<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Progressive</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/progressive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Obamacare Architect Exposes Progressive Totalitarianism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obamacare-architect-exposes-progressive-totalitarianism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacare-architect-exposes-progressive-totalitarianism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obamacare-architect-exposes-progressive-totalitarianism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Architect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Gruber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MIT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[totalitarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A glimpse into the true heart of the Left.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Jonathan-Gruber-MSNBC-interview.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245193" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Jonathan-Gruber-MSNBC-interview.jpg" alt="Jonathan-Gruber-MSNBC-interview" width="329" height="269" /></a>Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who designed the Affordable Care Act, used to be the symbol of the Democrats’ technocratic bona fides, and an example of how big government with its “scientific” experts can solve social and economic problems from health care to a warming planet. Yet a recently publicized video of remarks he made at a panel in 2013, along with 2 other videos in the same vein, has now made him the poster child of the elitist progressives’ contempt for the American people, and their sacrifice of prudence and reason to raw political power.</p>
<p>In the video Gruber explains the spin and lies the Dems used to give cover to their Congressmen so they could vote for Obamacare. Especially important was avoiding the “t-word.” So, Gruber crows on the video, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” He also explained how the bills’ writers covered up the obvious redistributionist core of the legislation, which to work has to take money from the healthy young to pay for health care for the sick and old. “If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”</p>
<p style="color: #272727;"><span style="color: #000000;">Then this handsomely paid consultant to the “most transparent administration in history” revealed the foundational contempt progressives have for the “people” whose champions they claim to be: </span>“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” As David Horowitz tweeted, “<span style="color: #202327;">Progressive totalitarianism: We know what&#8217;s good for you and will lie, cheat and then compel you to agree with us.”</span></p>
<p style="color: #202327;">This modern version of the Platonic “guardians,” who possess superior knowledge but who must camouflage their tyrannical rule with lies, is now over 100 years old, and has become deeply embedded in our politics. It was the fundamental assumption of American Progressivism, which argued that modern technology and social change had rendered the old constitutional order a dangerous relic. The native common sense and wisdom of ordinary people to know their own interests and pursue them primarily at the local and state levels were now replaced by the allegedly scientific knowledge of “experts,” who alone could solve the problems created by the modern world. As Progressive Theodore Roosevelt said in 1901, the “very serious social problems” confronting the nation could no longer be solved by “the old laws, and the old customs,” especially the power given to state governments and laws, which “are no longer sufficient.” Woodrow Wilson agreed, complaining in 1913 that “the laws of this country have not kept up with the change” of economic and political circumstances. To achieve “social justice” and eliminate income inequality, the “laws,” particularly the Constitution, had to change.</p>
<p style="color: #202327;">But to effect such change, the old order of conflicting and balancing “passions and interests,” as James Madison described the political order, had to be transformed in order to create a more collectivist people united in their “collective purpose” to achieve a “vigorous social program,” particularly the redistribution of property. As Progressive Frank Johnson Goodnow wrote ominously in 1916, “Changed conditions . . . must bring in their train different conceptions of private rights if society is to be advantageously carried on.” Individual rights, especially property rights, “may become a menace when social rather than individual efficiency is the necessary prerequisite of progress. For social efficiency probably owes more to the common realization of social duties than to the general insistence on privileges based on individual private rights.”</p>
<p>In practical terms, these goals of “social efficiency” and “social duties” required more power centralized in the federal government and executive at the expense of the states and the people. The most important Progressive theorist, Herbert Croly, wrote in 1909, “Under existing conditions and simply as a matter of expediency, the national advance of the American democracy does demand an increasing amount of centralized action and responsibility.” Woodrow Wilson agreed, and envisioned a cadre of elites to address the national “cares and responsibilities which will require not a little wisdom, knowledge, and experience,” as he wrote in his 1887 essay “The Study of Administration.” As such, administrative power lies beyond politics, and should be insulated from the machinery of participatory government. And much like today’s progressives, Wilson’s ideas were based on contempt for the people who lack this specialized knowledge and so cannot be trusted with the power to run their own lives. Thus Wilson envisioned federal administrative bureaucracies “of skilled, economical administration” comprising the “hundred who are wise” empowered to guide the thousands who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.”</p>
<p style="color: #202327;">Sound familiar? From these early Progressive theorists to MIT Professor Gruber and the Democrats the line is direct, based on the same flawed and illiberal assumptions. The masses cannot be allowed, as envisioned by the Constitution, the autonomy to pursue their interests through local and state governments closest to them, their conflicts regulated by the balance of power, mixed government, and federalism, which prevent any one faction from amassing enough power to tyrannize the rest. Rather, administrative elites must be empowered to override those many interests in order to “solve problems” and achieve “social justice.” This in turn means growing the size and scope of the federal government into the bloated Leviathan it is today.</p>
<p style="color: #202327;">But as Wilson complained, <span style="color: #272727;">“The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes.”</span>  Since the citizens still have the vote and can exercise it every 2 years, they must be tricked into doing the “right thing,” as defined by the technocratic elite. One of the most chilling statements by an American president was made by Woodrow Wilson in his essay on administration: “Whoever would effect a change in modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to <i>want</i> some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.” What else has “income inequality,” “war on women,” “you didn’t build that,” and all the other slogans of this administration been other than the attempt to get the voters to “listen to the right things” and form a “right opinion”? Listen again to Wilson, from his essay “Leaders of Men”: “<span style="color: #040404;">Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.” Is this not the spirit of Professor Gruber’s remarks </span><span style="color: #000000;">on his “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter” in designing the Obamacare legislation?</span></p>
<p style="color: #202327;">The politics of today’s progressives all have their roots in the old Progressive assumptions––that enlightened elites know better than the people what is good for them, and that the people, being such unenlightened clods, need to be manipulated and lied to for their own good. Most important, the freedom and autonomy of the people must be limited by intrusive federal agencies and regulations in order for these utopian goals to be achieved.</p>
<p style="color: #202327;">Or to put it in other terms, this set of progressive beliefs––which we have seen acted on for the last six years by the president and practically every government agency––is totalitarian at its core. Not the brutal despotism of Italian fascism or Soviet communism or German Nazism, but Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” the kinder, gentler Leviathan which undermines self-reliance and self-government by taking responsibility for the people’s comfort and happiness, and financing its largess by the redistribution of property. But no matter how comfortable in the short-term, such a condition is nothing other than servitude. And as Tocqueville warns, “No one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obamacare-architect-exposes-progressive-totalitarianism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>88</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Whittle: Give Back the Senate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-give-back-the-senate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bill-whittle-give-back-the-senate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-give-back-the-senate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #000000;"><strong>Well, the Republicans have retaken the Senate from the Democrats, and now that they have, it&#8217;s time to give it back to its rightful owners&#8230;</strong></p>
<p style="color: #000000;"><strong>Join Bill Whittle in his latest Firewall, where he shows how destructive the Progressive Amendments have been &#8212; especially the Seventeenth Amendment. Find out why it matters! See the video and transcript below. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DUOGdBgeB14" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Hi everybody, I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Well, the Republicans have retaken the Senate from the Democrats. And now that they have, it’s time to give it back. Not to the Democrats. And not even to we, the people. No, now that Republicans have the Senate, it would be nice if actual conservatives lead the fight to return the Senate to its rightful owners.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">See these ancient old prudes? These are Progressives. Yes, they were ancient old prudes even back in the Progressive era, around the turn of the last century. Now modern Progressives are a little better exfoliated and botoxed, of course, but they have in common with these proto-Progressives that same fiery look in the eye — which is that genetic defect of getting all excited about telling other people what to do — for their own good, naturally.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">((WINK))</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The Progressive Era gave us the Progressive Amendments to the Constitution — which, looked at individually, show just how envious Progressives are, how prudish they are, and how tyrannical they are.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The 16th Amendment gave us the income tax, which, when you think about it, doesn’t even penalize the rich — which was, of course their goal then as it is today. No, taking income penalizes hard work, and the harder you work, the more you get penalized. So next time you get your paycheck, take a look at the raw amount before withholdings. Thank the Progressives for what you don’t take home.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The Eighteenth Amendment — Prohibition — was the first time the Constitution was changed to actually take away a freedom: the freedom to get lit so that you didn’t have to listen to these Progressive harpies whine and complain day and night. But this freedom — the God-given freedom to have beer at the end of a hard day — was a little too precious, a little too near-and-dear to give up, so the eighteenth amendment was repealed by the twenty first Amendment. And don’t forget that: freedom can come back sometimes — if you miss it enough.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">But the real damage was done by the Seventeenth Amendment, changing Article one, section three of the Constitution, which stated that U.S. Senators were to be elected by the legislatures of each state. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that to make US Senators electable by the people of the state.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Democracy! Now the people have a voice in Washington, not just the rich fat cats in the state legislatures! Hooray for democracy! And that is how Progressives steal freedom: they do it in the name of democracy. They’re very good at it now: they ought to be — they’ve had a lot of practice.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Well, first, those fat cats in the legislatures were in fact elected by the people of their state, so there’s some democracy for you right there.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">But the main problem is, the people already had a voice in Washington: it’s called the House of Representatives. They’re elected directly by the people, every two years, and the more people a state has, the more representatives that state has in the House.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The Senate was never intended to represent the people. The senate was supposed to represent the states: that’s why Wyoming, with roughly five hundred thousand people, has two senators, and California, with roughly seventy-six times as many people — also has two senators.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The Seventeenth Amendment made the Senate utterly redundant. Now it’s kind of a retirement home for lifers; the House of Lords with six year terms that get further and further away from the people that elected them and who sit in a sort of royal court being serenaded by special interest groups in DC steakhouses.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The Senate was designed to protect the power of the states because the more power the states have, the less power the Federal government has — and vice versa. But progressives can’t leave people alone, you see? They have to take their income, and tell them whether they can drink or not, or what kind of health insurance they have to buy, or how big a soda they can have, and what kind of car to drive and all the rest. And in order to do that, they need the coercive power of central authority — which meant destruction of the power of the states. After all, you can’t force people not to gamble, drink, or whore around if they can just move to Nevada!</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">To paraphrase H.L Menken, that’s the Progressive nightmare: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may escape being told what to do.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Our founders weren’t the idiots we have in Washington today. They knew what kind of people go into politics — control-freak weenies, that’s what kind — and they set up legal and structural barriers to put limits on just how much power jug-eared narcissists, sleazy used-car salesmen and dimwitted botoxed harpies can actually accumulate. We need to get that power back to the states, so that if you don’t like the way they roll in Tulsa you can move to San Francisco and visa versa.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">We repealed the Eighteenth Amendment — we can repeal the Seventeenth as well, because only the states are powerful enough to stop this Federal government from enforcing that Progressive utopia: a country where anything that is not forbidden is mandatory.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">So kick back, relax, have a drink and think it over.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-give-back-the-senate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democratic Party’s Civil War Is Here</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 05:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gall.reid_.pelosi.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244664" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gall.reid_.pelosi-450x293.jpg" alt="gall.reid.pelosi" width="301" height="196" /></a>There are really two Democratic parties.</p>
<p>One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.</p>
<p>They will say absolutely anything to get elected.</p>
<p>Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.</p>
<p>The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.</p>
<p>They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.</p>
<p>Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol&#8217; boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.</p>
<p>The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.</p>
<p>Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.</p>
<p>Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.</p>
<p>Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.</p>
<p>The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.</p>
<p>Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.</p>
<p>Republicans benefited from a Democratic civil war. They were running a traditional campaign against a more traditional part of the Democratic Party. They didn’t really beat the left. They beat the old Dems.</p>
<p>The old Dems were crippled by the progressive agenda. They were pretending to be moderates while ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty and gay marriage were looking over their shoulders. They married Obama and it was too late for them to get a divorce. And it doesn’t look any better down the road.</p>
<p>The Clintons became the public face of the Democrats, but instead of turning things around, they presided over a series of defeats. Bill Clinton couldn’t even save Mark Pryor in Arkansas. Not only that, he had to watch Republicans take every congressional seat in Arkansas and the governor’s mansion.</p>
<p>Bill had wanted Hillary to play Sarah Palin, turning her into a kingmaker and building on a narrative of female empowerment by having her back female senators. Instead Kay Hagan, Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Amanda Curtis lost. Not only did Hillary Clinton fail to deliver, but the War on Women narrative was turned inside out by the rise of Joni Ernst.</p>
<p>Ernst’s emergence as the definitive new senator of the election killed any chance that Democrats had of spinning the election results as sexist; even if Harkin’s Taylor Swift crack hadn’t done that on its own.</p>
<p>The Dems had gambled that the War on Women could offset Obama’s unpopularity, but voters were more concerned about the economy than the culture war. Not only novelty candidates like Wendy Davis, but incumbents like Mark Udall, tried for what they thought was a winning strategy. But the War on Women wasn’t a strategy, it was a fake talking point that their own consultants had forgotten to tell them was disinformation that they had created to seed the media and spread fear among Republicans.</p>
<p>Romney had won white women in every age group. Increased turnout by minority women had skewed the numbers, but those numbers reflected racial solidarity, not a gender gap. Progressives had not bothered to tell their old Dem cousins what they were doing. The Senate Dems marched into political oblivion by adopting the Wendy Davis platform to the bafflement and ridicule of female voters.</p>
<p>The War on Women meme was greeted with laughter in New York and Colorado. Senator Udall was dubbed Mark Uterus by his own supporters and performed worse with female voters than in 2008. Meanwhile in Iowa, Joni Ernst had split the female vote which Harkin had won by 64 percent in 2008.</p>
<p>Not only did Hillary Clinton do more damage to her brand by failing to deliver white and women voters, but the Democratic Party is stunned, confused and divided. And the damage is self-inflicted.</p>
<p>The Clintons thought that they could reunite a splintering Democratic Party by taking on a Republican midterm election wave. Obama sabotaged Reid to keep the Democratic Party leaning to the left. Reid is now attacking Obama openly in a way that would have been inconceivable a year ago. Obama’s people are returning the favor by going after Reid and Schumer. The war of the two parties has begun.</p>
<p>The old Dems have no ideas and no agenda. The progressives want to get as much of their agenda done even if it’s by executive order and even if it makes them even more unpopular than they are now. The old Dems have realized that they are the ones who will pay a political price for progressive radicalism.</p>
<p>And waiting in the wings is the 2016 election.</p>
<p>Obama has made it clear that he is willing to nuke his own party to get amnesty done. But for the first time his party seems less than eager to sacrifice its short term greed for the agendas of the left. And the only man who could tie the two wings together has emerged weakened from the Battle of Arkansas.</p>
<p>Amnesty promises radical demographic change, but red state Dems want to protect their positions today. They aren’t doing it for the ideology. They want to stay in office. The mutual backstabbing ended in disaster for the Democrats and there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop.</p>
<p>Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>303</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Progressive Pajama Boy Era Is Over</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-progressive-pajama-boy-era-is-over/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-progressive-pajama-boy-era-is-over</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-progressive-pajama-boy-era-is-over/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pajama boy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The progressive resurgence was powered by leftist billionaires -- and they're losing.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #282828;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/YWu6-4v8.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243191" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/YWu6-4v8.png" alt="YWu6-4v8" width="233" height="233" /></a>Obama’s approval ratings and MSNBC’s viewer ratings are in a close race to the bottom of Death Valley. It’s only a question of which set of obnoxious hipsters with a head full of bad policy ideas and no real life experience will be fired first; the Maddow crew or the White House staff.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The progressive pajama boy era is over. The asexual messenger bag toting wonk has met an ISIS Jihadist and run home to its non-traditional family. Liberalism isn’t over, but its contenders are trying to butch up their act. The second coming of Hillary is accompanied by bellicose rhetoric about Putin and Syria. Leon Panetta, her gnomish errand boy, is sneering at Obama as an egghead too busy dithering about what not to do to be able to actually do anything about ISIS.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">Democrats are adjusting to a new reality of less nuance and more centrist politics. So is MSNBC.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">If Obama loses the Senate, then his leftist backers also lose their death grip on the Democratic Party. And that’s why they’re panicking so badly. Progressives proved that money and media bias could let them get away with anything. But then they lost in 2010, barely hung on in 2012 and are heading for a beating in 2014. If they can’t buy the Senate now, the Democratic Party will have to correct its course.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">A sober analysis of the Big Billionaire Left shows that they were good at getting Obama elected, but not much else. Like the USSR, they could pour a lot of energy and capital into inefficiently getting one big thing done, but they aren’t much good at doing a lot of little things. Their hijacking of democracy ran into trouble the moment they tried to push past the White House. It was only the White House’s hijacking of democracy by trying to function as a unilateral dictatorship of pen and phone that extended their influence beyond their initial defeat in 2010. And that came with its own price in popularity.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">Obama’s arrogance isolated him politically. He insisted on running everything and is stuck with the bill. In countless speeches he demanded more power and authority; his sinking approval ratings reflect the growing willingness of even his own supporters to hold him responsible for his unilateral policymaking.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">As the election approaches everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong. Not only did Obama’s aggressive efforts to stoke racial unrest on the border and in Ferguson to turn out the minority voters who generally sit out midterm elections backfire, but the resulting messes deepened the popular impression that he was in over his head. Now instead of pivoting from Global Warming to a minimum wage to some offensive thing that some local Republican somewhere said, the media is stuck in an Ebola-ISIS cycle that reminds Americans on a daily basis that everything really is out of control.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The critiques from even friendly media outlets keep throwing around words and terms like “detached,” “in over his head,” “flailing” and “too smart for his own good.” That word salad adds up to the same message as the one being peddled by Leon Panetta; America needs strong experienced leadership.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">And Obama isn’t it.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">Obama is already receding into the imagination of liberals as the youthful folly of a political Age of Aquarius when millennials tried to levitate the Pentagon by electing a brash inexperienced community organizer to fix the world. They are writing him off as an act of political naiveté by a war-traumatized generation still unaware of the practical limits of the real world.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">And that infuriates and terrifies the left worse than anything else.  The left can thrive on hostility, but it hates being dismissed by its fellow travelers as naïve idealists who don’t understand the real world.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">But that’s the historical revisionism that had been prepped and waiting in the wings all along for Obama. What the right does wrong is always attributed to malice, while the left’s worst atrocities from the Gulags to the killing fields are put down to idealism gone wrong. Obama takes his place somewhere between Mao and Eugene McCarthy as the Democratic Party rushes to reinvent itself as the adult party of serious experienced political leaders like Hillary Clinton. Its message is that it’s time for the Obama pajama boys to grow up and compromise on their progressive politics by voting for Hillary in 2016.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The left has few options left. Money can only buy so many votes. If Obama’s base stays home, then the magical turnout operation starts looking like a lot of political consultants taking credit for the Oprah tilt of black women coming out to vote for Obama. And there is no obvious replacement for Obama.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to inaugurate a new era of progressive politics by pushing so far to the left as to make Obama look like Bob Dole. Instead Bill de Blasio has been tagged by the same progressive incompetent moniker as Obama. The analogy is being drawn explicitly by liberals even in left-of-center publications like the New York Times and the Daily News.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">Bill de Blasio didn’t extend the progressive lifespan. He was elected just in time for everyone to be primed to expect the Obama progressive cycle of self-righteous cover-ups, thin-skinned media wars and grandiose policy announcements that go nowhere. The political future of the progressive mayor has been Obamanized off the scene. And that leaves few great hopes for the progressive cause.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">Elizabeth Warren still fakes left, but she seems to know her limitations. 2018’s midterm election without a president on the ballot and a different demographic makeup for the electorate could easily topple her. If she tried for the big chair, she would be run over by harder Democrat candidates faking centrist. And without Warren, all that’s left are clown acts like Bernie Sanders and Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The progressive resurgence was powered by leftist billionaires and non-profits chasing power. They have the money and the organization, but they don’t have the candidates. Six years of Obama produced compelling conservative figures like Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy and Mike Lee. There’s no equivalent to them on the left. It’s why liberal billionaire election spending is characterized more by the candidates that they are against rather than the ones that they are for. They have spent so much time and money battling the Tea Party that they have failed to build a post-Obama political future for their movement.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The left isn’t going anywhere, but its current incarnation as the party of diversely wimpy progressives who compensate for their lack of experience with their enthusiasm and their political connections is. Obama has done a great deal for the political agendas of the left while doing a great deal of damage to the political ambitions of the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party won’t forget that. Obama was thinking about transforming America, but the Democratic Party is thinking about the next four years.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The liberal verdict on the age of Obama has been written. It may change with history, but for now the Hope and Change period will be praised for its idealism and its innovative political organizing, but dismissed for its policy incompetence and its inability to listen to voices outside its bubble. It was an elitist phenomenon whose diversity was faked with media imagery and the party will now work to try and recapture its lost position among the rest of the country, particularly among white Democrats.</p>
<p style="color: #282828;">The progressive will continue to haunt American politics, but his current hipster incarnation is headed for extinction.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on The Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-progressive-pajama-boy-era-is-over/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Whittle: Obama Is Bush Lite</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-obama-is-bush-lite/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bill-whittle-obama-is-bush-lite</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-obama-is-bush-lite/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boots on the ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[promise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #000000;"><strong>He&#8217;s launched airstrikes and is threatening ground troops but IT&#8217;S NOT WAR. He took a victory lap for Osama bin Laden but opposed the means that got his location. He&#8217;s broken every Progressive policy and gospel on the books, and he&#8217;s doing the same things for the same reasons his predecessor did, only he&#8217;s doing them late, doing them badly and blaming everyone else. In his latest Firewall Bill Whittle shows why Barack Obama is nothing more than Bush Lite. See the video and transcript below:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JUFIy_o1Lv0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">BUSH LITE</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">President Obama, when told that airstrikes alone very likely would not be enough to stop the murderous scythe of ISIS, as it destroys entire ethnic populations on his watch, has told his Joint Chiefs that he would make a decision about deploying US ground forces “on a case by case basis.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">What does that mean? Nobody really knows. He doesn’t really know either. But what it sounds like is that we may need to send troops on specific missions against specific targets – as in a police raid &#8212; but this is in no way to be construed as “boots on the ground.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">If Barack Obama has to deploy US Marines to Iraq wearing flip-flops so that he can claim he didn’t put boots on the ground, then that is what he is going to do: anything other than admit that an ongoing campaign of airstrikes and troops on the ground is, in fact, war.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Because Barack Obama is against war. He is launching airstrikes and deploying soldiers and killing people – but this is not war. Any questions?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Yeah, I have a question. Is there anybody left out there who doesn’t see this Progressive president doing the exact same things as that swaggering Texas cowboy, George W. Bush – and not only doing them, but not doing them nearly as well? Is there anybody out there who once voted for Captain Hopenchange who doesn’t see that he has broken not just every progressive promise but every progressive gospel – and done it late, and done it badly? Anybody who doesn’t see this empty suit for what he is: namely, Bush Lite?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Where do we begin?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">How about Executive Order 13492 &#8211; Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities. Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20th, 2009. Two days later, on January 22, 2009, he signed the executive office ordering the closure of the detention base at Guantanamo Bay. President Bush understood the need for such a secure facility, far from American soil because of the dangers of a large-scale rescue attempt of so many high-value terrorists. Bush Lite called it “a stain on America’s honor.” It’s still open though. You know why? Because as it turns out, there is a need for such a secure facility, far from American soil because of the dangers of a large-scale rescue attempt of so many high-value terrorists. So Bush Lite keeps it open in violation of his own order.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Hey, speaking of Gitmo…</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">President Bush assumed the responsibility – and the concomitant waves of criticism – of ordering the extraordinary rendition – waterboarding – of a very small number of top terrorists. One of these – the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – KSM &#8212; who not only admitted to but in fact bragged about the murder of more than 3000 American civilians – broke under waterboarding; a procedure which, I might add, our own special forces warriors volunteer to endure at part of their POW training.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Senator – later candidate – Obama denounced this as torture. But it was the waterboarding of KSM that gave us the name of the courier who revealed the location of Osama bin Laden. After dithering and worrying about the possibility a failed mission for at least 100 days, Bush Lite took time from the links to take credit for getting Bin Laden, a victory given to him by his predecessor’s moral courage and for whom not a word of thanks was uttered.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">One more thing: President Bush declared early that he was going to focus on destroying Al Qaedas ability to strike, rather than chasing one single man. That’s why the man that Bush Lite bragged about killing was not connected to the levers of power, moving his chess pieces against the Great Satan through a series of secret conduits. He was a beaten, bitter old man, who sat in a shawl, watching porn and speeches of himself back in his days of glory, before President Bush broke those levers and scattered those pieces by killing Al Qaeda in the sands of Iraq. Bush Lite, bungling a routine Status of Forces Agreement, told the few survivors – actually, he promised them – that we were getting out; those survivors are now known as ISIS.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">President Bush occasionally left the Oval Office for a round of golf. Bush Lite occasionally leaves a round of golf for the Oval Office. And while President Bush, certainly, was not without his faults – they were the faults of a man facing difficult decisions who made them and then owned up to them in the face of merciless political and personal criticism from people like Bush Lite, who now are forced by the same circumstances to make the same decisions, but who makes them late, and makes them badly, and who then blames anyone but himself.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Perhaps President Bush was not, in fact a bad man who just liked killing people for fun. Bush Lite is doing the exact same things he did: is he a bad man who likes killing people for fun too? Or is it that the job may be a little harder than it looks from the outside? That maybe there aren’t good choices; just a bad choice and a worse choice?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Finally – heresy of heresies! – I think that not only is President Bush a better man than Bush Lite… I think he’s a far smarter man as well.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">WHAT?!!! Obama went to Harvard!</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Bush went to Harvard too. And Yale. He went to both.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">BUT BUSH WAS A C STUDENT!!!</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">True. And Bush Lite on the other hand…</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">…Well, no one knows what kind of student Bush Lite was, because he has, at great expense, kept his records sealed. We do know that when he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review, Harvard Law Review President Lite never wrote a single law review.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">That seemed odd to me for the longest time, until it finally dawned on me: of course Bush Lite wrote law reviews. He just never had any law reviews PUBLISHED. Must be because he was so brilliant, right? That’s why they never published any of the President of the Harvard Law Review’s Law Reviews? Ort is it because once they read one or two of them they realized – as the rest of us are realizing just today! – that the fabled intellect is as dull and mundane as the fabled savvy and fabled strength and fabled everything.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">So do I really think President Bush is smarter than Bush Lite?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Hell yes I do! Absolutely!! President Bush was an instrument-rated, supersonic fighter pilot. Barack Obama handed out forms. Which one do you think is easier?</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">That’s how Bush Lite likes things though: easy. Relaxed. Let men make the decisions to win wars. The women in his life will tell Bush Lite when it’s safe to grab the credit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-obama-is-bush-lite/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Whittle: The Struggle for Stupidity</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-the-struggle-for-stupidity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bill-whittle-the-struggle-for-stupidity</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-the-struggle-for-stupidity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2014 04:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Core]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=238828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KFrYEV07p4I" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Sci-Fi Author Jerry Pournelle recently re-published a sixth grade reader from 1914. In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle explains how full comprehension of a single paragraph from that hundred-year-old elementary school textbook eludes virtually all of today&#8217;s college graduates; shows why it is such a sin, and reveals the Progressive Struggle for Stupidity in all of its undeniable venality.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><p>AMERICAN EDUCATION AND THE STRUGGLE FOR STUPIDITY</p>
<p>Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.</p>
<p>Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle has republished, with his additional commentary, a completely forgotten – but far from forgettable – book called Literature Reader, Sixth Year, by Leroy E. Armstrong.</p>
<p>Literature Reader, Sixth Year, by Leroy E. Armstrong is not a novel or a scientific treatise or a book or Mr. Armstrong’s poetry. It’s a textbook – a California textbook: a collection of written tales and their analyses, the basics of literature, story structure and all the rest: that’s it and that’s all.</p>
<p>On a whim, I looked it up on Amazon, and on another whim, I clicked on a random link, and scanned the first paragraph I laid eyes on, which read:</p>
<p>Then Jason lighted the pile, and burnt the carcass of the bull; and they went to their ship and sailed eastward, like men who have a work to do. Three thousand years and more they sailed away, into the unknown Eastern seas; and great nations have come and gone since then, and many a storm has swept the earth; and many a mighty armament, to which Argo would be but one small boat; English and French, Turkish and Russian, have sailed those waters since; yet the fame of that small Argo lives forever, and her name is a proverb among men.</p>
<p>This is what sixth graders were reading one hundred years ago, in 1914, but if a college kid today graduated with a full and complete understanding of that one single paragraph they would be better educated than they are after a quarter-million dollars or so of student debt.</p>
<p>Reduced to a movie – which would be the only way to get a 6th grader to meet Jason and the Argonauts today – It would be:</p>
<p>EXT. WIDE SHOT – THE BEACH</p>
<p>Jason lights fire to the bull. After a moment, his men turn and walk to the ship. Casting off the lines, they set sail out into the harbor.</p>
<p>CLOSE UP – JASON</p>
<p>He looks out to sea, a look of determination on his face.</p>
<p>CUT TO…</p>
<p>And that would be it. But that’s just the surface of the paragraph, and that’s all 6th graders in 2016 get – the only the surface of everything. A hundred years ago, these same-aged children would have imagined – they would have seen in their minds – the great ship setting sail for the eastern sea, and then be shocked that the Greek author did not talk abut sailing for three hundred miles bur rather for three thousand years. They saw the mighty fleets of the English and French and Turks and Russians – sailing ships, battleships – come and go and only the small Argo remain on these waters of eternity. Only this small band of men, in a little boat, sailing across the ocean of history and legend human history, like men who have a work to do.</p>
<p>For a random paragraph from an obscure textbook, that is a profound insight. No doubt it is why Leroy E. Armstrong decided to include it in his reader.</p>
<p>The Progressives have had to fight against that 1895 or 1914 level of education, and it hasn’t been easy for them. It took them at least half a century to win this struggle for stupidity: elimination of standards, grading on the curve, the self-esteem movement, new math, gender studies, speech codes and all the rest – the det-ritus of the battle against educated citizens, in harness to the socialist paradise that is so obviously doomed to failure – well…obvious to people who know math, history, and economics, anyway.</p>
<p>And now, with Common Core, soon it will be against the law for your child to hit the jackpot, against all odds, and end up with a Leroy E. Armstrong. No, the final battle in the Struggle for Stupidity will be to make it illegal to be taught anything other than Standard State Stupid. They have succeeded in taking a generation that go to the moon with slide rules, doing the math in their head, to a generation that is amazed to discover that the movie Titanic is based on a true story.</p>
<p>And through it all – through the rise and fall of England and France and Turkey and Russia and now us, the United States of America – the Argo sails on alone, unread, undiscovered, waiting for a time when people begin to search for her once again.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/bill-whittle-the-struggle-for-stupidity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Utopia and the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/utopia-and-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=utopia-and-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/utopia-and-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 04:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no place like utopia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wizard of oz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joel Gilbert discusses his new film and pulls back the curtain on the Left's promises for heaven on earth.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: Below are the video and transcript to filmmaker Joel Gilbert&#8217;s recent speech at the American Legion Hall in Redlands, California. Gilbert&#8217;s most recent film is &#8220;There&#8217;s No Place Like Utopia,&#8221; which will be released nationwide in theaters this summer. For more information on the film, visit <a href=" http://theresnoplacelikeutopia.com/">TheresNoPlaceLikeUtopia.com</a>. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/G5Ftqrjm3fU" height="315" width="560" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>America, we have a problem. America has been under siege from a vast left-wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>Obama’s election was not a sudden political phenomenon. It was the result of an American socialist movement that Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.</p>
<p>Why did Dorothy follow the yellow brick road? Is Utopia a real destination for America? Or, is the true path to happiness still faith, family, and hard work &#8212; back home in Kansas?</p>
<p>I have a film coming out this summer, its called There’s No Place Like Utopia. The title is a play on Dorothy’s conclusion in the Wizard of Oz, “there’s no place like home.”</p>
<p><strong>Watch the trailer for There&#8217;s No Place Like Utopia: </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4YgPWK-rkZE" height="315" width="560" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Dorothy blindly follows the yellow brick road, believing a magical wizard will fulfill her all dreams. In the end, of course, she discovers the Wizard is a charlatan, a carnival hawker, he had only worked in a circus. His promises are empty. And worse, the Wizard sends Dorothy to the witch’s castle where she is taken prisoner in a dungeon.</p>
<p>In There’s No Place Like Utopia, I travel to different parts of the country &#8211; Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Washington DC, Denver, Miami – where I meet people who have been seduced by utopian promises, only to realize they have been had, and no longer had a home left. They were stuck in Oz.</p>
<p>In this film, Barack Obama is depicted as &#8220;The Wizard.&#8221; I think the analogy is well deserved. The fundamental lesson of the Wizard of Oz is that there is no wizard. Obama has made promise after promise that have all turned out to be empty, all turned out to be lies. The people I met who supported him were literally living in dungeons in the witch’s castle, everything had changed for the worse – Detroit, South Side Chicago, Newark. Fifty years of progressive control over these cities demonstrated that no one was progressing, they were all regressing.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The analogy is obvious, throughout history, millions of people followed charlatans like Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, Castro &#8212; they all promised to create a Utopia, a paradise on earth, but instead, the people who followed them they arrived to hell on earth – they were sent to the gulag, they were starved, and mass murdered by Utopians.</span></p>
<p>The word Utopia is from the Greek, it means &#8220;no Place.&#8221; Utopia is an imaginary, perfect society, heaven on earth, where everyone is happy. In Utopia, man has been perfected, all human beings are equal, and they think and act the same.</p>
<p>The idea of a perfect society was first mentioned by Plato in his work The Republic in 380 BC. The word &#8220;Utopia&#8221; was coined by Sir Thomas More in his 1516 book Utopia, in which he depicted a fictional island paradise in the Atlantic Ocean. In 1848, Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that it is historically inevitable for societies to pass through four stages: feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally communism. In communist society, Marx described a &#8220;workers paradise&#8221; where perfect happiness and universal fulfillment would be achieved though the abundance of goods and services that only a government controlled society could produce – Utopia!</p>
<p>In the modern era, socialists adopted the fictional idea of Utopia, Marx&#8217;s worker&#8217;s paradise, as a realistic blueprint for the nation state. Ruling over &#8220;paradise,&#8221; the leader of communist society was considered to be &#8220;God on earth.&#8221; However, the Marxist model was a disaster. Every country that adopted the Utopian ideology suffered economic devastation and biological destruction as 100 million human beings were killed in peacetime through starvation, gulags, political repression, and murder in an attempt to mold human beings to fit into Utopia.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the beginning, communists, progressives, used the phraseology like &#8220;we are going to organize the working man to fight and make a revolution, and overthrow the government.&#8221; Obama’s pals like Bill Ayers used this kind of rhetoric, and they acted on it. They planted bombs at the Pentagon, and murdered policemen, believing that the working classes would spontaneously join their communist revolution to destroy America.</span></p>
<p>But it didn’t work. It turned people off because it was evil. No normal person would want to bring down America and replace the constitution we were bequeathed by our founding fathers with the Communist Manifesto. So into the 1970s, and by the early 80s, progressives realized they could not overthrow the government from the outside. They decided that if they changed their rhetoric, they could trick average Americans into supporting them, take power, and then use the power to bring down America from within.</p>
<p>And since the 1980s, the progressives, which they now call themselves rather than communists, have slowly and successfully taken over the Democrat Party. Today their public terminology has become ever more benevolent. “We want to help to middle class families,” “we want fairness,” “we are problem solving” and “we want to help poor people” or just “change.” Fill in the blanks.</p>
<p>But make no mistake, today, the Democrat Party is a radical socialist party. For example, their leader is considered perfect and God-like, he cannot be criticized. There is no opposition within the Democrat Party. Any opposition from the outside the Democratic Party is considered to be evil. This is because socialism is a religion, it&#8217;s faith. If you don&#8217;t believe in their human God and their fantasy of Utopia, paradise on earth, you are the enemy. And who is God’s enemy? The devil. So, of course, you are the devil and you are evil because you oppose the one true God, the God on earth.</p>
<p>The Democrats tell this story every day. Good versus evil. They are telling and selling this story. Not our idea is better than yours because of these reasons. Good versus evil. We’re good, they’re evil.</p>
<p>I’ll give you some examples. They claim:</p>
<p>We represent all that is good and all that helps people toward progress, while the Republicans want to stop progress.</p>
<p>We want to help people with health care, and Republicans want people to die.</p>
<p>We want to help women get mammograms, and they want to prevent it.</p>
<p>We want rich Americans to pay their fair share, and Republicans are just greedy.<br />
Good and evil.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We want to help more poor people get food stamps so they can eat, Republicans don’t mind if they starve.</span></p>
<p>We want to help black people and minorities have access to vote, and Republicans want to stop them from voting.</p>
<p>On and on. Now, if you were a progressive who believes this nonsense, it&#8217;s not difficult to feel justified in lying to the public, suppressing the votes of conservatives using the IRS, lying about your agenda, lying about your background, lying about a dead US ambassador, lying about health care, committing voter fraud &#8212; you would do anything, you would commit any crime, if you believed you were taking humanity step by step toward the perfect future, Utopia. And the Republicans were preventing it. The fantasy of Utopia is why progressives murdered 100 million people, 100 million were murdered by Utopians in power. That’s why the ideology of progressivism is so dangerous.</p>
<p>Let’s take one example of voter ID and voter fraud. Democrats have been hammering the idea it is &#8220;voter suppression&#8221; if you advocate a voter identification requirement or if you question &#8220;why did 140% of the population vote in 10 counties in 2012?’ Here’s what I would like people to start talking about. Barack Obama started his political career by exposing voter fraud! You may not know this, that’s right! Obama owes his career to his efforts to stop voter fraud in Chicago. In 1995, when he ran for state senate against Alice Palmer, he challenged her petition signatures. Why would he suspect they might not be real? Obama had worked for Project Vote in 1992 in Chicago. Two thirds of the signatures were found to be not valid and Alice Palmer was disqualified.</p>
<p>So, let’s join Barack Obama’s initiative and investigate voter registration fraud. We owe it to him to continue his good work!</p>
<p>Another example is the daily lie of Democrats: &#8220;The upper income people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.&#8221; The audacity of the lie just grows and grows, even though they know anybody can just Google it and find out that yes, the top income earners pay the highest percentage, the middle pay in the middle, and the lowest pay no taxes. All this disinformation, it&#8217;s Soviet era propaganda and they are trying to use Soviet censorship to keep anyone from speaking out against all these issues on which they want to control the narrative.</p>
<p>I hope everyone will go see There’s No Place Like Utopia this summer. Thank you very much&#8230;</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/utopia-and-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illiberal &#8216;Liberalism&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/illiberal-liberalism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=illiberal-liberalism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/illiberal-liberalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 04:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fred Siegel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolt Against the Masses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fred Siegel's new book exposes the history of the Left's hatred of ordinary Americans -- and its commitment to tyranny. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/41eaIef4eCL.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224513" alt="41eaIef4eCL" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/41eaIef4eCL-233x350.jpg" width="186" height="280" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/175281">Hoover Institution</a>. </em></p>
<p>During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama let slip his disdain for the middle-class when he explained his lack of traction among such voters. “It’s not surprising then,” Obama said, “that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” More recently, U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Braley mocked his opponent incumbent Chuck Grassley as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” The liberal disdain for ordinary Americans has been around for a long time. Beneath the populist rhetoric and concern for the middle class that lace the campaign speeches of most liberal politicians, there lurks a palpable disgust, and often contempt, for the denizens of “flyover country,” that land of God, guns, religion, and traditional beliefs.</p>
<p>In <em>Revolt Against the Masses</em>, the Manhattan Institute senior fellow and <em>New York Post </em>columnist Fred Siegel presents a clearly written and engaging historical narrative of how nearly a century ago this strain of illiberal liberalism began to take over the Democratic Party. Along the way he also provides an excellent political history of the period that illuminates the “ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social-connections” lying at the heart of liberalism today.</p>
<p>Siegel begins with a valuable survey of the “progenitors,” the early twentieth-century thinkers and writers whose ideas shaped the liberal ideology. Those who know English writer H. G. Wells only as an early pioneer of science-fiction novels may be surprised to find how popular and widely read in America his philosophical and political writings were in the first few decades of the century. Wells’s 1901 <em>Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought</em> laid out the argument for a quasi-aristocratic elite of technocrats free of traditional values such as “monogamy, faith in God &amp; respectability,” all of which Wells’s book “was designed to undermine and destroy,” as he frankly admitted. Applying Darwinism to social, political, and economic life, Wells envisioned, as Siegel explains, “scientist-poets and engineers” who would “seize the reins in the Darwinian struggle,” so that instead of “descending into savagery, we would follow their lead toward new and higher ground.” In Wells’s work we see the melding of attacks on traditional authority and middle-class morality, with the scientistic faith in technocratic elites that still characterizes modern liberalism.</p>
<p>Wells’s kindred American spirit was Progressive theorist Herbert Croly, whose 1901 <em>The Promise of American Life </em>Siegel calls the “first political manifesto of modern American liberalism.” Croly “rejected American tradition, with its faith in the Constitution and its politics of parties and courts, and argued for rebuilding America’s foundation on higher spiritual and political principles that would transcend traditional ideas of democracy and self-government.”</p>
<p>As much as Wells, or for that matter Mussolini and Lenin, Croly “wanted the collective power of society put ‘at the service of its ablest members,’ who would take the lead roles in the drama of social re-creation.” Similarly, leftist intellectual Randolph Bourne wondered “whether there aren’t advantages in having administration of the State taken care of by a scientific body of men with social sense.” Bourne seasoned his antidemocratic elitism with a romantic idealization of “Youth,” which was a time when the ideals “will be the highest…the insight the clearest, the ideas the most stimulating,” an early example of the worship of adolescents that exploded in the 1960s and is still felt in our culture today. And perhaps most famously, journalist H.L. Mencken serially displayed his contempt for the American people, whom he called a “rabble of ignorant peasants.”</p>
<p>In Siegel’s reading, modern liberalism was midwifed in the 1920s by the break with Progressivism over Woodrow Wilson’s decision to take the United States into World War I, and the “wartime conscription, the repression of civil liberties, Prohibition, and the overwrought fears of Bolshevism in America.” The scorn of patriotism and the American masses, brutally described by Mencken as a “timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob,” became the default sensibility of litterateurs, journalists, and intellectuals alike, who viewed “American society and democracy” as “agents of repression,” sentiments that “deepened during the 1920s and have been an ongoing current in liberalism ever since.” The influential literary manifestation of this prejudice remains Sinclair Lewis’s 1920 bestseller <em>Main Street</em>, which along with <em>Babbitt </em>two years later fixed the caricature of Middle America uncritically endorsed by liberals nearly a century later.</p>
<p>Siegel moves briskly through the subsequent events and developments that seemingly legitimized liberal bigotry against the middle class as objective history. The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, a “contrivance from the start,” as Siegel writes, and immortalized in the historically challenged 1955 Broadway hit <em>Inherit the Wind</em>, established the meme of the brave and noble man of “science” battling slack-jawed, oppressive Christian fundamentalists. This cliché predictably surfaces in liberal commentary on issues ranging from teaching Darwinian evolution, to the validity of global warming. In the 1930s idolizing the Soviet Union and communism, a reflex of liberal disdain for capitalism and its déclassé obsession with getting and spending, began its long march through American culture and education.</p>
<p>A corollary to this admiration has been the fervent liberal belief that America is to some degree “fascist,” and in imminent danger of becoming a fascist state, a preposterous notion made famous by Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel <em>It Can’t Happen Here</em>. This hoary received wisdom has managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of its archives, which established beyond doubt that Communist subversion and infiltration of America’s institutions were in fact by far a greater threat to democracy than a fascist takeover. Despite that history, in 2004 Philip Roth published <em>The Plot Against America</em>, which indulged to high praise the same long-exploded fantasy.</p>
<p>Particularly valuable are Siegel’s brief portraits of once prominent liberal commentators and critics like Arthur Schlesinger, whose influence lives in the “aristocratic aping of professional liberals who expect, given their putative expertise, to be obeyed.” They refined and perpetuated the old caricature of Americanism “as the mass pursuit of prosperity by an energetic but crude, grasping people chasing their private ambitions without the benefit of a clerisy to guide them,” enslaved to “their futile quest for material well-being, and numbed by the popular entertainments that appealed to the lowest common denominator.” In the 1950s, the liberal critic Dwight Macdonald groused of a America blessed with “money, leisure and knowledge” that had merely given the average American “masscult” and “midcult,” the vulgar “American culture of the cheap newspaper, the movies, the popular song, the ubiquitous automobile,” fit fare for the “hordes of men and women without a spiritual country . . . without taste, without standards but those of the mob.”</p>
<p>Yet as Siegel points out, this same period saw an explosion in the numbers of average people studying and experiencing the artistic and literary masterpieces of Western civilization. Local symphony orchestras increased by 250 percent between 1940 and 1955, and in that same year “35 million paid to attend classical-music concerts. The New York Metropolitan Opera’s Saturday-afternoon radio broadcast drew a listenership of 15 million,” almost 10 percent of the population. Fifty million televisions viewers watched Laurence Olivier in <em>Richard III</em>, book-sales doubled, and paperback versions of highbrow novels like Saul Bellow’s <em>The Adventures of Augie March</em> or non-fiction works like anthropologist Ruth Benedict’s <em>Patterns of Culture</em> became bestsellers. Mortimer Adler and Robert Hutchins introduced the pricey Great Books series, which by 1951 was being purchased by 50,000 Americans a year, who met in 2,500 Great Books groups to talk about the classics of Western civilization. As Siegel mordantly observes, “<em>This</em>was the danger against which critics of mass culture, inflamed with indignation, arrayed themselves against.”</p>
<p>Siegel’s survey ends with the presidency of Barack Obama. As <em>The</em> <em>Revolt Against the Masses</em> comes to a close, the policies and philosophy of Obama’s administration––best represented by the Affordable Care Act–– will strike the reader as the inevitable culmination of the ideological development Siegel has skillfully traced. The liberal elite’s disdain for a middle America of businessmen and churchgoers, which has always been linked to an uncritical admiration for Europe, has with Obama’s reelection created a political order teetering on the edge of fiscal collapse: “[Liberalism’s] sustained assault on the private-sector middle class and the ideals of self-restraint and self-government have, particularly in the blue states, succeeded all too well in achieving the dream of the 1920s literary Bolsheviks: an increasingly Europeanized class structure for America.”</p>
<p>One might argue with Siegel’s assertion of the “sharp break” between Progressivism and liberalism. On foreign policy this disagreement is obvious, and the liberals’ endorsement of illiberal identity politics in the 1960s would have horrified old-school Progressives, who were Darwinian eugenicists anxious over being swamped by the inferior races. The Progressives, even more than the liberals, disdained the masses, viewing them as an abstract collectivist “people,” Woodrow Wilson’s ideal “single community, co-operative as in a perfected, coordinated beehive.” This conception of the “people” ignored the great variety of regional, sectional, and religious identities, Madisonian factions, and clashing interests comprising flesh-and-blood Americans.</p>
<p>Progressives, moreover, like liberals homogenized and nationalized those various interests and aims as these were defined and chosen by techno-political elites. One hears H. G. Wells’s and Randolph Bourne’s impatience with democratic self-rule and preference for a managerial elite in Wilson’s call to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration,” comprising the “hundreds who are wise” empowered to guide the “thousands” who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” What liberalism shares with the Progressives––the “living” Constitution, big government, regulation of the economy, and the redistribution of property to achieve “social justice”––far outweighs their differences.</p>
<p><em>The Revolt Against the Masses</em> is an important book, a first-rate intellectual history that clearly and crisply explains much of the political and cultural dysfunctions roiling the United States today. Siegel’s well-researched analysis of the liberal abandonment of self-government and individual freedom–– a betrayal of the Constitutional order justified in the main by social prejudice, class snobbery, and bad Continental philosophy––is a brilliant exposition of a century of bad ideas that have led to today’s bloated Leviathan state, these days on track to bankrupt the treasury and diminish our freedom.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/illiberal-liberalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sonnie Johnson: How to Change the Game</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/sonnie-johnson-how-to-change-the-game/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sonnie-johnson-how-to-change-the-game</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/sonnie-johnson-how-to-change-the-game/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 04:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hip-hop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sonnie Johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Coast Retreat]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=222450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A fearless trailblazer demonstrates the power of hip-hop and why it belongs in the conservative tent. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: Below are the video and transcript of Sonnie Johnson&#8217;s address at the Freedom Center&#8217;s West Coast Retreat, held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California from March 21-23, 2014:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/89889904" height="281" width="500" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Sonnie Johnson:</strong> Hip-hop didn&#8217;t start &#8217;til late &#8217;70s, early &#8217;80s.  By then progressivism had already infiltrated our communities, and we have been going through birth pains in the hip-hop movement since then.  This year, this summer, three hip-hop artists came out with albums and I put these albums – they were my favorite albums of the summer – and I put them together into one coherent thought using the names.  And it tells you progressivism in black America and how we fight to get out of it.  The three albums were &#8220;A Good Kid in a Mad City Will Turn a Born Sinner into the Gifted.&#8221;  And that&#8217;s what happened.  We have good kids being raised in bad cities, and they take what they&#8217;ve been given, and they turn it into a gift, and they put it out as a product, and they sell it, and they become multi-millionaires.  And it is a beautiful thing.  It is capitalism.  It is the American dream.</p>
<p>So, I start off most of the time with a Sonnie-ism, so I want to give you guys a Sonnie-ism.  This is how I mix conservatism with hip-hop, and this is one of my favorites.  Created equal does not mean equal results.  Because I can&#8217;t flow like Jay-Z doesn&#8217;t make it Jay-Z&#8217;s fault.  And it&#8217;s a simple, basic concept that we all preach when we talk about the Constitution, when we talk about our founding principles.  That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re trying to get people to see.  But it goes straight over their head.  But if you put someone in that they listen to and they care about then they start to understand it a little bit better.  And that&#8217;s what we want to do. But we also have another thing, where we say we don&#8217;t talk about the game, we be the game.  So, we&#8217;re not gonna talk about it, we&#8217;re gonna show you how we change the game, so that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m up here to do that.  And I hope you like it.</p>
<p>This is how we plan on changing the game:</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a born sinner asking the Lord why me. He said it ain&#8217;t about you, so let it be.  And when I question my role, he didn&#8217;t send me a priest.  He sent another born sinner to sing to me.</p>
<p>J Cole cowrote me a love song.  Freedom of jail, a purchase or sale, daughter in the womb, momma angel raised from this hell.  It was the end before beginning.  How you gonna change the world, curled in all its traps and sinners.  Well as far as that go, it&#8217;s only natural.  I explain my plateau and what defines my name.</p>
<p>Short story.  No need to fit it all in.  I live a life of compromise.  Backsliding is sin.  It was expected.  See the hue of my skin.  This sickness in my body, I don&#8217;t want to go and party.  The devil claimed my soul wasn&#8217;t good for nobody.  My girl is out tricking, my dude&#8217;s out dying.  God bless me, would he see the doctors were denying.  Then he called my name, and I couldn&#8217;t stop crying. But I stood in defiance, see.</p>
<p>&#8216;Cause I&#8217;m gonna do me.  Not looking for no one&#8217;s goddess, not even from he. &#8216;Cause God wanted perfect. And in all honesty, I was not worth it.</p>
<p>Then 50 said God give me style. God give me grace.  God give me style and God give me grace.  And God used 50 to put a smile on my face.  And J said kneel before God and pray for a better cause, sometimes to no avail, and that made me wake up and stop feeling sorry for myself. &#8216;Cause if I went to heaven I had to escape hell.</p>
<p>And Kanye. Jesus walks and I thought I&#8217;ve been afraid of God for so long.  What can I do to right my wrongs?  And this is where the song switches. Because God said speak, so I let spoken word flow from me.  I&#8217;m not a rapper, so lyrics don&#8217;t flow from me, but I&#8217;m a thinker, so a thousand thoughts flow from me.  God said speaker louder.  What do you want from me?  Then he put a tea party in front of me.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m no longer black.  My fam turned on me. &#8216;Cause I try to paint a picture of the world I see.  That&#8217;s the meaning of hip-hop.  What it&#8217;s supposed to be.  How did I turn into the enemy?  And on the other side it&#8217;s few that believed in me.  I wear my ghetto on my sleeve.  Ain&#8217;t no change in me.  I&#8217;m the rough cut that God made of me.  Exposing my diamond now &#8217;cause Cole sang to me.  Hip-hop sung me a love song.</p>
<p>Politics are archaic, formulaic with the outcome.  They don&#8217;t know.  They just studied the charts.  Me I studied my black.  The people studied their hearts.  I had a feelin&#8217; I was killin&#8217; with the speeches I was spillin&#8217; out.  I could change lives forever.</p>
<p>Keynote, big speech, Jay-Z is what I talk about.  It would have been mixed tape Jay Cole, but I was like, nah, I was wonderin&#8217; why you were full, when two years ago I was sayin&#8217; who dat.  Praisin&#8217; hip-hop for its switch up in rap.  But as my speech is slow, I thought they must be insane.  But Bannen said play the game and change the game.  And then I heard my love song.</p>
<p>&#8216;Cause I always believed in a bigger picture.  If I can get my people to stop the names, feel my core, I could open up doors.  Reintroduce honesty, show them they deserve more.  The difference between black leaders, poverty pimps, and whores.  I wasn&#8217;t asked to fall.  I was demanded to stand.  MLK on a mountaintop with a cross in his heart.  In his hand was a cross.  Not that civil right that you bought, so his statue removes Christ, and they call it art.</p>
<p>If this be my last essay, know it comes to my heart.  No apologies for embracing hip-hop as a art.  &#8216;Cause I&#8217;m here for a purpose, though I doubted to start.  I&#8217;m just a woman of the people, not above, but equal.  And for the greater good, destroy both sides of evil, so don&#8217;t cry for me.  This is a life I choose myself.  Just pray along the way I never lose myself.  And for those who said black conservatism is dead, I&#8217;ll go to hell to resurrect it, and I will be respected &#8217;cause hip hop writes me love songs.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/sonnie-johnson-how-to-change-the-game/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>127</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Glenn Beck at the West Coast Retreat</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-west-coast-retreat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=glenn-beck-at-the-west-coast-retreat</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-west-coast-retreat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 04:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Coast Retreat]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=222350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A conservative titan finds hope for America's future in forgotten historical treasures. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: Below are the video and transcript of Glenn Beck&#8217;s speech at the Freedom Center&#8217;s West Coast Retreat, held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California from March 21-23, 2014.</strong></p>
<p><strong>To see David Horowitz&#8217;s introduction of Glenn Beck, click <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/glenn-beck-americas-defender/">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/89838489" height="281" width="500" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Glenn Beck:</strong> About half way through, I was thinking that&#8217;s the problem with Obama Care, everybody knows everything about your life.  David, that is, the last time I came to speak at your event was in Florida, and I asked you for a copy of your remarks of introduction, and I&#8217;d like to do the same.  As you know, it&#8217;s rare that people in our position have someone say nice things; especially in California.  So thank you.  It&#8217;s an honor to be here tonight.  I am actually speaking tomorrow; also tomorrow morning at a breakfast with some very brave people also in California, and I want to share some thoughts; some reasons why what you&#8217;re doing is so critical and so important.  Do you mind?  I don&#8217;t mean to be sacrilegious but I can see it.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We are at a crossroads, and I believe in divine providence.  I don&#8217;t believe in divine destiny.  I believe in divine providence.  And there&#8217;s a difference.  If you are humble, if you are listening and you are willing to serve God, and you&#8217;re willing to stand alone no matter what the consequence, divine providence has a way of working things out.  And exactly what&#8217;s supposed to happen, will happen.  And it will all be for His good and His work.  That&#8217;s what started this country.  And we have forgotten.  Because there isn&#8217;t anybody who&#8217;s been essential.  We have all just said, &#8220;Well, that&#8217;s okay.&#8221;  We all on 9/12 &#8212; I really thought we really were; I really thought Nancy Pelosi was a lot like me.  I really thought some of these people were just like me.  I didn&#8217;t really understand the progressive movement.  It wasn&#8217;t until about 2000 maybe &#8217;5 or &#8217;6, I&#8217;m thinking to myself, &#8220;What is happening to us?  How did we go from this country that understood who it was to something I don&#8217;t even recognize?  What happened to us?&#8221;  What happened to us was we got fat and lazy.  We said it would never happen here.  It could never happen here.  We conquered Communism.  They just changed their outfits.  Progressives are nothing more than patient Communists.  And so we are now building a movement that is also patient; must be patient.  Must know that we have allowed over 100 years of damage to be done.  And there&#8217;s a lot to repair. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This is the original prospectus of Disney Land.  This is; well David and I were on stage in the Cowboys Stadium, one of my teams was actually here in Los Angeles at an auction house trying to bid and win this, and we were very fortunate to get it.  I am trying to preserve important pieces of American history.  This is critical.  There was a weekend; it&#8217;s called the Weekend Prospectus and Walt Disney, nobody would invest.  It was 1953.  He couldn&#8217;t get anybody to see the vision.  They thought he was just going to make an amusement park and he said it&#8217;s a theme park. There&#8217;s a difference.  And nobody would listen to him, and so he got a secretary in and his artist; his main artist and said come on in, bring a pillow.  We&#8217;re working over the weekend and then on Sunday I&#8217;m flying to New York and I&#8217;m going to get us the money.  He brought this prospectus into the banks.  He brought it in three different banks.  They all turned him down.  He left this at the last bank and the banker he was talking to thought it was really neat and brought it home to his kids and said kids I want you to see what Walt Disney is thinking about doing.  Did you give him the money daddy?  No, he&#8217;s a crazy man. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Sometime in 1955 Walt Disney will present for the people of the world and children of all ages a new experience in entertainment.  And then he says the Disney Land story, and I want to read one paragraph.  As I read it after we won it in auction because it had never been printed before, it had never been seen before, it jumped out as my mission because I don&#8217;t think Walt did it.  Somehow or another, he got lost.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8220;Disney Land will be based upon and dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America.  It will be uniquely equipped to dramatize this dream and these facts and send them forth as a source of courage and inspiration to all the world.&#8221; </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That&#8217;s not Disney Land.  That is what all of us must pick up and do.  We have a story to tell.  We have the greatest story the world has ever heard.  The story of real freedom and now with technology, now the ideas that our founders only dreamt of are right within our reach because I don&#8217;t need a middleman any more.  I don&#8217;t need anybody to communicate.  I don&#8217;t need a radio station or a radio company.  I can get and do a podcast.  I can be in my underpants in my mom&#8217;s basement and I can make a podcast on my phone and a million people can hear it.  It&#8217;s true freedom.  But we have to know the story and then live our lives in a way that we are worthy of it. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This is a rare book printed by Thomas Edison on the invention of the connectal phonograph.  It is the movie projector.  This, he was so excited about, that he printed this book for investors, and the last page says:  &#8220;The line of thought might be indefinitely pursued with application to any given phase of outdoor and indoor live which is desired to reproduce.  Our methods point to ultimate success.  No scene however animated and extensive will eventually be within reproductive power.  Marshal evolutions, naval exercises, processions, countless kindred exhibitions will be recorded for the gratification of those who are debarred from attendance.  The invalid; the isolated country let loose.  They will all be able to see not only all our resources but those of the entire world now will be at our command.  The advantages to students and historians will be immeasurable,&#8221; he said about the movie projector and film.  &#8220;Instead of dry and misleading accounts tinged with exaggerations of the chroniclers&#8217; minds, our archives will be enriched by the vitalized pictures of great national scenes, instinct with all the glowing personalities which characterize them.&#8221;  He said, &#8220;Now that we have motion pictures, you&#8217;ll never be able to put a lie past anyone.&#8221;  Thomas wasn&#8217;t so bright. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This is Tokyo Rose&#8217;s microphone.  This is the microphone that was taken by a naval officer as he arrived and he walked into the radio station.  He said, &#8220;I&#8217;m gonna kill that son of a bitch,&#8221; and she wasn&#8217;t there.  He took the microphone, put it in a box, brought it back to America, and there is sat in his closet.  It hasn&#8217;t been used until I repaired it just recently and plugged it in, and as I was going to say test into it, we were back in our shop in our movie studies, and I said, &#8220;Unplug it quickly.  I don&#8217;t think it should; I can&#8217;t say test into that,&#8221; and I wanted a day to think about what should be said.  The last time anyone spoke in this microphone it was Tokyo Rose.  What would you say?  What should be heard all across the nation and the world from this microphone?  I decided that what should be said was, &#8220;I&#8217;m Tokyo Rose.  I am innocent of what your government says I did.&#8221; </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Tokyo Rose is one of the most tragic stories I&#8217;ve ever read.  Tokyo Rose was actually pardoned by Gerald Ford.  But she went to prison.  She was an American who went over to Japan to visit her relatives.  She was born in America.  And she went over to Japan and the war kicked off and she was trapped.  And they tried to use her.  They tried to do everything they could to get Tokyo Rose; the one that we put in prison.  There were five of them.  The one we put in prison was a patriotic American that was actually risking her life for our soldiers.  Our soldiers later testified that they were in the islands, the Pacific, and Tokyo Rose&#8217;s voice would come on and she would say, &#8220;For those of you in these islands, you&#8217;d better go to sleep early because things might keep you awake tonight,&#8221; and our soldiers would say, &#8220;Wait a minute.  Wait a minute.  Is she saying that they&#8217;re going to bomb us?&#8221;  She actually smuggled medicine in.  But because our President at the time at the end of the war and our press wasn&#8217;t just lazy, they wanted a good story.  They wanted somebody to pay.  They went over, they got her story.  She was just trying to earn money to be able to come back to her home where she thought she would be a hero.  It was Time Magazine came, offered her money, sat down, she told her story.  They didn&#8217;t write that story.  It was one of the most expensive trials up to OJ Simpson in American history.  The lies and the corruption from our own government smearing an innocent woman that lasted until 1976.   Most people don&#8217;t know that story.  Why not?  Why don&#8217;t we know the truth about our own country?  It&#8217;s not just Tokyo Rose. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These are the shoes of a woman that was also born here in America.  Her name was Risotto.  She was an artist.  Born here in America 1912.  She was actually she had some of her art in one of the art galleries in San Francisco when the war broke out and the Japanese were rounded up in the Pacific and sent to camp.  She was wearing these shoes when they sent her to one of the race tracks just outside of San Francisco.  She lived in a barn with her folks for about three months in a stall of a barn at a race track wearing these shoes.  Then she took these shoes and she went to Wyoming where she lived in the cold wearing these shoes.  And you know what she did?  She taught the little children of Asian descent, I have the art, how to draw little girls in kimonos; holding hands with little white American girls.  Even in a camp where she was put by her own country, she refused to turn.  She was bigger than the people that put her in. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">I&#8217;ve talked to her family.  They&#8217;ve given me her collection for care.  They had no idea this was their mother until she; just before passed away.  They said they were shocked because she was the most patriotic woman they had ever met.  They had no idea she had been betrayed by a country that had lost its moral compass. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We don&#8217;t know American history at all because of films.  D.W. Griffith; anybody know the film that D.W. Griffith is famous for?  Birth of a Nation.  And the subject matter of Birth of a Nation?  Slavery.  It is the Klan.  It glorifies the Klan.  This is D.W. Griffith&#8217;s walking stick.  D.W. Griffith was a pretty evil dude.  Glorifying the Klan.  Anybody know where that actually premiered?</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Audience Member: </strong> At the Whitehouse.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Glenn Beck:</strong>  At the Whitehouse.  It premiered at the Whitehouse.  Because the writer was at that particular premiere, the writer was who?  Woodrow Wilson.  Woodrow Wilson.  I hate that guy.  This is the book.  Written by Woodrow Wilson.  You know that Woodrow Wilson actually resegregated?  We didn&#8217;t have segregation until the progressive Woodrow Wilson came in and resegregated the military.  And yet, somehow or another, we&#8217;re the bad guys.  Somehow or another, we are the racists.  Somehow or another, we&#8217;re the ones.  And because we don&#8217;t know our own history they get away with it.  Somehow or another we&#8217;re not just racists, we&#8217;re also the fascists.  We&#8217;re the ones that like the Nazis.  We&#8217;re the ones that want to starve and kill little children. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Look at the people of the progressive movement.  Look at the Margaret Sangers.  Tell me that we are the ones that hate children.  Tell me that we&#8217;re the ones that wan t to starve little children and even if I did want to starve them, it&#8217;s better than cutting them off.  But somehow or another we&#8217;re the bad guys.  Only because we don&#8217;t know our own history.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The President when he went to run for his second term, he put out a video, and it was on and then it was off, and it went away quickly because when I saw the title, I said, &#8220;Oh I know that title.&#8221;  And it was pulled within the first day.  The title was The Road We&#8217;re Traveling.  Do any of you remember that?  The Road We&#8217;re Traveling.  Forward.  The road we&#8217;re traveling forward is actually a Stalin campaign.  And the road we&#8217;re traveling comes from this book, and this book is when the war ends, the road we&#8217;re traveling by Stuart Chase.  Stuart Chase is the guy who coined the phrase &#8220;The New Deal.&#8221;  But in here, on Page 99, we can&#8217;t go back.  We can&#8217;t go back on what we&#8217;ve started on this road we&#8217;re traveling, but what is the road we&#8217;re traveling?  The road we&#8217;re traveling he says, &#8220;Soon we will have something I would like to call X.  It&#8217;s the first intelligent attempt to understand what we are doing; a managerial revolution.&#8221;  A managerial revolution.  So in other words, nobody&#8217;s actually going to be running the country.  We&#8217;ll just have a bunch of little middle managers; the EPA will be running.  He says, &#8220;We&#8217;re moving the road we&#8217;re traveling.&#8221;  He says, &#8220;This is a good thing,&#8221; and he says, &#8220;It&#8217;s too late to turn back.&#8221;  This is in 1945.  &#8220;We&#8217;re moving from free enterprise to X.&#8221;  Now he didn&#8217;t want to call it anything else &#8212; before they were calling it fascism.  They were calling it socialism.  They were calling it Communism.  But because those were all discredited, he then just called is System X.  And here&#8217;s what System X is:  A strong centralized government.  An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.  A control of banking and credit and security exchanges by the government.  The underwriting of employment by the government.  Either through armaments or public works.  The underwriting of Social Security by the government; of pensions, of unemployment insurance that never ends.  The underwriting of food, housing, medical care by the government.  The use of deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings.  The annually balanced budget has lost its old tininess.  The abandonment of gold in favor of management currencies.  The control of foreign trade, to control natural resources, to control energy sources.  The control of the railway, the highway, and the airwaves.  The control of agriculture.  The control of labor organization.  And heavy taxation.  The road we&#8217;re traveling.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It&#8217;s clear to see what we&#8217;re doing if you are a Communist with patience. It&#8217;s clear to see what they&#8217;re doing.  They&#8217;ve said it.  Go try to buy this book online.  It&#8217;s very hard to find especially with Page 99.  I&#8217;m not kidding you.  I can&#8217;t tell you how many…I&#8217;ve asked my listeners.  Could you go find this book?  Send it in.  I can&#8217;t tell you how many were sent in without Page 99.  They know. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">So who do we become?  At the same they&#8217;re doing that, remember we&#8217;re the Nazis.  There&#8217;s a guy named Father Coughlin, and Father Coughlin – this is who I first was accused of being; Father Coughlin, and here&#8217;s his series of lectures on social justice.  I&#8217;m against social justice.  I don&#8217;t think it exists.  Oh and he was for the Nazis.  But he was beloved for a long time.  See the left doesn&#8217;t mind Nazis.  They don&#8217;t mind the socialists.  They don&#8217;t mind any of these things until they get ugly and then they have to disavow and distance themselves from them.  But then they just change the name and move onto something else.  So, here they go.  They go in and try to take in our churches because they know the toke veil it&#8217;s the church.  It&#8217;s the people&#8217;s faith that makes the difference.  That&#8217;s what the glue is to America.  So we need somebody.  Oh man if we could just find somebody like Jim Wallace to get into the churches and tear the faith of the American people apart.  Then you win.  They don&#8217;t shy from monsters.  This book is the Intelligent Woman&#8217;s Guide to Socialism.  Notice that?  The Intelligent Woman&#8217;s Guide to Socialism.  If you&#8217;re a dummy you can read about capitalism.  This one is for intelligent women only.  This is George Bernard Shaw. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">George Bernard Shaw I never knew what an evil due that guy was.  George Bernard Shaw; we all must know a few people whose life isn&#8217;t worth living.  Just put them in front of us and we&#8217;ll ask them sir or madam.  Will you justify your life?  And if they can&#8217;t, well we have no use for you and we certainly can&#8217;t use our substance to keep you alive.  He went on to say there must be some sort of a gas that can be used.  That&#8217;s George Bernard Shaw, the beloved playwright.  They found the gas.  But first they put triangles on people.  This, if you were a Communist or a capitalist, this one meant you were pretty much in charge.  This one was you were a criminal.  And so they would give you the green diamond.  This one was you&#8217;re Jewish and criminal.  The most rare out of all of these, because nobody ever talks about this one, is this.  The purple triangle.  That meant you were a bible scholar.  You see, Hitler was not a Christian as everybody tries to say he is.  He wasn&#8217;t a Christian.  Christians don&#8217;t generally take the crucifix out of the churches and the pictures of Jesus off of the altar, and replace it with the fuhrer.  Destroy religion.  Destroy religion.  That&#8217;s what Coughlin was doing.  And then mix it with science.  Because if you can mix it with science, then we can tell you this is really good.  This is good.  This is good for all of us.  This is good for the collectives and we&#8217;re going to be compassionate about it.  This is the last thing Mengele assigned.  The last order Mengele assigned before he went to Auschwitz.  This is as his head of the hospital for children.  This is an order for a giant drum of Luminal.  He was killing children with Luminal.  But just for the good of all the Germans.  They didn&#8217;t have a quality of life anyhow.  We can&#8217;t afford it.  I mean that child is not really having any kind of life and we&#8217;ve got people on the front lines.  And we have socialized medicine.  We have to make choices.  Monsters.  The same kind of monsters that decided to stop talking about race cleansing and start talking, taught by the Germans, about family planning.  Planned Parenthood.  The mix between these two is phenomenal. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One of my favorite letters of condemnation comes from the Germans themselves. The Germans are writing a progressive movement here in California.  And in the progressive movement in California, they were – this was the hot bed of international progressivism, and they were the real scientists and they went over and told the Germans exactly how all of this nice science can work, and this letter &#8212; I love this letter.  It says the last line from the Germans to the, I think it was the California Betterment of Society or something, and it said, &#8220;May you never forget, may you never forget the contribution you have made in exciting this nation and its industry in family planning and eugenics.&#8221;  I can guarantee you everybody that received that letter promptly forgot their contribution, but we must not or we will repeat it. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">If we forget our past, it repeats.  I was on the air in 1999 in New York, and I said, &#8220;Have you read Osama Bin Laden&#8217;s words?  He&#8217;s a crazy man.  I think he&#8217;s crazy enough to do it.&#8221;  They actually accused me of being a supporter of Bill Clinton of all people.  I was new to talk radio, and I was on WABC, and I said that, and they didn&#8217;t know who I was, and they&#8217;re like you&#8217;re just a Clinton apologist, and I said no, would you stop it?  Listen to him.  My quote was, &#8220;When there are blood and bodies in the streets of New York, when buildings are blocking the traffic, will you then wake up?&#8221;  We should have woken up a long time ago.  From this book.  This is the first Quran printed in America.  This was printed by Jefferson.  Everybody says well, oh, Jefferson he had a Quran. No, he just – no, no, no, no.  At 25 percent of budget when he gets in; 25 percent of our budget is going to pay off the Barbary pirates; 25 percent.  And he&#8217;s like this isn&#8217;t sustainable.  I&#8217;m pretty good at math.  This doesn&#8217;t work.  He says to somebody can&#8217;t we negotiate with them?  You don&#8217;t know them.  What do they want?  They don&#8217;t want anything.  They want to kill you because you&#8217;re an infidel.  What are you talking about?  It&#8217;s the Quran.  Well get me a copy of it.  It had just been printed in England.  He read it.  We went to war with the Barbary pirates because he knew there is no negotiation.  He then had this Quran printed.  This is from 1806.  Tell me how politically incorrect this is.  There&#8217;s a note to the reader in the front, and it says, &#8220;You will wonder that such absurdities that are found in this book have infected the better part of the world.&#8221;  It&#8217;s a warning.  They will be back.  See, our enemies have patience.  We don&#8217;t.  I want it now.  We must have patience.  We must look not to us but to our next generation and the generation after.  I am perfectly willing to lose, not happily, to lose the battle of the country if my children can put the flag back up somewhere along the line.  I&#8217;m willing to do the hard things.  I&#8217;m willing to lose right now.  But we have to teach our children history so they know.  Because the farther this infection, these absurdities go, the more desperate people become.  We&#8217;re pacifists.  Pacifists.  Who are talking to his own congregants and saying so if a man believed that war was wrong and if a man believed that killing was wrong, and you knew that, and he knew that, but he had the opportunity to stop a monster, would he be a bad man?  His students looked at him and said no.  No can you give us an example?  No I&#8217;m just wondering.  His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  This is the napkin from the table when they tried to kill Adolf Hitler.  A pacifist.  A preacher.  Because he had tried everything else.  Gandhi, I&#8217;ve got to talk to Gandhi.  Gandhi has the answer.  Jesus had the answer.  Gandhi had the answer.  Martin Luther King has the answer.  Washington doesn&#8217;t have the answer.  You know what the answer is.  Standing for principles that are true and then having the courage before things get so crazy and out of hand. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The movie with Tom Cruise, the Vagary, the German Von Stoffenberg.  This is his copy of my account.  From the Von Stoffenberg library.  I just want you to look at the edges.  Not one dog-eared page.  Never been read.  You can dress like a Nazi, but unless you&#8217;ve read it, unless you&#8217;ve dog-eared it, unless you&#8217;re turning the page over and over and over again, you&#8217;re not a Nazi.  Unless you know our history.  Unless you know the sacred scripture that drives you and your faith and you&#8217;ve dog-eared every page, and you&#8217;ve read it over and over and over again, you&#8217;re not a Christian.  You&#8217;re not a Jew.  That&#8217;s just a title for you.  If you don&#8217;t know our history, you&#8217;re not an American.  You just happen to live here at this time.  We have to choose.  Each generation chooses, and it&#8217;s a tremendous time.  I don&#8217;t want to live in times where it&#8217;s not a challenge.  It sucks.  Standing up having to know what you believe in sucks.  You lose a lot of sleep.  You lose a lot of friends.  You lose a lot of hair.  You gain a lot of weight.  It sucks.  But you know exactly who you are. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">I can go into any room.  I can meet with anybody.  I can meet with presidents, prime ministers, kings.  I can meet with anybody on the street.  I know who I am.  Who are you?  I know what&#8217;s worth living for.  I know what&#8217;s worth dying for.  When you don&#8217;t care anymore, when you&#8217;re down on that shag green carpet, and its Christmas without your children and you can&#8217;t even afford to buy them a toy from a CVS drug store, you have a choice.  Check out or live.  Live.  Live is the choice.  For Christmas two years ago, my wife gave me this.  It&#8217;s one of – this is a passport signed by Raul Wallenberg; a man who saw what was happening and said, &#8220;You can&#8217;t do this.  You can&#8217;t make them aware of the stars.  You can&#8217;t just kills them.  Come with me.  You&#8217;re my Jew.&#8221;  His own government said you can&#8217;t do that.  Yes I can.  He made so many of these at the end he would stand up on the trains as they were going, and he&#8217;d stuff them through the cracks and then he&#8217;d say, &#8220;Stop, stop you have the wrong people.  These are all my people.  These are all citizens.  Show them your passports.  Open these trains back up.&#8221;  This particular passport was one of the last he gave.  One of the last women that received it said to him, begged him, please, please come with us.  The Russians are coming.  He said the Russians cannot be as bad.  He was last seen running for help to the Russians.  He stood.  He won.  No matter how dark things may get at any time, he won.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer won.  Martin Luther King won.  Gandhi won.  Jesus won. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">If I were talking to a group of people just like you and this was Europe 1943, and I&#8217;d say how are you?  You&#8217;d say really bad.  And look at what they&#8217;re doing to our Jewish friends.  And if I said you just keep standing, you just keep standing, you&#8217;d look at me as if I were insane.  But I give you the same message now.  Stand back and watch the awesome power of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  In the 1940s, if I would have said that to you, you would have said, &#8220;Look what&#8217;s happening?&#8221;  And if I would have said in just a couple of years the State of Israel will be refounded, you&#8217;d think I was a mad man.  We don&#8217;t know how this story ends.  I tell you this.  The good guys do win in the end no matter what Hollywood decides to say.  The good guys win in the end.  Because good is a much more powerful force.  But it requires people to stand and give it all.</span></p>
<p>One of the most amazing horrible stories from America, the only time a religious extermination order was ever given in America.  We don&#8217;t exterminate our own people.  We did the Indians.  But for religion.  We did it once.  In the State of Missouri.  The Mormons.  The Mormon prophet was Joseph Smith.  He bought one more day with this watch.  They had come to tar and feather him.  For a third time that week they had tried to arrest him; three times that day.  The last time he was in a buggy with Brigham Young in America and the sheriff pulled up on his horse with a goon squad and pulled him out and said, &#8220;I gotcha now old Joe.  You owe so and so some money on your stove.&#8221;  He said, &#8220;I don&#8217;t owe any man.&#8221;  He said, &#8220;Yes you do.  You owe him $20.00.&#8221;  Joseph Smith took this pocket watch out of his vest and put it into the hand of the sheriff and said, &#8220;Then I guess this would take care of it.  I owe no man any money.&#8221;  You may not believe in what he did, but he believed in something enough to risk and lose his life.  Do we?  Is there anything that motivates you that animates you that much?</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Be careful because a spellbinder can talk you into just about anything.  It is truly about principals. It&#8217;s about having exactness in all that you do.  George Washington all he wanted to be was a farmer.  He just wanted to go back to Mt. Vernon and farm.  When they came to him for the Constitutional Convention, he was tired and the country was falling apart again and they rode from Philadelphia to Mt. Vernon, and they said, &#8220;General you have to come or we&#8217;ll lose the republic.&#8221;  His response in the doorstep &#8212; and you never read about Washington losing his temper.  He did that day.  He stood in the doorway and he said, &#8220;Have I not yet done enough for my country?&#8221; and slammed the door.  In my mind&#8217;s eye I see him turning around and walking in and putting his hand on the banister by the key of the vastile and realizing, no.  No I haven&#8217;t.  He got onto his horse and he rode back.  He didn&#8217;t say anything.  He didn&#8217;t say a word at the convention.  It was his mere presence that held it together. He was truly the indispensable man because of the way he lived his life. If have one regret, it is that I screwed up my life up for far too long.  I discredited myself for far too long and we need to find men who are real decent honorable men, decent, honorable, honest people that will self-sacrifice who might say every day, &#8220;Have I not yet done enough?&#8221; and realize no.  This is George Washington&#8217;s compass.  It had to leave the Washington family this generation.  It&#8217;s been in the family since.  He had this everywhere he went.  He was a surveyor.  He had this.  This is the only compass he owned.  He got it when he was 13 years old.  He had it with him on the battlefield.  He had it with him in the farmlands. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One day I was facing a really tough day and I had two ways to go.  I could let my political foes have it and I could smear them or I could let them continue to do what they were doing and I would let that fight be fought by someone far greater than me and believe in divine providence and not become everything I despised.  But it was very hard because it would have been a quick and easy win.  I took this out of its box; the case that I keep it in and I put it in my suit pocket, and if you would ever watch that episode on Fox, you would see that I had my hand in my pocket the whole time.  Just stay true.  Just stay true.  But the greatest thing happened.  As I held that all day, I held it like this and I found a thumbprint.  It&#8217;s a rub mark right here.  I have nothing to back this up but I think Washington from 13 had this in his hand and did the same thing and stayed true.  Just get through it.  Stay true. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">We win in the end if we are strong, if we are courageous, if we are decent, if we are honorable; if we don&#8217;t care what the world does or says about us.  I come whenever David asks me.  I am probably busier than I should be, but when David asks me to come and speak, I always do.  Because I believe David is a true American patriot.  David didn&#8217;t know I brought this with me because he was talking about Isaac Potts.  I wasn&#8217;t going to show this to you even.  I just happened to have it.  This is the deed to the land where Isaac Potts saw George Washington pray.  We know that story is true only because of Isaac Potts.  A guy who was not on our side and he saw him and he stood in those trees and Washington, the only thing about that painting is wrong is that Washington has his head down.  Washington never prayed with his head down.  He prayed out loud and he looked up.  Lord and he spoke it.  That&#8217;s how Isaac Potts heard him.  He said any man who speaks to the Almighty like that is not going to lose.  He saw Washington&#8217;s example and he switched sides.  May I humbly suggest that we each set our own example for the Isaac Potts that is watching us.  Set the example and others will follow.  Divine providence will assure our victory.  God bless you.  Thank you.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-west-coast-retreat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Left-Wing America Stands Alone</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/a-left-wing-america-stands-alone/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-left-wing-america-stands-alone</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/a-left-wing-america-stands-alone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 05:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While Europe goes right, America stays left back.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/obama-biden.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-213914" alt="obama-biden" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/obama-biden-438x350.jpg" width="307" height="245" /></a>American progressives like to think of their country as backward and reactionary compared to Europe. And they have never been more right than now when Europe and the rest of the First World have gone right while America under Obama has been left back.</p>
<p>Recently Australia, Japan and Norway welcomed in conservative governments. Tony Abbott, Australia’s new prime minister, is a former heavyweight boxer who attended Oxford and is putting a spoke in the wheel of the Global Warming ecohoax. Japan is casting off its pacifism and standing up to the People’s Republic of China and Norway gave its left-wing government the boot and moved in “Iron Erma” in a coalition with the libertarian Progress Party which opposes taxes and immigration and supports free enterprise.</p>
<p>Australia, Japan and Norway are not outliers. The majority of First World countries now have conservative governments.</p>
<p>Canada has embraced a patriotic foreign policy and energy exploration under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative Likud party have continued to move Israel’s economy toward free enterprise. And even in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron, for all his follies, is a conservative, even if he is more McCain than DeMint, and has pushed for deregulation and welfare reform.</p>
<p>Sweden’s center-right coalition government has won re-election for the first time in a century. Norway and Sweden, countries that Americans used to consider the very embodiments of Socialism, now both have conservative governments.</p>
<p>In Germany, Angela Merkel will serve a third term as chancellor.  The Netherlands still has a conservative government which has come out against multiculturalism and the welfare state.</p>
<p>In Spain, the center-right People’s Party won the biggest majority of any party in three decades and is projected to win reelection. In Poland, the center-right Civic Platform continues to govern. In Greece, it’s the center-right New Democracy. In Portugal, it’s the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Party (somewhat on the right, despite their names). In Iceland, it’s the conservative Independence Party and the Progressive Party (also on the right, despite its name.)</p>
<p>Even Europe’s left-wing parties have had to adapt to the new economic environment. Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons, has suffered a severe setback in municipal elections and is scrambling to hold her left-wing government together. And even Thorning-Schmidt only made it this far by embracing welfare reform, cutting corporate taxes and slashing unemployment benefits.</p>
<p>The rule of the radical left in the United States is very much an outlier in the rest of the First World where conservative and center-right parties predominate. The conventional First World response to the economic crisis has been to cut spending and reform welfare, while in the United States has spent more money than ever before and expanded welfare.</p>
<p>Much of Europe now favors less federalism and less immigration. The United States has expanded its federal government dramatically and both Democratic and Republican leaders support amnesty for illegal aliens at a time when immigration is politically toxic everywhere else.</p>
<p>The American left insists that historical inevitability is on its side, but it has lost nearly everywhere else.</p>
<p>America stands alone under the rule of the left, in uncontrolled spending, uncontrolled immigration and the iron hand of the welfare state.</p>
<p>America’s massive wealth and resources have allowed the left to act as if it could borrow against them indefinitely to finance its big government schemes. Smaller countries don’t have the luxury of running up infinite debts and not worrying about how they will be paid back or pretending that impossible rates of economic growth will compensate for trillion dollar deficits.</p>
<p>America is the left’s economic fantasyland because it has so much that they imagine that it will take a long time to bankrupt.</p>
<p>Europe is dominated by parliamentary democracies where it would have been difficult for an executive to stay in office on popularity and racial guilt after his actual policies had been completely discredited. In a parliamentary democracy, the 2010 midterm elections wouldn’t have just meant a Republican House of Representatives, but would have booted Obama out of the White House.</p>
<p>Conservatives denounce populist politics in America, but it’s actually the remnants of the system that safeguards political power from populist elections that has kept the Senate and the White House in the hands of the left while turning over the House of Representatives to the Republicans creating a crisis in which the populist body could do nothing, while Obama unilaterally ushered in an imperial presidency.</p>
<p>Another major difference is that America has a higher percentage of minorities than most other First World countries. In many First World nations, the left has assembled minorities into a welfare coalition. But such a coalition is much more potent in the United States because of demographics.</p>
<p>Finally, there is the Obama factor.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton would probably have lost in 2012. Most Democratic hacks would have. But the cult of personality built around Obama by the news and entertainment industry has been very hard to breach. Only the “If you like your health plan” lie has finally put a serious dent in his likability and trust ratings.</p>
<p>Obama is something unique. He’s the end product of a venture by liberal billionaires from the financial and tech sectors to build a radical Trojan horse politician. They invested a great deal of money into their project and the dividends have been huge. No other First World country has been victimized by such a calculated scheme or had so many resources invested in hijacking its democracy.</p>
<p>Some 6 billion dollars were raised and spent in the 2012 election. Those are astronomical amounts of money and they are probably only the tip of the iceberg. Beating that kind of spending isn’t easy.</p>
<p>While the rest of the First World moves on, America remains trapped in the defunct economic and political grip of the left. After dedicating enormous resources to taking over the Democratic Party and then the country, the left has turned the United States of America into its Soviet Union, a country out of time, its economy and society wracked by the discredited political and economic theories of the left.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/a-left-wing-america-stands-alone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Is Too Smart to Fail</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-is-too-smart-to-fail/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-is-too-smart-to-fail</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-is-too-smart-to-fail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:52:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IQ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The illusion of progressive intelligence.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/obama67.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-213520" alt="obama67" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/obama67.png" width="294" height="132" /></a>We all know that George W. Bush was a moron. And we all know that Obama is a genius. We have been told by Valerie Jarrett, by his media lapdogs and even by the great man himself that he is just too smart to do his job. And it&#8217;s reasonable that a genius would be bored by the tedious tasks involved in running the most powerful nation on earth.</p>
<p>But what is &#8220;smart&#8221; anyway? What makes Obama a genius? It&#8217;s not his IQ. It&#8217;s probably not his grades or we would have seen them already. It&#8217;s that he makes his supporters feel smart. The perception of intelligence is really a reflection.</p>
<p>Smart once used to be an unreachable quality. Einstein was proclaimed a genius, because it was said that no one understood his theories. Those were undemocratic times when it was assumed that the eggheads playing with the atom had to be a lot smarter than us or we were in big trouble.</p>
<p>Intelligence has since been democratized. Smart has been redistributed. Anyone can get an A for effort. And the impulse of manufactured intelligence is not smart people, but people who make us feel smart. That is why Neil deGrasse Tyson, another obsessively self-promoting mediocrity like Carl Sagan, is now the new face of science. Sagan made science-illiterate liberals feel smart while pandering to their biases. Tyson does the same thing for the Twitter generation.</p>
<p>Self-esteem is the new intelligence. Obama&#8217;s intelligence was manufactured by pandering to the biases and tastes of his supporters. The more he shared their biases and tastes, the smarter he seemed to be and the smarter they felt by having so much in common with such a smart man.</p>
<p>Everyone who encountered him thought that he was smart because he made them feel smart. And that is the supreme duty of the modern liberal intellectual, not to be smart, but to make others feel smart. Genuine intelligence is threatening. Manufactured intelligence is soothing. And those intellectually superior progressives who need to believe that Obama is smart in order to believe that they are smart cannot stop believing in his brains without confronting the illusion of their own intelligence.</p>
<p>Intelligence to a modern liberal isn&#8217;t depth; it&#8217;s appearance. It isn&#8217;t even an intellectual quality, but a spiritual quality. Compassionate people who care about others are always &#8220;smarter&#8221;, no matter how stupid they might be, because they care about the world around them.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not just the DNA of every other <i>New York Times</i> column, TED talk and important book by an equally important thought leader. It&#8217;s also the DNA of Obama Inc which exploits the assumption of intelligence through compassionate self-involvement and the sanctification of the spiritual power of the Other to transcend the rational. It is upscale Oprah; egotism masquerading as enlightenment, condescension as compassion and soothing quotes as religion.</p>
<p>Marxists thought that Marxism was smart. Progressives measure intelligence in progressivism. Its only two qualities are &#8220;world awareness&#8221; and &#8220;progressive future adaptation&#8221;.</p>
<p>Obama hit both these qualities perfectly with his Third Culture background and the appearance of modern technocratic polish. Not just a politician, but a thought leader, he had the pseudo-celebrity quality of their kind, able to move smoothly from a celebrity panel about Third World microfinance, to a Jay-Z concert to a banquet for a political hack.</p>
<p>Obama and his supporters mistake their orgy of mutual flattery for intelligence and depth. The thought never rises within this bubble of manufactured intelligence that all of them might really be idiots who have convinced themselves that they are geniuses because they read the right books (or pretend to read them), watch the right movies and shows (or pretend to) and have the right values (or pretend to).</p>
<p>Smart is surplus when you have Gladwell sitting under a full DVD set of <i>The Wire</i> prominently displayed on your bookshelf right alongside a signed copy of <i>The Audacity of Hope</i>.</p>
<p>But manufactured intelligence isn&#8217;t smart. It&#8217;s stupid. It&#8217;s as stupid as building windmills for sustainable energy in places where the wind hardly blows, as stupid as calling inflated budgets &#8220;investments&#8221; and as stupid as believing that a man is smart because he can reference poverty in the Third World.</p>
<p>Manufactured intelligence is a consensus, not a debate. It&#8217;s correct because everyone says so. It mistakes feeling for thinking. It deals not with how things are or even how we would like them to be, but how we feel about the way things are and what our feelings about the way things are say about what kind of people we are.</p>
<p>Liberal intelligence is largely concerned with the latter. It is a self-esteem project for mediocre elites, the sons and daughters of the formerly accomplished who are constantly diving into the shallow pools of their own minds to explore how their privilege and entitlement makes them view the world and how they can be good people by challenging everyone&#8217;s paradigms and how they can think outside the box by climbing into it and pulling the flaps shut behind them.</p>
<p>Perpetual self-involvement isn&#8217;t intelligence regardless of how many of the linguistic tricks of memoir fiction it borrows to endow its liberal self-help section with the appearance of nobility. Liberalism isn&#8217;t really about making the world a better place. It&#8217;s about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.</p>
<p>That is why Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for having good intentions. His actual foreign policy mattered less than the appearance of a new transformative foreign policy.</p>
<p>Liberal intelligence exists on the illusion of its self-worth. The magical thinking that guides it in every other area from economics to diplomacy also convinces it that if it believes it is smart, that it will be. The impenetrable liberal consensus in every area is based on this delusion of intelligence. Every policy is right because it&#8217;s smart and it&#8217;s smart because it&#8217;s progressive and it&#8217;s progressive because smart progressives say that it is.</p>
<p>Progressives manufacture the consensus of their own intelligence and insist that it proves them right.</p>
<p>Imagine a million people walking in a circle and shouting, &#8220;WE&#8217;RE SMART AND WE&#8217;RE RIGHT. WE&#8217;RE RIGHT BECAUSE WE&#8217;RE SMART. WE&#8217;RE SMART BECAUSE WE&#8217;RE RIGHT.&#8221; Now imagine that they dominate academia and the entertainment industry allowing them to spend billions yelling their idiot message until it outshouts everyone else while ignoring the disasters in their wake because they are too smart to fail.</p>
<p>That is progressivism. That is why Obama is too smart to fail.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-is-too-smart-to-fail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>234</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ObamaCare&#8217;s Bros and Hos</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/obamacares-bros-and-hos/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacares-bros-and-hos</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/obamacares-bros-and-hos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michelle Malkin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brosurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hosurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=210636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new lows of the president's degrading propaganda.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/colorado-nonprofit-sells-obamacare-as-brosurance-with-cringeworthy-viral-ad-campaign.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-210637" alt="colorado-nonprofit-sells-obamacare-as-brosurance-with-cringeworthy-viral-ad-campaign" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/colorado-nonprofit-sells-obamacare-as-brosurance-with-cringeworthy-viral-ad-campaign-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>The &#8220;Got Insurance?&#8221; campaign is the lame brainchild of two &#8220;progressive&#8221; outfits with dubious nonprofit status: ProgressNow and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Their previous claim to fame: a &#8220;Thanks, Obamacare&#8221; social media movement to propagandize praise and gratitude for the federal mandate.</p>
<p>Modeled after the &#8220;Got Milk?&#8221; ads, the latest print and web promos pander to young people with pop-culture memes and entitlement-friendly appeals. The dumbed-down website address: doyougotinsurance.com. Last month, while federal and state Obamacare exchange sites 404&#8242;ed, the Colorado marketing buffoons LOL&#8217;ed. Their &#8220;Brosurance&#8221; ads featured frat boys with red solo cups guzzling beer, playing golf and celebrating government with a &#8220;Thanks, Obamacare!&#8221; smile.</p>
<p>ProgressNow&#8217;s Alan Franklin boasted about his coverage. Media coverage, that is: &#8220;Within the first few weeks, &#8216;Brosurance&#8217; has been featured by The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, MSNBC, Conan O&#8217;Brien, Bill Maher and Roll Call, as well as the front page of Buzzfeed and Jezebel, just to name a few. Just in the first 24 hours of the campaign&#8217;s launch alone, #Brosurance was mentioned more than six million times on Twitter, and #GotInsurance more than 1.7 million times. Yes. The ads went viral.&#8221; Priorities.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, the groups launched phase two of their Obamacare bread and circuses. Aimed at young women, the ads show party gals with shot glasses lined up on a ski; &#8220;Hey, Girl&#8221; gags involving a cutout of actor Ryan Gosling; and the Sandra Fluke-inspired promo featuring birth control-wielding &#8220;Susie&#8221; and her &#8220;hot to trot&#8221; date, Nate. The caption reads:</p>
<p>&#8220;Let&#8217;s Get Physical.</p>
<p>OMG, he&#8217;s hot! Let&#8217;s hope he&#8217;s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can, too.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s bad enough that these idiocracy-targeted ads reduce young people to perpetually partying boozers and traffic-bait boobs. But what&#8217;s truly toxic is the ad campaign&#8217;s cynical feint to draw attention away from Obamacare&#8217;s undeniable harm to responsible young people. Brosurance and Hosurance are trifling distractions from the federal law&#8217;s Nosurance consequences. Insurers started dropping child-only plans in Colorado, California, Ohio and Missouri in 2010 thanks to Obamacare-induced premium increases. Colleges across the country have canceled low-cost plans for students because of Obamacare rules. Thanks to the Obamacare mandate, young, healthy Americans face higher insurance premiums, decreased work hours and perverse incentives to enroll in Medicaid instead of remaining independent and off the dole.</p>
<p>Meanwhile back in Colorado, the state Division of Insurance reports that 250,000 people here have lost their insurance policies in the past few months. And while the &#8220;bros and hos&#8221; circus masters urge young people to sign up &#8220;easily&#8221; on the state exchange, the overseers of the $200 million program are singing a different tune. Last week, IT expert and Colorado health insurance exchange board member Nathan Wilkes blasted the process as &#8220;painful,&#8221; &#8220;odious&#8221; and &#8220;embarrassing.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s an apt description of the ruinous policies, clown implementation and moronic marketing of all aspects of Obamacare. Sober up, young America. The &#8220;Affordable Care Act&#8221; is the progressives&#8217; wealth redistribution party from hell — and you&#8217;re paying for it.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/michellemalkin/obamacares-bros-and-hos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Progressive Contempt for Liberty</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-progressive-contempt-for-liberty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-progressive-contempt-for-liberty</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-progressive-contempt-for-liberty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Woodrow Wilson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=193712</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Explaining the Left's penchant for racism and tyranny.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/affirmative-action-1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-193713" alt="affirmative-action-1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/affirmative-action-1-450x337.jpg" width="288" height="216" /></a>Grutter v. Bollinger was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the University of Michigan Law School&#8217;s racial admissions policy. Justice Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution &#8220;does not prohibit the Law School&#8217;s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.&#8221; But what are the educational benefits of a diverse student body?</p>
<p>Intellectuals argue that diversity is necessary for academic excellence, but what&#8217;s the evidence? For example, Japan is a nation bereft of diversity in any activity. Close to 99 percent of its population is of one race. Whose students do you think have higher academic achievement — theirs or ours? According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the academic performance of U.S. high-school students in reading, math and science pales in comparison with their diversity-starved counterparts in Japan.</p>
<p>Should companies be treated equally? According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed (9/7/2009) by Manhattan Institute&#8217;s energy expert Robert Bryce, Exxon Mobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with its pollutants. The company paid $600,000 in fines and fees. A recent Associated Press story (5/14/2013) reported that &#8220;more than 573,000 birds are killed by the country&#8217;s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.&#8221; The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted windmill farms, sometimes called bird Cuisinarts, for killing eagles and other protected bird species. In fact, AP reports that the Obama administration has shielded the industry from liability and has helped keep the scope of the deaths secret. It&#8217;s interesting that The Associated Press chose to report the story only after the news about its reporters being secretly investigated. That caused the Obama administration to fall a bit out of favor with them.</p>
<p>But what the heck, the 14th Amendment&#8217;s requirement of &#8220;equal protection&#8221; before the law for everybody can be cast aside in the name of diversity, so why can&#8217;t it be cast aside in the name of saving the planet? There are politically favored industries just as there are politically favored groups.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the difference between a progressive, a liberal and a racist? In some cases, not much. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading progressive who believed in notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He was so enthralled with D.W. Griffith&#8217;s &#8220;Birth of a Nation&#8221; movie, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, that he invited various dignitaries to the White House to view it with him. During one private screening, President Wilson exclaimed: &#8220;It&#8217;s like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.&#8221; When President Wilson introduced racial segregation to the civil service, the NAACP and the National Independent Political League protested. Wilson vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of Negroes.</p>
<p>Dr. Thomas Sowell, in &#8220;Intellectuals and Race,&#8221; documents other progressives who were advocates of theories of racial inferiority. They included former presidents of Stanford University and MIT, among others. Eventually, the views of progressives fell out of favor. They changed their name to liberals, but in the latter part of the 20th century, the name liberals fell into disrepute. Now they are back to calling themselves progressives.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not arguing that today&#8217;s progressives are racists like their predecessors, but they share a contempt for liberty, just as President Wilson did. According to Hillsdale College history professor Paul A. Rahe — author of &#8220;Soft Despotism, Democracy&#8217;s Drift&#8221; — in his National Review Online (4/11/13) article &#8220;Progressive Racism,&#8221; Wilson wanted to persuade his compatriots to get &#8220;beyond the Declaration of Independence.&#8221; President Wilson said the document &#8220;did not mention the questions&#8221; of his day, adding, &#8220;It is of no consequence to us.&#8221; My question is: Why haven&#8217;t today&#8217;s progressives disavowed their racist predecessors?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/walter-williams/the-progressive-contempt-for-liberty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barack H. Obama: Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/barack-h-obama-inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=barack-h-obama-inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/barack-h-obama-inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 04:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyrant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no closet tyrant from whom we have more to fear.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flickering.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-191566" alt="flickering" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flickering.jpg" width="307" height="433" /></a><strong>[Editor&#8217;s note: The article below was written on the subject of Frontpage&#8217;s central motto: <em>Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out</em>. To read the winning article by N.A. Halkides of our recent essay contest on this theme, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out-2/">click here</a>. Submissions to Frontpage are always welcome on this topic.]</strong></p>
<p>Of all the closet-totalitarians on the left, there is none greater than President Barack Hussein Obama.</p>
<p>A couple of centuries ago, Goethe said: “Tell me with whom thou art found, and I will tell thee who thou art.”  Over 100 years later, John Ruskin made a virtually identical point: “Tell me what you like, and I’ll tell you what you are.”</p>
<p>When we want to know more about what motivates terrorists and criminals, we cling to this pearl of wisdom by looking at their relationships and the ideas that they’ve imbibed.  Yet when we want to know what motivates <i>our President, </i>many of us, those in the media particularly, ignore this time-honored wisdom.</p>
<p>That Obama is perhaps the greatest of contemporary closet-totalitarians is borne out by the following considerations:</p>
<p>First, Obama spent a considerable portion of his childhood in the Islamic society of Indonesia.  There, he was educated as a Muslim at a madrasa, an Islamic school.  That his paternal family in Kenya, a land to which Obama is no stranger, is Muslim, only strengthens his connection with Islam.</p>
<p>All of this is important.  Obama is no Muslim. But his ideology, centering as it does on the “fundamental transformation” of America, reflects the same sort of comprehensiveness and rigor found in Islam.  It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that his exposure to Islam played at least <i>some </i>role in informing it.</p>
<p>Second, as its subtitle makes clear, Obama’s first memoir, <i>Dreams From My Father,</i> is “a story of <i>race </i>and inheritance.”  <i>Dreams </i>relays Obama’s odyssey, his quest for <i>racial authenticity—</i>i.e. authentic <i>blackness.  </i>We must realize that Obama is no different from any other leftist, black or white, in viewing blackness not so much biologically or even culturally, but <i>ideologically.</i></p>
<p>Academic and one-time Obama confidante and backer, Cornell West, summarizes this approach as succinctly and clearly as anyone.  “‘Black enough,’” he writes, “always means ‘bold enough.’”  For instance, Clarence Thomas is “phenotypically [biologically], beautifully black.”  But as “a right-wing conservative who sides with the strong against the weak,” Thomas is “not bold enough.”  Conversely, Adam Clayton Powell and Thurgood Marshall, though light-complexioned, were “bold enough” and, thus, “black enough.”  Both “sided with the weak.”</p>
<p>Read: black leftists are authentically black while blacks who aren’t leftists are not.</p>
<p>Third, Obama’s desire to be “black enough” led him to seek out Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.  The relevance of this decision on Obama’s part couldn’t be more germane to unlocking his true identity, for Obama spent over <i>20 years </i>at Wright’s church, and didn’t distance himself from it until it became politically necessary to do so.  Throughout most of his adult life, that is, Obama was under the tutelage of Wright, a man of whom he thought enough to describe as his “spiritual mentor,” the one “who brought me to Christ.”</p>
<p>But Wright’s church was saturated in “Black Liberation Theology,” a racialized version of Marxism founded by James Hal Cone. The latter equates God with “blackness.”  Cone thinks that black theologians “must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.”  God must be “identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience….”  If not, we are left with a deity who “is a God of racism [.]”</p>
<p>Reinforcing the ideologically-centered conception of blackness discussed above, Cone writes: “Being black in America has little to do with skin color.  Being black means that your<i> </i>heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.”</p>
<p>Only a suspension of disbelief of Herculean proportions could lead one to think that Obama’s exposure to these ideas for decades didn’t shape his worldview.</p>
<p>Fourth, Obama became a “community organizer” while in Chicago.  That he looked for inspiration in the Godfather of all self-styled progressive activists, Saul Alinsky, is itself telling.  More disturbing, however, is that Obama’s craft of choice supplies the paradigm—<i>the community </i>in need of organizing—by which he governs as President of the country.</p>
<p>The members of a community are linked together by a shared vision of the good life, a purpose to which they are devoted.  But in America, a country with over 300 million people with varying interests and ends, there is no such shared purpose.  America is a civil association; it is not a community. To treat it as a community is to impose upon citizens those ends that the government arbitrarily privileges.</p>
<p>In other words, to treat America as a community is to undermine the liberty and individuality that its Constitution has always guaranteed.</p>
<p>Finally, consider how Obama has in fact governed over the last five years.  In light of the forgoing points, isn’t this precisely what we would expect?</p>
<p>Whether taking over General Motors or one-sixth of the nation’s economy via the ominous “Obamacare;” whether refusing to enforce immigration laws or exploiting national tragedies to further erode the Second Amendment—Obama has spared no occasion to fulfill his pledge to “fundamentally transform” the country.</p>
<p>Inside every leftist there is a totalitarian screaming to get out.</p>
<p>Obama is and has always been a man of the hard left.  Given that he is the only leftist in the world to have the power of the American presidency at his disposal, and considering that he will never again have to face reelection, there is no closet totalitarian from whom we have more to fear.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/barack-h-obama-inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the Obama Scandals Reveal About Progressive Ideology</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/what-the-obama-scandals-reveal-about-progressive-ideology/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-the-obama-scandals-reveal-about-progressive-ideology</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/what-the-obama-scandals-reveal-about-progressive-ideology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 04:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associated press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[targeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=189647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why it's no accident that soft despotism emerged on the Left's watch. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/gty_barack_obama_irs_mad_speech_thg_130515_wblog.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-189763" alt="gty_barack_obama_irs_mad_speech_thg_130515_wblog" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/gty_barack_obama_irs_mad_speech_thg_130515_wblog.jpg" width="261" height="187" /></a>The three scandals dominating the news this week all reveal the moral and intellectual corruption at the heart of progressive ideology. Whether are not these revelations gain enough traction to halt the country’s downward spiral is the more important question.</span></b></p>
<p><i>Benghazi</i></p>
<p>The moment it came into office the Obama administration bought into the delusional narrative that Islamic jihadist terror is a response to Western historical crimes against Muslims, rather than an expression of Islamic theology. The Israeli “occupation” of Palestine, the depredations of colonialism and imperialism, the resulting dysfunctional economies and oppressive governments in Muslim countries, the arrogant xenophobia and intolerance of American culture, the invasions of Muslim countries after 9/11––all were identified as the “root causes” of terrorism.</p>
<p>Obama’s foreign policy, based on the assumptions of American guilt and the malign consequences of George Bush’s arrogant, unilateralist foreign policy, thus was an attempt to correct the bad policies and behaviors that instigated terror. Thus Obama apologized in his Cairo speech, eagerly extended a diplomatic “hand” to the genocidal mullahs in Iraq, rushed for the exits in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the dubious “Arab Spring” uprisings and their Islamist prime movers like the Muslim Brothers, and distanced America from Israel.</p>
<p>The intervention in Libya seemed to be an easy way to validate these beliefs, at the same time avoiding the charge of retreat and withdrawal from America’s global responsibilities to advance human rights and protect the victims of tyranny. The overthrow of Gaddafi was sanctioned by the U.N. and engineered by NATO, thus confirming the progressive belief that unilaterally pursuing national interests was, like nationalism itself, immoral, and that only transnational collective action sanctioned by international institutions was legitimate.</p>
<p>For a while the optics were good. A creepy psychopath was eliminated, no casualties were suffered, and a seemingly secular democracy was aborning. The idealism of democracy promotion, one bungled by the unilateral, trigger-happy George Bush, was indulged at little political cost, while the “legitimate” war, against al Qaeda, was being pursued just as cheaply with out-of-sight, out-of-mind drone killings, proving that Obama was no crypto-pacifist squish. Hence the foreign policy narrative peddled during the presidential campaign that al Qaeda was on the ropes and democracy was on the march.</p>
<p>The attack on Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, eight weeks before the election, exploded that narrative. Al Qaeda and its affiliates were not on the ropes, but were growing and expanding, and could swiftly organize the sack of an embassy office and the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador, humiliating the infidel superpower. Libya was not a democracy-in-the-making, but a Darwinian tribal and sectarian jungle dominated by jihadists armed with the weapons we put in their hands when we destroyed the Gaddafi regime. The refusal to beef up security in Benghazi, which would have been an admission that things weren’t so rosy in the fledgling democracy, now looked like a political calculation that cost American lives. Worse yet, once more the idea that terrorism is a response to our bad behavior was exploded, as many of those Libyans we had liberated turned against us, just as thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have.</p>
<p>So of course the attack had to be spun into something closer to Obama’s foreign policy narrative: the attack was caused by a “spontaneous” protest against an Internet video insulting Mohammed. The administration knew this was a lie the day of the attack, but could not admit this repudiation of Obama’s foreign policy claims so close to the election, and so kept repeating the lie for two weeks, trusting the media spaniels to spin the attack and collude in the still on-going cover-up.</p>
<p><i>IRS Political Harassment</i></p>
<p>The IRS’s targeting of groups associated with conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status is a predictable consequence of the progressive narrative that conservatism is a form of neurosis, the lashing out of ignorant, violent “bitter clingers” against a changing world that challenges their racial privilege, economic power, and religious superstitions. The fondness of groups like the Tea Party for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution reflects this psychopathology, the desire to “turn back the clock” and restore their once exalted social and political position. As such, they are dangerous––and armed to boot––and so require monitoring by all right-thinking people who are progressing towards the utopia of “social justice.”</p>
<p>So it’s no surprise that IRS functionaries would create investigative rubrics like “Tea Party” or “patriot” that reflect these assumptions in order to guide them in their scrutiny of groups seeking tax-exempt status. These bureaucrats have absorbed the narrative from the mainstream media and popular culture, both of which are steeped in the two-bit pop psychologizing that passes for wisdom among those who fancy themselves the enlightened “anointed,” as Thomas Sowell calls them. Nor are they troubled at using the coercive power of the state to pursue these political agendas, for one of the most important progressive principles is that righteous ends can justify a whole range of brutal means.</p>
<p>Whether or not someone in the Obama administration directly ordered the IRS to pursue this partisan harassment is irrelevant. Like the Corleone family, the administration has a lot of “buffers.” No one had to be told, just as the progressives don’t have to tell anyone in Hollywood to make yet another movie or television show denigrating and demonizing corporations, conservatives, Christians, or the CIA. That is what’s so insidious about this ideology: it has permeated the minds of people to the point that unsavory actions advancing the cause are never questioned or doubted. In the progressive mind, dogma rules, not principle. Hence the righteous act to advance ideologically sanctioned political ends without bothering about coherent or consistent principle.</p>
<p><i>The AP Wiretaps</i></p>
<p>The Department of Justice’s trolling through 2 months’ worth of phone conversations of Associated Press reporters and editors in order to discover the source of a leak reveals another moral dysfunction of progressives: their noisy evocation of principles they routinely ignore when the other side is the victim. At the same time the AP and the ACLU have been loudly invoking the First Amendment and overusing the “chilling effect” cliché, the Departments of Justice and Education sent out a letter mandating that every college and university on the Federal dole have to institute speech codes that blatantly violate the Constitution. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, “The letter states that ‘sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as &#8220;any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature&#8221;&#8216; including ‘verbal conduct’ (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an ‘objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation’—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for <i>any reason</i>, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.” As FIRE president Greg Lukianoff says, “The federal government has put colleges and universities in an impossible position with this mandate. With this unwise and unconstitutional decision, the DOJ and DOE have doomed American campuses to years of confusion and expensive lawsuits, while students’ fundamental rights twist in the wind.”</p>
<p>So two powerful federal bureaucracies wantonly jeopardize the free-speech rights and academic freedom of students and faculty in higher education –– sending an Arctic blast through the presumed bastion of the “free play of the mind on all subjects,” as Matthew Arnold put it –– and the media yawn. But let the Feds access some news-agency’s phone records to track down a leak that they claimed put our national security at risk, and the howling is deafening. No matter how specious the DOJ’s pretext or ham-handed its actions, they are certainly more respectable and defensible than the cooked-up crisis of sexual harassment in higher education, and the assault on those institutions’ core principle of academic free speech.</p>
<p>But that’s the modus operandi of the progressives. Democracy, human rights, free speech, individualism are all great when they serve the progressive agenda of growing the Leviathan state in order to coerce citizens into paying obeisance to the goals of “social justice.” If they don’t serve those goals, then the freedoms and rights of conservatives, Christians, capitalists, gun-owners, and other enemies of the state can be abused. But when it’s the progressives’ political ox that’s gored, then we hear the bellowing paeans to the First Amendment.</p>
<p>As these three scandals show, progressivism is a totalitarian ideology that seeks more and more power in order to institutionalize its dangerous ideas about human nature, the good life, and justice, and that considers any end advancing those ideas to be justified. Which brings us to the important questions––Will the voters see that these scandals are the signs of those failed ideas, and reverse our descent into big government’s “soft despotism”? Or will they just shrug them off as politics as usual?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/what-the-obama-scandals-reveal-about-progressive-ideology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>102</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Christian Left&#8217;s Peculiar Hatred of Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/progressive-christian-hostility-to-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=progressive-christian-hostility-to-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/progressive-christian-hostility-to-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberation theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Dispatches]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=181709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where are the calls for boycott of Syria and other places of world misery? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/progressive-christian-hostility-to-israel/mozaheb20121215165546567_zps9fd96969-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-181804"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-181804" title="mozaheb20121215165546567_zps9fd96969" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mozaheb20121215165546567_zps9fd969691-450x338.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="203" /></a>Last week Jerusalem witnessed the convergence of 80 Christian leaders from 20 countries and five continents.  They came to Israel to express their solidarity with the Jewish state and its Jewish people.  The occasion was the fourth bi-annual leadership forum of Christians for Israel; a non-denominational Christian organization that was established in the Netherlands in the 1970s and has grown in numbers to the hundreds of thousands. Issuing “<a href="http://www.c4israel.org/c4i/">A call to repentance, a word of hope</a>,” their statement declared that God has not terminated his everlasting covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants, and that the Church has definitely not replaced Israel as God’s covenant people. “The return of the Jewish people to the land is a wonderful sign of hope – it proves that God is faithful to His word, and that He is preparing all things for the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.”</p>
<p>By way of contrast, “progressive” Christians influenced by “Liberation Theology” and tainted by a Marxist worldview have mobilized on behalf of the Palestinians (not Syrian Muslim children being murdered by Muslims or Coptic Christians being persecuted in Egypt) and against “Zionist” Israel, a code-word for Jews.</p>
<p>If one wishes to understand “progressive” Christianity’s vile anti-Semitism, consider this; of all the evil in the world including the ongoing human butchery of civilians in Syria, the persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and the Palestinian territories, slavery in Arab Muslim Sudan and Saudi Arabia, religious intolerance in Pakistan, and gross human rights violations in China, Russia, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, what do the Quakers, the Church of England Christian Aid, the Church of Scotland-Methodist Church, and an assortment of mainline Protestant churches chose to boycott?  Products produced in the Jewish “settlements” of Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>To add insult to injury, mainline Protestant church leaders and theologians released a statement last June titled “A Call to Action: A U.S. Response to Kairos Palestine.”  This biased, one-sided document stated:</p>
<blockquote><p>We begin with a <a href="http://ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/us-churches-respond-kairos-palestine-document">confession</a> of sin to Palestinians in the State of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the diaspora and in refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.  As U.S. Christians, we bear responsibility for failing to say &#8220;Enough!&#8221; when our nation&#8217;s ally, the State of Israel, violates international law.  Our government has financed Israel&#8217;s unjust policies and has shielded its government from criticism by the international community.  At the outset of the current U.S. administration, our government led Palestinians to believe that, at last we would pursue a political solution based on justice.  But the &#8220;peace process&#8221; has continued to be no more than a means for the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the imprisonment of Gaza and the continuation of the structures of oppression.</p></blockquote>
<p>For starters, one should question what international law Israel has violated with regards to the Palestinians.  UNSC Resolution 242 of 1967 calls for peace in exchange for territories (albeit not all territories captured by Israel in 1967.  Gush Etzion was Jewish territory conquered by Jordan in the 1948 War of Independence as was the Old City of Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter).  Lord Caradon, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN and a key drafter of Resolution 242 said, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967.  That is why we [the members of the UNSC] didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”</p>
<p>Israel’s Ambassador to the UN (1978-1984) and International law professor, Yehuda Blum, asserted in a June 11, 1979 speech in Washington, D.C.:</p>
<blockquote><p>A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of Eretz Yisrael, including Judea and Samaria which are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael.  Jews are not foreigners anywhere in the Land of Israel.  Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the &#8220;Judenrein&#8221; policies of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay.</p></blockquote>
<p>Blum observed that</p>
<blockquote><p>The right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel was also recognized in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stressed the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and&#8230; the grounds for reconstituting &#8211; I repeat &#8211; reconstituting &#8220;their national home in that country.&#8221; The Mandatory Power was also entrusted with the duty to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Call to Action by the mainline Protestant churches does not mention Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza or the Hamas terror campaign against Israel, nor Hamas’s Islamic intolerance and its rejection of peace with Israel or recognition of its right to exist as a Jewish State.</p>
<p>Adam Gregerman, writing for Religious Dispatches, pointed out:</p>
<blockquote><p>In their <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6125/theology_fail_in_christian_statement_on_israel__judaism__palestine">advocacy</a> for the Palestinian cause, however, the Kairos USA authors have rolled back the clock.  In its critique of Israeli policies, the statement troublingly undermines these positive Christian views and takes a zero-sum attitude toward the conflict.  Out of a desire to support the Palestinians, they jeopardize these remarkable interreligious gains by issuing one-sided indictments and by failing to honor Jewish religious and historical perspectives.</p></blockquote>
<p>The authors of Kairos USA dismiss G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people and His promise of the land to the Jews, saying that there is no “theology of entitlement” for what they consider modern Israel. Yet, they <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6125/theology_fail_in_christian_statement_on_israel__judaism__palestine">evaluate</a> the State of Israel and its policies according to religious criteria.</p>
<p>The Kairos USA authors maintain that the situation in Israel and Palestine “is not a struggle among religions.”  They must not have read the Hamas Charter or the Palestinian Covenant because both consider the State of Israel “Islamic Wakf” or Islamic endowment land, where only Muslims can reign.</p>
<p>The willful failure of progressive Christians to see the Muslim world and the Palestinian leadership as motivated by a triumphalist Islamic ethos, which is intolerant towards the religious and political rights of Christians and Jews (dhimmis, or subjected people as seen by conquering Islam), and parenthetically ignores Palestinian terrorism and unwillingness to recognize or make peace with the Jewish State, reveals their deep seated prejudice, if not their latent anti-Semitism.</p>
<p>The Christians for Israel message of love and their biblical quest for peace in Jerusalem are uplifting.  It constitutes an antithesis to the hostility displayed by the so-called progressive Christians and authors of the Kairos USA towards the Jewish state.  This enmity is not accidental.   Rather, it is borne out of the progressive Christians&#8217; contempt for Jewish particularism, which is manifested in the State of Israel.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/progressive-christian-hostility-to-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Neo-Communism Out of the Closet</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/neo-communism-out-of-the-closet/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=neo-communism-out-of-the-closet</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/neo-communism-out-of-the-closet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:58:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oliver Stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Untold History of the United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=173796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The warm reception of Oliver Stone's Kremlin propaganda is a watershed moment in American politics.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/neo-communism-out-of-the-closet/untold/" rel="attachment wp-att-173805"><img class=" wp-image-173805 alignleft" title="untold" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/untold.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="372" /></a>Oliver Stone’s <em>Untold History of the United States</em> is a ludicrous encapsulation of the Kremlin’s view of the Cold War, amplified by the Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hamas version of the post-Communist decades. Indeed, America is portrayed by the Stone-Kuznick author-team as such an evil force in the events of the last 75 years, they evoke overt sympathy for the Germans and the Japanese during World War II, as well as for Stalin himself, and then for really any self-declared enemy of the United States, not excluding Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.</p>
<p>I consider the reception of this latest Stone travesty to be a significant cultural event signifying a final coming out of the closet of what can only be termed the Communist left. It is the well-known views of the Communist left that undeniably constitute the Stone-Kuznick version of the events of the last seventy years, and their portrait of the United States. The fact that Henry Wallace, the hero of their malevolent work, was a Communist and Soviet pawn, is a perfect summary of the pathetic Stalinism that is the heart and soul of the world-view of <em>Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States.</em></p>
<p>Some years ago I made a case for characterizing the progressive, liberal left, including the organizations that form the heart of the Democratic Party  &#8212; the government unions, the Soros Shadow Party, the Center for American Progress, and the Netroots activists – as “neo-Communists.” I made the argument for calling them neo-Communists on the basis of the fact that there was no discernible difference between the view these political actors took of American capitalism – corporations are evil, capitalism is bad, America is the great imperialist Satan – and the view taken by the Communists of the Stalin era.</p>
<p>Of course, time changes everyone somewhat. Even Communists like Khrushchev, who spearheaded Stalin’s purges, came to find it politically wise one day to be anti-Stalinists. So with the progressives. They may decry Communists who have been dead for fifty years but they are busily burnishing the Communists’ ideas and preserving their legacies and passing them on in the curricula of our schools and now on cable TV.</p>
<p>In light of these fairly obvious (if widely unspoken) facts, “neo-Communist” seemed to me an apt term to describe progressives and their liberal fellow-travelers. It seemed just as apt a term as, say, “neo-fascist” and more apt a term than “neo-conservative” (since even Norman Podhoretz says that neo-conservatism is no longer distinguishable from conservatism – although for Paul Gottfried and others that is undoubtedly a controversial statement).</p>
<p>What is striking about the Stone-Kuznick myth-making adventure, and the reason I am making these points once again, is its reception. The <em>Untold History</em> has been widely embraced by the leftwing academic establishment, by the Huffington Post pundits, by the <em>Dissent</em> historian, Michael Kazin, by <em>The Nation</em> and by the progressive culture generally (although not, be it said, the <em>New York Times</em>). Even more impressive has been the silence of the liberal lambs. This is in striking contrast to their reaction to the appearance of Stone’s equally awful <em>JFK.</em> When that piece of rot appeared twenty years ago, there were thunderous and near hysterical denunciations of its lies from leading Democratic Party figures. No such dissents have greeted Stone’s Stalinist revival, no outcries over the libels committed on the memories of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, not to mention America.</p>
<p>I read this as concrete evidence that neo-Communism is alive and well and is now the heart of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, at least its activist center. I would include in this category the president, his likely new Secretary of State, and his chief political advisors.</p>
<p>[After writing the above I sent it to a conservative academic listserv with the following query: I am interested in the list’s thoughts on this. I would ask one favor, however. Please don’t bring up the fact that few people are still talking about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “taking over the means of production” in those words, or identifying themselves as card carrying Communists. First, the left has a history of studied and disciplined mendacity in pursuit of its goals. Second, its goals shift with its accretions of power. Finally, it has been to school with Saul Alinsky (about whom I have written quite a bit) and has absorbed his two main lessons: lie about your agendas; and remember that the end – the destruction of American capitalism – justifies any means.</p>
<p>[There were no responses to my query. I then sent the list this observation: When I posted the question of whether the term "neo-Communist" is not appropriate to describe the current generation of "progressives" I suspected there would be no takers no matter how persuasive the case I made for such an appellation. And that suspicion has been confirmed. What I conclude from this is that the left -- the neo-Communist left if you will -- has been so successful in its ongoing campaign of political intimidation of any critics of its loyalties, allegiances and endorsement of views that are totalitarian in origin and result --  few are willing to risk even speculative thoughts on this matter. I think this is one of the most significant political problems that confronts anyone who wishes to raise his or her voice against this march to serfdom.]</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/neo-communism-out-of-the-closet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time for &#8216;Liberals&#8217; and &#8216;Progressives&#8217; to Get New Labels</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/time-for-liberals-and-progressives-to-get-new-labels/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=time-for-liberals-and-progressives-to-get-new-labels</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/time-for-liberals-and-progressives-to-get-new-labels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 04:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leftist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new words]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[totalitarian]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Searching for a better term for intolerant reactionaries. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Barack-Obama2.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140205" title="Barack-Obama2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Barack-Obama2.jpg" alt="" width="276" height="173" /></a>We need to find a new label for the ideology espoused by leftist Democrats. “Liberal” doesn’t accurately describe the party of blinkered intolerance, fanatical certainty, and an eagerness to destroy freedom in order to achieve some dubious utopia. “Progressive” is more historically accurate for ideas that go back to a movement that started in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century. But it still suggests that lefties are the party of improvement and the future, when in fact they are reactionaries recycling failed ideas about as au courant as a Nehru jacket and a puka-shell necklace.</p>
<p>These labels, moreover, function like newspeak in Orwell’s <em>1984</em>. They suggest that lib/progs are tolerant champions of individual freedom and rights, skeptical of old-fashioned group identity, believers in nuance and complexity, open to new ideas that challenge authority, and respectful of difference and diversity. Liberals fancy themselves the party of reason and truth, their views and ideas the consequence of education and nuanced thinking, and their prescriptions and policies the only viable way to improve human life and eliminate suffering and oppression.</p>
<p>Flip through any newspaper at random and you will find examples that show today’s lib/progs are exactly the opposite of those flattering clichés. Take global warming, back in the news recently after the announcement that last year’s average temperature was the highest on record. “The science is settled,” the lib/progs scold us, and there is a “consensus” that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels and causing more frequent catastrophic weather events. Those who challenge this “consensus” are “deniers,” either stooges of the oil companies or hopelessly ignorant rubes irrationally closing their eyes to an inconvenient truth.</p>
<p>But as Matt Ridley writes in <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, this “settled science” in fact reflects a “monopoly that clings to one hypothesis (that carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming) and brooks less and less dissent. Again and again, climate skeptics are told they should respect the consensus, an admonition wholly against the tradition of science.” Thus the respecters of “complexity” and “science” unscientifically simplify the planet’s most complex system, one the mechanics of which we as yet don’t fully understand––certainly not enough to assert as revealed truth that increases in a trace gas in the atmosphere can drive the whole system. And the vicious shunning and slandering of anyone who practices the skepticism of received paradigms that has driven modern science, reveals that the champions of “diversity” and “tolerance” of ideas that challenge authority are in fact intolerant and irrational, more interested in ideology than in truth, and slaves to self-appointed authorities.</p>
<p>Similarly, the supposed believers in individual freedom and autonomy are the first to sacrifice both to the coercive power of the state and its bureaucratic minions. The most notorious recent example is the directive from Health and Human Services that Catholic institutions and businesses have to provide their employees with contraceptives including abortifacients, thus violating their religious beliefs. The lib/progs who regularly squeal about a fabricated First Amendment right to view pornography on a public library computer are perfectly happy to destroy that same amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion and religious speech.</p>
<p>But this is just a more visible example of a phenomenon that has become so common that we hardly notice it anymore. Universities and colleges, those supposed lib/prog bastions of free inquiry and freewheeling debate, have been in the forefront of using institutional power to police speech and proscribe anything that violates the lib/prog ideology. The latest offender is the University of Delaware and its “anti-bullying” prohibition. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the university defines “bullying” as “[a]ny deliberately hurtful behavior, usually repeated over time, with the desired outcome of frightening, intimidating, excluding or degrading a person.” Examples include “teasing,” “ridiculing,” and “spreading of rumors.” As FIRE points out, “The broad wording of this policy makes it highly vulnerable to abuse, with the potential to silence a great deal of protected speech such as parody and satire (which often ridicule their targets) and political speech.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/time-for-liberals-and-progressives-to-get-new-labels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video of Glenn Beck at the Philadelphia Freedom Center</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-philadelphia-freedom-center-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=glenn-beck-at-the-philadelphia-freedom-center-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-philadelphia-freedom-center-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patrick Henry Award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philadelphia Freedom Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/07/glenn-beck-at-the-philadelphia-freedom-center-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative titan is honored with the Patrick Henry Award in the City of Brotherly Love. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/glenn-beck.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-134193" title="glenn-beck" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/glenn-beck.gif" alt="" width="375" height="246" /></a>Editor&#8217;s note: On May 31st, 2012, the <a href="http://www.phillyfreedom.org/">David Horowitz Freedom Center of Philadelphia</a> honored Glenn Beck with the Patrick Henry Award. Below is the video of the event, which includes a welcoming by Craig Snider, Director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center, introductory remarks from <em>Freedom Center President David Horowitz, and then <em>Glenn Beck&#8217;s acceptance speech. Below the video is the transcript of Horowitz&#8217;s introduction and Beck&#8217;s speech.</em></em><br />
</em></p>
<p><iframe width="610" height="343" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MaVtmvz7TMk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><iframe width="610" height="343" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9A0ooF6dHcw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> I am honored and privileged to introduce the recipient of the Philadelphia Freedom Center’s Patrick Henry Award, my friend Glenn Beck. Glenn began life in circumstances that would crush most of us, and almost did him, and has gone on to become one of the most successful and indispensable political voices of our time.</p>
<p>We are honoring him today with an award named for an American founder who is identified with the ultimate commitment to liberty, understood as the freedom of the individual from oppression by government. Our country had its origins in this struggle, and has had to repeat its commitment in every generation, perhaps no more dramatically than in the circumstances we find ourselves in today.</p>
<p>American rights are under assault as they have not been perhaps in all our history, including our origins. A force is afoot in the world today, and in our country, which is driven by the illusion that just over the rainbow, a progressive future awaits — a world of social justice in which the 99% are no longer oppressed by the 1%, and the playing field is level.</p>
<p>But this is a fantasy world — a world that could only be achieved by a government so powerful that no individual or group of individuals could resist its progressive designs. It is a world in which individual liberty – the right to resist – is seen as the greatest threat to social justice, and will be suppressed in the name of justice.</p>
<p>The progressive demand for equality of results was the driving force behind the totalitarian movements of the century just past. It led to the slaughter of 100 million people in peacetime, the bankrupting of entire continents and the blighting of nearly a billion human lives. But the lesson has not been learned.</p>
<p>I was once one of those swept up by this vision of a world redeemed by political forces. I was chastened when I saw the evil it had done. But after the fall of Communism I was stunned to see how little the inspiration behind it was understood even by those who opposed its results.</p>
<p>In the wake of this epic disaster, the Communists and Marxists I had known began calling themselves “liberals” and “progressives,” while pursuing the same agendas that had led to the tragedies. For the evil of Communism sprang from the progressive idea itself – the idea of social justice, the determination to level the playing field by government fiat.</p>
<p>For many years I felt like a voice crying in the wilderness, trying to warn others that “progressive” did not mean forerunner of a brighter future but retreat into a monstrous past.</p>
<p>And then along came Glenn Beck, someone who understood exactly that. Beck became a major force in our culture. His radio and television shows reached millions of listeners and viewers. He organized unprecedented mass demonstrations to restore hope for our country in Washington, and in Jerusalem to declare solidarity with the Jews who are now threatened with a second Holocaust.</p>
<p>As the organizer of the 9/12 movement and the March on Washington, Beck is the real creator of the American Tea Party, the party of resistance to progressive designs. He is currently at work launching Glenn Beck TV and Mercury Enterprises, a media complex to break the virtual monopoly of the left.</p>
<p>What distinguished Beck from other conservatives, what made me sit up when I first heard him, is that he understood the threat posed by the advocates of social justice and their noble sounding ideals. The activists of the 99% are not well-meaning idealists. They are the current generation of an old and malignant movement whose goals are anti-capitalist and anti-liberty, and anti-American.</p>
<p>It is a movement that numbers in the millions, that is financed by billionaires like George Soros, and billionaire foundations like Tides and Ford, and government unions like the SEIU, and criminal organizations like ACORN, and it has powerful links to the socialist international and to our Islamist enemies around the world.</p>
<p>What Beck understands and is preaching to millions is that progressivism is not an idealism. It is a nihilism that seeks the end of the America we know and love.</p>
<p>It is not in the power of human beings to remake the world or create the kingdom of heaven on Earth. But it is in their power to wreak destructive havoc on entire generations and destroy civilizations. Socialism has shown us that.</p>
<p>Glenn Beck’s message is a tireless reminder of what the American founders stood for and what they warned. Human beings are not born with equal talents, or equal intelligence, or equal desires. You cannot compel them to be good or equal without abolishing their individual freedom. Without abolishing their liberty. That is what the American founders understood, and that is the truth that Glenn Beck reminds millions of Americans daily. “Progressivism is the cancer in America,” he warns, “and it is eating our Constitution.”</p>
<p>Our nation and its institutions are under siege. The Obama policies are not mistakes that liberals make about this or that issue. They are the latest incarnation of a two-hundred-year-old movement to destroy the system of individual and economic liberty — what in the old days its defenders used to proudly call “the American Way of Life.”</p>
<p>Glenn Beck has taken on the dragons of socialism, which have penetrated the heart and brain center of American liberalism and the Democratic Party. Glenn Back is a courageous defender of freedom and individual liberty, confronting the tyranny at our door. And that is why he is the perfect recipient of the Philadelphia Freedom Center’s Patrick Henry Award.</p>
<p><strong>Glenn Beck:</strong> Thank you.  It is a real honor to be here today for several reasons, one of which is &#8212; David Horowitz is a hero of mine.  He is a man that I think we should all reflect on; what this man has done.  What he has chosen &#8212; to be a pariah for most of his life (no offense, but he has chosen to be a pariah) &#8212; chosen to speak the truth when nobody wanted to hear it. I mean, that was me most of my life. I didn’t want to hear it.  &#8220;Oh, c’mon there are Communists everywhere, really David?&#8221;  Didn’t want to hear it.  And now we are entering a time of true cowardice because now you cannot avoid the truth.  I don’t know if you saw &#8212; I mean, people ask, &#8220;Well what do you think? How do you think America is really holding up?&#8221;  Did you notice we have a cannibal on the street in Florida?  Y&#8217;know, I saw that and I’m like &#8230; cannibals?  This is crazy.  What’s happening in the world is insane.  And it takes a man of courage to stand up and say it.  A man of courage to look at it &#8230; people of courage to listen and dismiss after you’ve listened and after you’ve done your own homework, but only if it’s wrong, not because it’s easier to dismiss it.  David has taken the hard road and I am humbled to be called his friend and a compatriot in the fight.</p>
<p>I’m honored that you would take your hard-earned money and spend the afternoon with me as well. I mean, I know this wasn’t exactly a cheap venture for you today, but here’s the good news:  It’s just like &#8212; it’s a practice for when Ben Bernanke doesn’t stop printing money and you pull up to McDonald’s and the speaker says to you, &#8220;That’s $435, please pull forward.&#8221;  But I thank you for your time.  Also the Union League, what an honor it is to be here with this man peering over my shoulder, people who took a stand long ago to preserve the Union and that is our call again today and how to do it.  The way to do it is exactly the way this man did it. In his second inaugural address he made it very clear: with malice toward none and charity for all.  Nobody in his time wanted to hear that message, nobody.  The North had been destroyed, the economy had been destroyed, the south had been destroyed, people were dead on both sides and you won.  Lincoln said: &#8220;Let them up gently.  Tell them to go home to their farms, we’re all Americans.&#8221;  With malice toward none.</p>
<p>Anger and rage is building.  And as things spiral more and more out of control, which they will &#8212; I pray I’m wrong, but none of the signs &#8230; I have a business partner who doesn’t necessarily agree with my world view, but the good thing is, I own the company, so &#8230; I’ve said to him over and over again we will move a little more aggressively or we will move in this direction when I see the starfield moving the other direction, but I keep my eyes fixed on the starfield.  Which direction is it going?  I was on with John Stossel yesterday on Fox and he said: &#8220;You know, you’ve said that there would be violence and riots in the streets,&#8221; and I said: &#8220;Yes.&#8221;  He said: &#8220;You said that two years ago.  Where is it?&#8221;  I said: &#8220;Are you kidding me?  Have you missed the seven murders from Occupy Wall Street?  Have you missed the millions of dollars of damage?&#8221;  I mean, it may not be in every street, but it’s enough to make Americans, I hope, sit up and say, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute &#8212; who are these people? What is it that they want?  It’s not that hard.  Anarchy.</p>
<p>This weekend for Memorial Day I took my kids to Ground Zero.  First time my little ones were with me.  My older children, I didn’t let them watch the news reports on that day. But we didn’t start at Ground Zero, instead we started at Federal Hall.  And we stood there at Federal Hall, where there’s a big statue right across the street from the Stock Exchange.  Big statute of George Washington and he’s standing there like this &#8230; not like this because that would be Obama or Mussolini, but stood there like this. And I said to my little ones, I said: &#8220;Why is his hand like that?&#8221;  And they said, &#8220;He was warming his hand on a fire.&#8221; He had his hand on a Bible.  He was the guy who first said: &#8220;So help me God.&#8221;  And he made a covenant.  And he warned, &#8220;You had to be a good and descent people.&#8221;  Then I took them right across the street to J.P. Morgan’s Bank, been there for a long, long time, but there’s something that everybody walks by and nobody even sees. This is, again, across the street from the New York Stock Exchange and I had my kids put their hands on the wall and in the divots and the pits on that wall and I said: &#8220;What do you think that is?&#8221;  None of them could guess.  I said: &#8220;That is the first terrorist attack on the United States.&#8221;  It happened in 1917.  It was a group of anarchists.  They had gathered with Marxists and they were trying to overthrow the country by getting to capitalism and they had a problem with the banks and so they filled, believe it or not, a horse-drawn carriage with dynamite and lead and blew it up.  Morgan insisted that that wall never be repaired because it killed &#8212; I don’t remember how many people, but it killed several people &#8212; but it didn’t even make a dent on the bank.  And he wanted everyone to know: You’ve failed.  But most people don’t understand that this storyline has happened over and over and over again.  What we’re seeing in Europe right now is the same storyline, just different players. It’s coming about slightly different, but it’s the same storyline that happened in the 1930s and the 1920s.  I mean, I’m really concerned &#8212; you don’t &#8212; please let’s not push Germany into telling them that you have to pay for everybody else in the European Union.  While it came about a different way, last time Germany caused it, last time Germans caused the War, but that set the table for World War II because the League of Nations came in, under Woodrow Wilson, and said: &#8220;Here’s what you’re gonna do:  You’re gonna pay for everybody.&#8221;  Germany tried to convince anybody, &#8220;Please,&#8221; they begged them, &#8220;Please, don’t do it, we don’t have any money.&#8221; And the Weimar Republic started printing the money. And it caused anger with the German people.  Now what do you think? Completely different circumstances, but what do you think Germans are going to feel?  Are they going to feel differently? Different circumstances entirely, but are they going to feel differently as they have to destroy their economy for other countries that they don’t feel akin to?  It’s insanity how history repeats itself.</p>
<p>I warned two years ago that you’ll see the Nazis rise up again in Germany.  I was mocked, laughed at. Now the Communists and the Nazis in Greece have 20%. The Nazis have a 6-and a-half to 7% approval rating and it’s growing.  When I said that, they had a 0, a .027 approval rating.  Now, that was two years ago.  What happened?  How did that number grow?  Here’s a country, 10% of their population was killed by the Nazis.  Now, I can’t imagine the Nazis coming over here killing our parents or our grandparents and then suddenly saying with the same exact ideas, no apologies, the same sort of statements. I can’t imagine grandma’s dead, killed by the Nazis and I say, &#8220;Well, now I know they killed grandma, but let me give them a listen here.&#8221; What’s happening?  What’s happening is, people have so dishonored themselves.  They have gotten away from basic principles that we all know are true.  We were talking at the table just a few minutes ago about the Ten Commandments.  I don’t care what you call them.  I don’t care if you say they’re Bill the neighbor’s ten safety tips, it’s great.  Can we get seven out of the ten?  What do you say we don’t kill?  What do you say we don’t lie?  What do you say we don’t steal?  What do you say you don’t covet what somebody else has?  And it’s really easy.  Whether they came from God or not doesn’t matter, that’s the problem with our society.  By coveting, by me looking at you and saying:  Yeah, but look what you have.  I want some of that.  You miss this individual.  You miss what you have.  And I guarantee every single one in this room has something of real, tremendous value and if you don’t think so, think again.  Every single one of us was born at this place, at this time for a reason.  Every single one of us play a role.</p>
<p>Dietrich Bonhoeffer lost his life for standing up to the Germans.  He made it all the way; the first time he had problems was the first day that Hitler came on the radio and said: &#8220;I am the chancellor.&#8221;  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was taken off the air that day.  He made it all the way to ten days before Hitler was killed.  They stripped him naked, hung him by a wire in a concentration camp.  He sang and blessed others as he went.  There’s a reason each of us were born.  We all play a role.  We all have something to offer.  We’re all here for a reason.  And when we accept that and we start uniting with people who we may disagree with on a lot of things &#8230; Look, the founders &#8212; we’re in Philadelphia &#8212; the founders disagreed on an awful lot.  I have a great letter from Thomas Paine at home. I’m starting to collect rare documents, rare letters, rare books &#8230; and I have the letter from Thomas Paine to George Washington that says: &#8220;I never thought it would be you that would betray us.&#8221;  They disagreed.  But without Thomas Paine, there would be no Revolution.  There would be no freedom for man.  Without George Washington, there would be no Revolution.  There would be no freedom for man.  We must find our way to each other because freedom is bigger than all of us.  Freedom is so much bigger than our differences &#8230; and that is what is at stake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/glenn-beck-at-the-philadelphia-freedom-center-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1499/1675 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:09:47 by W3 Total Cache -->