The Progressive Movement - Enemy Of The People

An Essay


As with most things "the devil is in the details". So, let me start by offering some definitions.

The below Venn Diagram depicts a relative overlap of peoples' political leanings:

As one can see there is considerable overlap. This offering is NOT about Republicans vs. Democrats. It is about ideologies and how the approaches of the Progressives have been and are threatening our nation. For simplicity I will only use Progressives and Conservatives in this discussion.

A Note: The media attempts to group those who are Liberal by nature and belief with those who are Progressive. This is a falsehood. Whereas a Liberal may share many of the desires of Progressives - and many of Conservatives for that matter, the approaches to achieve the goals are radically different. The goals of many Liberals are noble. The issue arises when it comes to who is responsible for achieving the goals and how their desires are funded. Is it the government and tax dollars? Apparently the US Constitution says "No!". See Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. The primary author of our Constitution, James Madison, had this to say on the subject: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

So, some definitions:

Conservative: Believes in personal responsibility as opposed to government help or control. Believes that the nation is a nation of laws, the US Constitution is such a law and should be followed strictly - change it or follow it, there is no other viable option.

Progressive: Believes that the people are subservient to the government and follow the offerings of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals as well as those of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven (i.e., Cloward-Piven) to advance their agenda(s).

One need only to review the strategies contained in 'Rules for Radicals' and advocated by Cloward-Piven in context with what is going on with the government in this nation to see that my definition is accurate.

Or, a look from "30,000 feet" might illucidate:

The basic mantra of the Conservative is one of individual responsibility with the government serving only to protect and facilitate the individual in his/her striving for success.

The basic mantra of the Progressive is that the government knows what is best for its people and the government "will provide".

Or, the Progressives employ a curious combination of the "Robin Hood Syndrome" and the "Lone Ranger Syndrome". As we all know, the motto of Robin Hood was "steal from the rich and give to the poor". The Lone Ranger and Tonto, as every story went, rode into a town beset with villainous criminals, rid the town of the villainous, and then rode out of town - leaving the townsfolk no better able to fend for themselves than when they rode in. The townfolk were "dependent" on the Lone Ranger and Tonto for their safety and well being - they were unable to defend themselves on their own.

So as not to seem to offer that Progressives are new to the political arena, they started "quite" a while ago. President Theodore Roosevelt {1901-09} (you know, the one who allowed the lie about his "attack" on San Juan Hill to be promulgated), President William Howard Taft {1909-13}, President Woodrow Wilson {1913-21} (you know, the one who "segregated" the government workforce - including the military), and President F. D. Roosevelt {1933-45} (you know, the one who put all Japanese Americans into internment camps and who threatened the Supreme Court over Social Security), are often referred to as the "Progressive Presidents"; their administrations saw intense social and political change in American society. After them the Progressive movement, mainly, took a back seat until the current administration. For a very informative article on T. Roosevelt & W. Wilson and progressivism Click Here.

During this discussion the subject of race will come up. Up front, let me state that I will be using the scientific names for races - not the colloquial names in wide use today. I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone by using the wrong colloquialism. (sarcasm intended)

America today would be unrecognizable to Americans of even 10 years ago. The progressive political agenda is being fueled and promoted by our government, the media in general, and the most pernicious concepts - Dependence and Political Correctness combined with Protected Groups. I will deal with the "dependence" issue a little later.

OK. What do I mean by Political Correctness combined with Protected Groups? Let me explain.

The progressive cause has been gaining strength in this country for many years. Of late, however, its rise seems exponential. It seems to have as its base philosophy a quote from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." And, it's all about power and control.

The Protected Groups are defined, if not officially then by perception, by progressives who include the current administration, its complicit media, certain members of Congress, and the myraid of people supporting them. The Protected Groups include:

- By Race: All those but the Caucasian Race (unless they happen to support the Progressive movement).

- By Religion: All those but Christians and Jews

- By Political Persuasion: All those who are progressives

- By Law Enforcement: Progressives and those not Caucasian.

- By Immigration: All those except legal immigrants, US citizens, and those exhibiting Western culture.

- By Military: All those except military personnel upholding their oath to protect the US Constitution.

I realize that the above (partial) list seems not to be reasonable. However, the facts support this notion. Further, while any single event I will discuss may be relegated to "coincidence", the collection of events can not. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts!" But, this all has to do with establishing "control" via the motto of Philip II of Macedon, "Divide and Rule". This motto/approach has been used successfully throughout history from the ancient Greeks to Caesar to Machiavelli (see his Book VI of The Art of War) to Louis XI of France to Napoleon and on to the present day.

And this is where Political Correctness comes in to support the "Divide and Rule" approach using, in part, Lenin's quote.

During the recent Ferguson, MO debacle, where a Caucasian police officer shot and killed an unarmed, 6 ft. 4 inch, 292 pound Negroid 18 year old who had just robbed a store and had attacked the police officer, Obama sent in Eric Holder to "supervise" the investigation. Why? Clearly this was a case of "racism" - or, so we were told by this administration and the media. "Meanwhile, back at the ranch...", 2 days after the shooting in Ferguson, MO a Negroid police officer shot and killed an unarmed Caucasian-Hispanic 20 year old in Salt Lake City. Why did this not make the major news feeds? Why did Obama not send in Holder? Why did not the race batters, Jackson & Sharpton, quickly move in? Political Correctness was at play; in this latter case the victim was not of Negroid ethnicity. It did not fit the "Protected Group" scenario. Click Here for the story on this.

We've all read or heard about a single person or small group of people protesting the seasonal display of a Christmas tree or a Menorah. The result being the display being removed. Or, the story of a Muslim woman complaining about a restaurant owner having a sign advertising that bacon was served. The result was the sign was taken down. Political Correctness is at play here due to not wanting to hurt someone's sensibilities - especially one having "Protected Group" designation.

The government goes to great lengths to ensure that voting is available to all, even without proving a person is a citizen of our country. Voting ID laws are cited as "racist" even though one needs a valid ID to do almost anything, including obtaining health care. Click Here for a story on this.

And, then, there's the story of Eric Holder not filing charges against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) for voter intimidation in PA. Part of his defense in not taking the correct legal action was that these were "his people" and the criminal behavior of the NBPP could not be compared to the unjust activities against Negroids long ago. The NBPP is part of a "Protected Group" and Political Correctness apples. To prosecute the NBPP would be "racist".

Of course there's the IRS scandal where conservatives were targeted by the progressive element of the IRS. This targeting had the effect of curtailing voter awareness of the ills of progressives during the election cycle for president. Conservatives are not a "Protected Group".

And, it goes even further. Take the example of the Ft. Hood shooter who, in 2009, murdered some 13 people and injured some 30 more. He is an avowed radical Muslim. Obama refused, and still refuses, to classify his action as one of "terrorism". Thus, the brave military persons harmed by this lunatic have been refused deserved pay associated with harm due to a terrorist act. In fact, this murderer has recently asked to become a citizen of the Islamic State. Click Here for a story on this. Why would the president deny benefits to our militray personnel? Nidal Hasan, the murderer, is part of a Protected Group and the injured militray personnel, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, are not.

Consider the number of Islamic Radicals (i.e., Protected Group?) in positions of importance within this administration's perview. Click Here for details! Does this seem reasonable?

The president downplays the threat of radical Islamics at every turn. Most recently he has stated that “[I] promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago”. The Protected Group must be protected! He states this in direct conflict with much available intel indicating the opposite - Click Here and Click Here and Click Here and Click Here.

Then, there the story of US Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi who has been held in a Mexican jail since last March 2014. Our government - nor the president - has done nothing to free him. The latest on this abuse of one of our military is the response from the White House on the issue. Click Here for the story on this. But, they have made illegal immigrants violating our borders feel welcome and the government is encouraging even more illegals to come over the border. Sgt. Tahmooressi is not a member of a "Protected Group" and to refuse entrance into our country of illegal Hispanics, radical Islamic terrorists, drug smugglers, and the like would be "racist". Political Correctness raises its ugly head once more. Whatever happened to "LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!" ? But, is this all that is going on here? More on this later.

The central "tool" being used by progressives is the thwarting of our Constitution's First Amendment - you know, the one that speaks to freedom of speech and freedom of (not "from") religion.

Freedon of speech is a "right" of all Americans. Correct? After all, it is so stated in our Constitution. Well, not so much anymore. People are vilified for speaking almost anything that potentially might offend someone else, even a single individual - as long as that individual is one of the "Protected Groups".

It seems that any and all criticisms of this administration, its leaders and policies - no matter how far from the Constitution the leaders and policies go - are deemed "racist" by progressives. And, by all criticisms I mean that almost literally. Click Here for a rather typical and absurd example. Even when the criticism is logical, founded in proper legal argument, and offered in the spirit of bettering the country, the cry of "racist" is used. No valid, logical aruments in rebuttal are offered, just the cry of "racist". That's why they envoke Lenin's quote - they have no other rebuttal.

History is being rewritten to obfuscate the factual positions, beliefs, and actions of persons of old. Media outlets, MSNBC for but one example, are actually editing offerings of what a person says to project the exact opposite of what that person actually said. Why? Because the original statement(s) do not fit into their and the government's progressive agenda. For actual examples of this, Click Here.

And, it is not just relegated to "changing the news". Anything that smacks of facts not supporting the progressive agenda is attacked. One need only look at the government forced educational standards called "Common Core". In these standards, for an example, the description of the Boston Tea Party labels the persons responsible as "terrorists". In teaching students about President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, teachers are instructed to ONLY read the address and not provide any context of the times surrounding the giving of the address.

Consider this scenario: A history teacher is offering to the class quotes from historial figures. The following 2 quotes are presented:

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."

"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."

Now, imagine the hew and cry by the media, the federal government, and every progressive out there were this to be an actual event. The teacher would be called a racist, would be fired, Eric Holder would immediately be directed to investigate, and people would riot.

The historical person who uttered these quotes? Abraham Lincoln. The first quote was spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273. The second quote was from the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; Vol. 3, pp. 145-146.

The above scenario is Political Correctness at work against those not toeing the line proscribed by progressives against those not in a Protected Group. All this is about "CONTROL" - control of the American people through lies, fear, and intimidation.

Remember "Divide and Rule"? Political Correctness offers the splitting of people into camps, one against the other, via intimidation. People have lost their livelihood for offering the "wrong" opinion; children have been removed from schools for the silliest of reasons deemed not Politically Correct; and businesses have been forced to shut down for similar reasons.

It is far easier to manage (or, control) smaller groups than a single large one. So, if one can engender fear and intimidation, one group against another, the job of establishing control becomes a foregone conclusion.

Let's start with "dependency". If a large enough segment of the population is "dependent" upon the government for its basic needs, that segment will have little incentive in "voting out of office" the very people who provide their needs. Fear of not being able to provide for yourself or your family is a strong motivator.

Consider: 50% of our population pay no federal income tax, 35% of our population are on some form of government subsistance (e.g., welfare), the minimum wage in 35 of our States is less than the standard welfare payout. So, a valid question for a person "down on their luck" in these states is "Why work? And the list of such goes on and on. The dependency on the government grows. But, even this is not enough for the progressives to establish absolute control - in their minds.

Enter into the equation unemployment, illegal immigration, and the Affordable Health Care Act (or, Obamacare, if you prefer).

Let's see how just these three can increase dependency.

On Unemployment:

We are informed by this administration that unemployment hovers around 6.2%. Now, this number is not exactly a lie. The published rate comes from the U3 rate. This U3 rate discounts all those who have stopped looking for work. This administration and prior administrations have all used this rate to track unemployment. However, if one is interested in the "real" rate of unemployment, one must look for the U6 rate which tracks all those truly out of work. The U6 rate is equal to 12.2% at the time of this posting.

And, what do the 12.2% of eligible works do when they have no jobs? They file for unemployment benefits and/or go on welfare, of course. These people are now dependent on the government for their livelihood and the welfare of their families.

On Illegal Immigration:

It is well advertised that those who come here illegally, we are being told, are doing so to seek employment. Let's not address, now, the numbers of drug trafficers and terrorists that are also streaming across our Southern border. Let's just stick with those seeking work.

Since unemployment of our own citizens is high, adding yet more people with little or no skills to "market" is just adding to the number of people being subsidized by the government.

It is being advertised by this administration that "amesty" is being considered for many millions of these illegal immigrants. And, this administration is even advertising to those who have been deported to return. The influx of illegal immigrants will soon overpower the welfare roles causing the government to take "extraordinary" measures - read this as more control over our people via the progressives desire to "redistribute" wealth from the "rich" to the "poor".

Remember, NOW 50% do not pay federal income tax and 35% NOW are on some form of welfare. The dependency on the government is increasing and, therefore, control by the government is ever increasing.

Now, add in the fact that this administration "demands" that any and all voter ID laws are "racist". It requires no high degree of intelligence to see that these illegal immigrants will vote, even illegally, for the persons most directly in a position to continue to offer more "free stuff". Thus, the control swings ever upwards.

On The Affordable Healt Care Act

The fact that the law, when passed, was some 1,000 pages in length pales in comparison to the number of pages deemed necessary to detail the "rules" by which it is to be enforced - 20,000 pages and counting, to be exact.

Now, as most of us know, buried within those rules are directives to employers (under penalty of law, by the way) as to what types of coverage they must offer and how much coverage. What effect is this having?

Take a business which employs, say, 100 employees. To adhere to these rules would be so costly that the employer, in order for the business to survive, has basically 2 options. Lay people off or close the business.

Either option increases the number of people on welfare of some sort. More dependency, this!

(As a side note here, above I mentioned the rules that go with the health care law. Take a look at the volume of overall government regulations that have been added since the year 1950 - all these we must follow: Click Here. With this volume of "rules" is there any part of our lives that is not "controlled" in some manner by the government?)

Let's change topics a bit. Let's discuss the aspect of "fear" that enables progressives.

If one has not read the 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton, "State Of Fear", I highly recommend it. In short, it parallels the concept of "Global Warming" to a tee. Yes, global warming has gotten such bad press for its inaccuracies that the progressives had to change the name to "Climate Change" - it's still the same thing, however.

Global warming was, and is, nothing but an attempt to strike fear into the public. With it came talks of "Carbon Tax", or another name for added control of our people. In fact, it is also just another means of wealth redistribution. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor", this is.

For signing on to the global warming theory, people were promised grant monies and heightened prestige. Those opposed were threatened with loss of jobs and denigration in their profession. "Divide and Rule" combined with growing numbers of those dependent on goverment, again, still.

Prognostications of melting ice caps were uttered with a 100% degree of certainty. Well, look at the latest on this bogus prediction - as well as this commentary.

One of Obama's Chiefs-Of-Staff once offered: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." Oh, so correct! Especially if one can create a crisis that doesn't exist.

Enough for now!


Summary:

Progressivism is a road to a socialist state. Throughout history no socialist state has survived. Why? A quote incorrectly attributed to Margaret Thatcher, "..Soon you run out of other people's money.", is the answer. Or, if you prefer a few comments by Winston Churchill on socialism, Click Here.

Be wary of the progressive's potential allure; as Thomas Sowell once wrote: Progressives "are often wrong but never in doubt."

Additional supporting links:

Ferguson Used By Progressives

NBPP & Ferguson

Quotes

Dependence On Government

Violence In America

Welfare Growing Faster Than Job Creation

Return Of deported Illegal Immigrants

Welfare More Than Minimum Wage

Welfare Spending Increases

A Critique of Common Core

Welfare Then And Now