_ remember. You didn’t seem to need to be reminded of that.”

            Do you disagree that communism is bad or not? Do you think lying and promising impossible things is a good way to lead a nation?

            “Look, I guess if laissez faire and it’s accompanying philosophies are really what you want to champion, then everyone should just be open and honest about it.”

            We are arguing for that, but when we use jargon, people don’t know what the hell we’re talking about because of leftist dogmas and deliberate misinformation to paint everything non-communist as innately unjust. Even you seem to think that laissez-faire is having no law at all.

            “But I would like to hear more about our future if we did…tomorrow…embrace completely laissez faire capitalism, close up two thirds of the federal government and dismantled every socioeconomic law that’s come about in the last century.”

            We have to back our way out of the commitments we’ve made to people. You can’t ask dependent people to simply go cold turkey after making some of them dependent since the day they were born. We need programs trimmed back first by cutting fraud, gradually stiffening requirements and filtering people out sensibly to restore sanity to these programs. And we need to completely overhaul our education standards and get rid of the political dogmas that are thrust on children from day one in school. We need to get rid of a lot of unions, but not all because in general people have a right to organize but not when working for government institutions or anything that can be turned political like teaching jobs and so forth. That’s not a comprehensive plan but a quick sample of suggestions off the top of my head.

            We can’t change back overnight but within a generation we can restore every bit of those lost lessons of our true history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Comment deleted again…

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I am a big proponent of Capitalism, but too often those that champion it, do so divorced from any civic or moral responsibility that I find inherent in it.”

          For example?

          And therefore ACA and socialism Apparently you don’t understand capitalism and the ideas that are promoted in order to attack our systems.

          Capitalism is simply how we build things and trade them. It’s not a totalitarian system. Just because someone builds things, doesn’t mean they owe anything to anyone else.

          The arguments that can be made for “social responsibility” can be made when someone profits from shared resources. There are rational cases to be made for some cases where productive enterprise might owe something back to the public that was not involved in the production.

          After that it’s mercy and should not be compulsory. And if we do have a “safety net” it should be tied directly to productivity and fixed for all time so that whiners don’t keep coming back and blaming their failure on the rich. Because when these beggars ask for stuff, it’s always pure moochery and bullshit stories about class victims. Because then you have to use social sciences to make your arguments which are largely corrupted by the very idea that causes these beggars to think they are entitled in the first place.

          “You look back in history and pick out the anti-trust laws as one of the “beginnings of the end”…but those laws didn’t come about because government wanted tyrannical powers.”

          First, it’s not a slam dunk argument that the anti-trust laws got it right. Second, keeping corporations from getting too big is second in importance to keeping the government too big. What is this false dichotomy always presented that if you oppose 0′Bama and socialism that you oppose all government? It’s ridiculous. You can’t logically argue that the anti-trust laws prove the need for socialism or the need for unrestrained growth of federal power. You have to make each case individually. And that is why we have principals of balanced government powers (checks and balances).

          “Look at what just happened in 2008. When given the chance, people will cheat and steal…they will invent new “revenue streams” new schemes to scam their customers, new financial tools where the public takes the risk and they take the profit.”

          Wow. Evidently you think that was the fault of capitalism when in reality that was caused by the fed forcing banks to take on high risk loans and allowing them to reformulate rules in order to hand out funds to people who could not show they have the ability to manage it. If the government had not interfered, that would not have happened in the first place and when it did they would not be all pooled together because you wouldn’t have an entire industry following the same practices (demanded by the government). And if they did come up with it on their own they’d have no basis for asking for government reboot funds. When the government handed them money, it was basically hush money. Insides knew the fundamental cause and it was federal regulations demanded by radical socialists demanding “social justice.’

          What you got in the banking crisis was the socialist roosters coming home to roost. And then leftists still manage to blame that on capitalism thus setting up their arguments for greater government interference and incompetence.

          Great.

          “So if anyone wants to champion capitalism and take out a megaphone and yell that capitalism is great, it better be with a sober knowledge that it’s only enemy is not “communism”.”

          It’s only enemy is ignorance. Communism is ignorance. And your cited an example of socialist interventionism and blamed it on “capitalism.”

          If you go and investigate what I’ve said here and you discover the true underlying facts, you’ll understand a lot about the tensions between the left and the right in this nation.

    • ziggy zoggy

      The vast majority of government apparatchiks are unelected.

      How is forcing Americans to buy health insurance through a single provider anything but tyrannical? And that is just the most obvious example.

      And of course you want to see Americans who disagree with your groupthink condemned to concentration/reeducation camps.

      Can you explain why the FEMA camps need Baird towers and gun emplacements?

      Just curious.

      • ziggy zoggy

        “Guard towers.” Fucking edit program here is worse than my iPad software.

      • justquitnow

        The towers are necessary to keep in the freedom loving patriots until they can be made to work in mass on a giant Obama pyramid.

        • ziggy zoggy

          That’s the most honest thing I’ve ever read by you. You ignored every other point I made, though.

          • justquitnow

            Because your are a stupid one-liner troll. I answer you when you present a choice moment to ridicule you.

    • krowbro

      It is more than unfair, it is an imposition of his will outside of the law.

      • justquitnow

        Which is a fancy way of saying he broke the law. But he didn’t in any objective way…so it’s your opinion. And in your mind you can make Obama as tyranical and foreign as you want.

        I’m not saying you can’t have that opinion…clearly you can, but it’s not “tyranny”…it’s just the ruling party has done something that you don’t like. And I would say there are many (like FPM) that have done everything they can to make sure you hate it with venom popping “freedumb” enthusiasm.

  • American1969

    *sigh*
    It’s frustrating when you’re surrounded by low-info voters who just don’t have a clue.
    So I just keep a smile on my face and let the Obamunnists spew their cr@p. It makes me smile because they just don’t have a clue and have no idea what they’ve asked for. And when it all starts really kicking in, these same idiots are going to be screaming their heads off.
    I’ll be standing there laughing at their stupidity.

  • justquitnow

    Ben Carson’s is a nutter-butter…based on everything he has said in public. The tea party will flirt with the black candidate so guys like you can say the tea party isn’t racist….”we love this one black guy over here.” See?

    “9-9-9″ was still a bad idea even though Herman Cain was black…so it’s an apt comparison. You can get all the black people you want but if they have the same idea pouch as the GOP, the result(s) will be the same.

    • pfbonney

      “You can get all the black people you want but if they have the same idea pouch as the GOP, the result(s) will be the same.”

      That’s just the thing! You liberals have (rent/buy) the majority of black people but allow them to think only one way – “Give the political left power and take money from the political right to buy power for them.”

      Whereas, on the political right, we have room for people from a wide range of social/fiscal persuasions. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was a social conservative was also a fiscal liberal. Dr. Ron Paul (my former congressman), was essentially a libertarian.

      And do we give each other heartburn for holding different beliefs? Of course! Dr. Paul was widely considered to be a kook by other Republicans. (I wouldn’t say that, but consider a lot of his non-constituent followers to be kooks. They see individuals, themselves, having different views as being bad, not their ideas only, as being bad.) But we Republicans don’t give death threats to other Republicans having different views, as the political left does. (Of course, there will always be exceptions.)

      Another characteristic of the left is to embrace an individual or group of people for what they can do for you (again, that is only why you, on the left, finally have done a 180 degree turn on your opinion of blacks – and you love WHAT they are, not WHO they are). I remember watching an interview of Norma McCorvey (alias “Jane Roe in “Roe v. Wade”) some years back. She converted to Christianity some years ago, and was saying, in the interview, that NOW seemed to want her for what she could do for them, whereas whatever Christian religion she joined asked nothing from her. (She has since become a Roman Catholic).

      What you are doing is called “projecting”. You, on the left, assume that we on the right hide behind the color of blacks’ skin color for protection against racism, the same as you do. But in actuality, we look at their political views (fiscal and social) first, and look at their skin color second – and even then only to defend ourselves from charges of racism (as we, as a rule, refuse to “rent” or “buy” black people) because you use race as a weapon to defeat the right, not for any altruistic reasons such as to make blacks strong and independant.

      The fact you come out so hard against any blacks that don’t march in lockstep to your drumbeat goes to show you are not being altruistic.

  • SanfordA

    Our educators, scientists, and other responsible people such as media people are tasked with teaching rational thinking that includes evidence-based reality, that is, the transmission of Enlightenment principles. This is in contrast with previous generations and today’s Arab societies, where educators are tasked with transmission of the word of the Lord God. Scientists teach valid science, not false science that may currently be popular. Responsible politicians focus on the optimum way of improving the prosperity of the nation along with justice, avoiding falsehoods that seem to win votes and power (money).

    The Hebrew Bible commands us to keep the moral principles so that we and our descendants may live long in the land that God gave us. Even though this was written millennia prior to the Enlightenment, modern society accepts basic moral principles and the goal of good living.

    Unfortunately, too many people are not this way. Too many scientists teach false science. Too many politicians advocate ideas destructive to our nation’s economy and sense of justice. The simple answer is greed; however, this is too simple and hides the dangerous reality that we must understand, face, and overcome.

    President Wilson urged Congress to declare war on Germany, saying “we fight for the ultimate peace of the world…” This was a lie. Had we not declared war, the horrors of the 20th century, such as the Holocaust and World War II, may not have happened. Wilson was the first Progressive leader, speaking about peace while declaring war.

    Progressivism is one of the 20th century isms. Communism is another ism. The struggle for freedom against Communism took many long decades, and has not been totally defeated. We know from this struggle that a citizen living in a Communist regime can only fight against the regime, but cannot compromise, for compromise is not possible. The reason why is that negotiation is only possible if both sides accept rational Enlightenment thinking, namely, that ideas must make sense and agree with empirical evidence. An example of irrational thinking is the CRA law, for it is mathematical nonsense for the government to dictate mortgage rates to banks. Socialism is another example of a senseless idea contrary to Enlightenment thinking.

    Progressives must lie in order to advance their irrational ideas. Progressives say America is oppressive and unjust. We must fight this canard, and loudly state that we are not oppressive and unjust, but instead accept Enlightenment principles.

    Saying criminals are created by our evil society is another canard. People, except severe mental patients and such, act based upon their decisions. The criminal committed evil because he chose to do so, not because of “society”. Over the millennia of human history, education is the only proven way to permanently change people. During the 18th and 19th centuries we educated people for moral values. Sadly, 20th century Progressivism contains dangerous values that educators must shun. In order to protect our national security and prosperity, we need to reject Progressivism and return to 19th century education.

    The Progressive Party challenged Harry Truman in his 1948 run for President, because he opposed the spread of Stalin’s empire. Stalin was one of the most evil, destructive, horrible people who ever lived. Since Progressives looked favorably to Communists like Stalin, we must do what we can to work hard to defeat Progressives in elections, in order to keep our national economy and security, based upon Enlightenment principles, safe and secure. We must not compromise with these people. We must not give them the benefit of the doubt. We must proclaim they lie, that is, knowingly speak falsehood. We must not fear losing elections or our jobs if we say Progressives are wrong and liars.

    Progressives fail to pay attention to the results of their actions. Look at Detroit. For decades things worsened, the Democrats stayed in power and did not change any policies, and yet no one commented. This attitude of ignoring consequences is contrary to Enlightenment principles. We cannot survive if we continue to refuse to look at results of actions. People should be ashamed to call themselves Progressives.

    The medieval Robin Hood was a Progressive, as he took from the Haves and gave to the Have-nots. This was against Enlightenment principles.

    When Congressman Wilson shouted in Congress when President Obama was speaking that the President was lying, he was criticized when he should have been praised for pointing out the lies of the Progressive Obama. Since Progressives frequetly lie, we must never trust a Progressive, even if he is the President.

    As an influential person responsible for the future of our country, please do what you can to save our country by rational thinking, observation the results of out actions, and changing what we do as we see what happens.

    Thank you very much.

  • citizen x

    Isn’t it true that Progressive Policy led to emerging economies finally reversing course at the same time the US Economy expanded? I’m going to bet money that America’s perceived downfall was rooted in the way the Right Wing has been approaching commodities, free trade, currency… BUT don’t be surprised if old banking rules return and emerging markets rebound at America’s expense and the whole house of cards falls for good….Maybe we should start learning Chinese instead?