Progressive Left Wing Liberal Party

American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,715
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

May 31, 2012 By Michael Filozof


If "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action -- and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.


But it has not always been so.

Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists -- like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

---


The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it -- could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

---


Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.

Conservatives need to stop being suckered by this leftist con game, and they need to do it before November.


Read more: Articles: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy
 
Are Liberals Immoral?

5/31/12 By Jeffrey Folks



Yes, liberals are immoral. The liberal power elite are selfish, hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous, and, worst of all, destructive of those around them. They are willing to saddle everyone else with rules and regulations that do not apply to them, and with higher taxes that they somehow escape paying. The Buffett Rule might sound like a great idea, but it would never apply to the Buffetts of this world. Or the Kerrys, Kennedys, or any other left-wing billionaire.

Liberal do-gooders are always coming up with lovely schemes for redistributing other people's money and managing other people's lives. The problem is that all of these schemes do more harm than good. Welfare, which redistributes wealth to those who cannot work but also to those who avoid working or underreport income, is funded on the backs of those who actually do work. "Saving the planet" costs jobs but never actually saves anything. Killing fossil fuels increases energy costs and triggers inflation across the board. Yet the liberal elite blithely support every cause that comes along with no consideration of the cost to ordinary people. In doing so, they pad their already inflated sense of self-importance, and at no cost to themselves.

Scratch the surface of the liberal elite, and you will find a monstrous contempt for those "beneath" them. Liberals like Barack Obama live and breathe in a realm of utter disdain for ordinary Americans, including congressmen who hail from what the president likes to call "Palookaville." It is not just that they are out of touch; it is that they despise what is normal and decent. They would no more live in the heartland or send their kids to a public school than they would forego an exemption engineered solely to save them money -- the same tax break for the rich that they publicly decry as soooo unfair. It's no surprise that several prominent liberal Democrats made their fortunes as slum lords and ambulance-chasers. Others just married their money.

There's nothing wrong with making money, of course. Mitt Romney earned every penny of his fortune, and to his credit he has never apologized for his success. But the liberal game -- the Kennedy game -- is to pretend to side with the poor and, by doing so, gain political power so as to further line one's own pockets. In all of this, the liberal elite are utterly cynical. I didn't notice any bottle-washers or cleaning ladies admitted to George Clooney's $40,000-per-person fundraiser for President Obama, nor any middle-class Americans, either. The liberal elite's contempt for the rest of us was palpable when Nancy Pelosi noted that "every week we don't pass a Stimulus bill, 500 million Americans lose their jobs," or when in 2004 Teresa Heinz Kerry called Elizabeth Edwards a "mother earth person" who still had a brain.

---


I have yet to hear the Kennedys, the Kerrys, or the Obamas, or any member of the liberal elite, speak with anything but disdain for the faith-centered life. I wish it were not so, but that is why it really does not surprise me that so many of them come to a bad end. If allowed to continue governing, they will bring the country to a bad end as well.



Read more: Articles: Are Liberals Immoral?
 
Progressive Label Rehabilitates the Same Old Liberal Poison

By Bob Ellis on December 29th, 2011

---
Is it clear now why liberals want to call themselves “progressives”? Obviously, they recognize that most Americans reject liberalism for the corrosive, anti-American, self-destructive doctrine that it is. So they have to “repackage” their poison with a better-sounding name to fool people into buying the same old rot. Incidentally, “progressivism” is really a regressive ideology, one centered around the old-world regressive idea that elites can run your life better than you can, the pre-American idea that the average person doesn’t need and shouldn’t have too much freedom.

Is it clear now why, in the “mainstream” media, we never hear mention of “liberal” policies or “liberal” politicians. There are no liberals, in their liberal minds. In the minds of the “mainstream” media, there are only evil conservatives (which interestingly, still comes in at a very popular 62% despite decades of relentless and non-stop slander and demonization by the “mainstream” media and other elites), and “moderates” (another rehabilitative name for “liberal”).

---

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/progressive-label-rehabilitates-the-same-old-liberal-poison/

:eusa_shifty:
 
Mazzaglia: The history of liberal thought

6/3/12 By Frank Mazzaglia

Catholic Liberals might be surprised to learn that their liberalism is rooted in the Anti-Catholicism of the 19th century which delighted in persecuting their own parents and grandparents.

---

More virulent surges of anti-Catholic sentiment in the 1860s and 1870s emerged from Liberal anti-Christians in new forms. An 1866 meeting of Unitarians in Syracuse, N.Y. resulted in a non-Christian group splintering off to form the “Free Religious Association.” The Association’s newspaper, “Index,” founded by Francis Ellinwood Abbot, became popular with atheists, materialists, transcendentalists, spiritualists, and positivists. Abbot’s stated goal was to “replace…a system of dogmas by a system of elastic principles and thus to create intellectual and spiritual unity in the mind of the age.” That drew supporters like Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and Charles Darwin who agreed that the best place to start was in complete separation of church and state. Known as “secularists” or “Liberals,” they demanded a secular version of separation of church and state not just from Catholicism but from all other churches as well.

Abbot realized that the First Amendment needed to be more restrictive. So, to differentiate themselves from Protestant and Unitarian theologically liberal groups, Abbot founded the “National Liberation League” in 1873 which proposed a far more restrictive Amendment that guaranteed complete Separation of Church and State. Liberals now demanded the discontinuance of public money for military chaplains; the end of bible usage in the public schools for any reason; discontinuance of all religious feasts and fasts (like Christmas); the end of judicial oaths in the courts; and passage of a civil law to transform Sunday into a normal work day.



Read more: Mazzaglia: The history of liberal thought - Dedham, Massachusetts - The Dedham Transcript Mazzaglia: The history of liberal thought - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News
 
Last edited:
The Left’s Culture War Against Conservatives

June 4, 2012 by David L. Goetsch

The battles that have been waged for decades over public school curriculums and academic freedom on college campuses are not just about education. In fact, education is just a side issue. Rather, they are battles in a much larger war being conducted against conservatives by the American left. One of the most effective battlegrounds of the left has been the college campus. It is a widely-acknowledged fact that the majority (70 + percent) of college professors identify themselves as being liberal or very liberal. In fact, for a college professor to be viewed as a liberal is a badge of honor. For college professors to be conservative makes them not just rare but unwelcome on college campuses.

College professors are smart people, although they are not necessarily wise. Consequently, liberal professors have become quite adept at using their numerical and positional advantages to suppress thinking that violates leftist orthodoxy. Ironically, the tactics they use to conduct their on-going culture war violate the very principles liberals claim to believe in and live by. They also violate the principles of free speech, free thought, and free inquiry supposedly protected by academic freedom, the philosophical cornerstone of higher education in America.

In an article entitled “Diversity Dishonesty on College Campuses,” Phyllis Schlafly wrote: “Diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance, and political correctness are the watchwords in colleges and universities today. The campus thought police have defined those words to enforce the liberal leftwing agenda. Diversity means diversity only for thoughts and practices that are politically correct. Political correctness means conformity to leftwing orthodoxy. Multiculturalism means all cultures are equal but Western Judeo-Christian civilization is the worst. Tolerance means acceptance of all behaviors except those that comport with the Ten Commandments.”
---

Read More:
The Left
 


President Obama’s Third Party Ties

6/8/12 by Arnold Ahlert

National Review Online writer Stanely Kurtz has been tireless in his efforts to vet Barack Obama. His work in exposing the president’s associations with radical leftists, despite solid evidence, has been dismissed as the efforts of a “right-wing hatchet man” or ignored altogether by a willfully oblivious mainstream media.

In 2008, Kurtz was hammered as someone “pushing a new crackpot smear” by Obama campaign website, Fight the Smears, for a column revealing that Mr. Obama “had been a member of, and endorsed by the hard-left New Party.” He further noted that the New Left “functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).” In a piece published yesterday, Kurtz produced the proverbial smoking gun tying the president to the New Party.

“Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party,” Kurtz writes. “He also signed a ‘contract’ promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.”

---

Politico blogger Ben Smith piled on as well. “Popping up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member,” wrote Smith. Smith then called up New Party founder Joel Rogers, a University of Wisconsin professor, “who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama’s relationship to it.”

---

President Obama’s Third Party Ties | FrontPage Magazine
 



Why Socialism Isn’t Biblical — What Liberals Don’t Get

June 14, 2012 by Tad Cronn

A former associate of mine posted a cartoon the other day that said, “Church: where Republicans go to worship a long-haired socialist hippie who condemned the rich and told people to pay taxes.”

I see this sort of thing a lot from my left-wing friends and others who don’t seem to know much about the Bible but are mightily convinced that it talks about Jesus being a socialist.

Recently, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is as socialist as they come yet calls herself a Catholic, went so far as to say that Catholic archdioceses that have opposed President Obama’s contraceptives mandate — itself part of the biggest piece of socialist legislation to come down the pike in years — don’t represent the church.

There’s no end of left-leaning churchgoers or of entire denominations that have gone over to modern liberalism. So there must be good reason, right?

Actually, the Bible is unabashedly pro-capitalist (although our American form of capitalism doesn’t follow biblical principles, which is part of the reason we’re in our current mess).

From the proclamation “six days shall you work” to the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-28, the Bible promotes the virtue of honest work and the joys of making a profit from that work.

But didn’t Jesus tell rich people to give up all their riches and follow him?

A few times, Jesus did say that, the best known probably being the “eye of the needle” speech.

But was he really saying that rich people couldn’t follow him, or that his followers could never be rich?

No. Take the case of the rich ruler in Luke 18:18-25:

“And a ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: “Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.”‘ And he said, ‘All these I have kept from my youth.’ When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, ‘How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.’”

Follow the conversation closely. Jesus begins by noting the deliberate flattery and stating that no one is good but God, then tells the ruler to follow the commandments. When the ruler says that he has done so, he expects more from Jesus. In other words, the rich ruler assumes there is something special that he can do beyond that which God has commanded of everyone else. The implicit assumption the ruler is making is that he deserves guaranteed entry into heaven before others — in modern terms, he basically wants to reserve the best table for himself.

Jesus apparently picks up on this attitude and tells the man the last thing he wants to hear — that he must give up that which he most prizes, his wealth. It’s the very thing that makes the ruler feel he is special, more deserving than others. In other words, Jesus is really telling the ruler that if he wants to follow, then he needs to bring his ego back down to earth with the “regular” people. This isn’t about money, it’s about pride.

Then Jesus reflects that many wealthy people have the same problem. They’re too attached to their wealth, and it produces exactly the same sort of pride that the ruler had, making it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. (Incidentally, “camel” may be a mistranslation. In Aramaic, the word “gamla” apparently meant both “camel” and “rope” as ropes were made of camel hair.)

But, desperate socialists may point out, didn’t the Apostles of Jesus live in a communal fashion, sharing their wealth and distributing to everyone according to his need?

---

Why Socialism Isn’t Biblical — What Liberals Don’t Get – Patriot Update
 
I so agree Jihad. I really wish conservatives would start a halfway house in those rich liberal neighborhoods, those liberals would fight their ass off not to have one.
 
The Left: Where Greed Meets Envy

6/17/12 By David P. McGinley


---


The evolution of this methodology, once implemented, is quite predictable. First, an enemy is created that must be destroyed in order to help "the people." That enemy can be vague or amorphous, such as "imperialists" or "capitalists," or specific, such as Kulaks or "bankers." Once that enemy is dispatched, however, a new enemy must be created. This scenario, if not stopped, continues until the powerful run out of other people's enemies, at which point the people themselves become the enemy. By that time, the people are helpless, having given away their liberty and self-sufficiency in the pursuit of manufactured vengeance. National slavery ensues.

While the left has its traditional enemies, no one and nothing is immune. Pillars of the community one day are, the next day, transmuted into the cause of national despair. What dictates is political opportunism. Thus, doctors are money-grubbers instead of hardworking healers; the white middle class are gun- and religion-clingers; grandmothers become typical white people; political opponents are racists and must be punished as enemies; advocates of traditional marriage are labeled "haters"; those seeking more self-government are derided as "tea-baggers"; people whose sincerely held religious beliefs would be violated if forced to pay for someone else's birth control or abortion are now at "war with women"; mothers who stay home to raise their children are sneered at for "never working a day in their lives"; self-made women who do not toe the feminist line are the recipients of the most vile of public insults; etc.; etc. The list of the demonized is endless because the left's greed for power is endless.

The left relies on blame and division to accumulate its power. However, without envy, the left could never attain such power in the first place. Those who do not covet the things of their neighbors never form the resentment upon which the left depends. They cannot be manipulated into turning against their neighbors and inevitably against themselves.

God commanded His people not to envy their neighbors. The breaking of this commandment leads to disaster. Envy is self-destructive, and when coupled with the greed for power, it can destroy nations. Yet the left relies upon envy for its power. "They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance" (Micah 2:2 [NIV]).


Read more: Articles: The Left: Where Greed Meets Envy
 
Leftist Talkers, Bloggers Find Conservatives Richly Deserve Colorado Fires, Florida Floods

By Tim Graham | June 28, 2012

Natural disasters have a way of bringing out the worst on the Left. Flooding in Florida and wildfires in Colorado “inspired” nutty talk-show host Mike Malloy and the Daily Kos to rant about how conservatives in these states deserve these disasters because they’re anti-government, and too religious to boot.

Malloy teased from his atheist worldview, “Could that be, you know, Jesus or God saying hey, you know, we're sick of you right-wingers. We're sick of you religious nuts. We're gonna -- we're gonna flood you, we're gonna burn you?” Malloy mused maybe God was punishing the Christians at the Air Force Academy:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Does anyone pay any attention to the irony of all this, the Air Force Academy the most Christer organization in the U.S. military? This is the organization, the U.S. military academy that teaches their young pilots in training or whatever they're going to be in the Air Force -- mechanics, pilots, who knows -- that Muslims are of Satan and they are on a crusade and a mission? Right? So, if any of that is true, I guess Jesus or God heard that and decided, uh, naah, I don't like what you guys are doing and started throwing fireballs! Could that be -- could that be possible?

Malloy compared the fires (with a Reverend Wright echo) to Dresden and Tokyo, where our armed forces “incinerated” Germans and Japanese. Then came Florida:

Meanwhile in a real conservative, just nasty conservatism – uh, north Central Florida – BOOM! Being flooded out. Could that be, you know, Jesus or God saying hey, you know, we're sick of you right-wingers. We're sick of you religious nuts. We're gonna -- we're gonna flood you, we're gonna burn you? I mean, isn't this what the right wing Christians usually say? When somebody says - well, he, you know, was he saved before the fireball hit him? He wasn't? Hmm, must be God - you know, God work in strange ways his wonders to reveal, heh-heh.



Mike also brought up recent tornadoes in the “Bible Belt” Midwest and explained that the believers talk of an angry Old Testament God and his vengeance:

This is a really, belligerent, nasty, hate-filled, saturated-with-drunken-power God! So could it be? Is it possible? Do you suppose within the realm of religious insanity that this God decided to burn the living hell out of Colorado and flood the living hell out of North Florida and smash the central United States with tornadoes?...

What I just said is nonsense, utter nonsense. The fires are burning because nobody paid any attention to global warming. The fires are burning because the residents of the state of Colorado decided, 'we're not going to pay no goddamn taxes! Same thing for the people in north central Florida. 'We don't want no flood control! We don't want anything! Get outta here, government!' That's the cause.

In a similar vein at the Daily Kos, the blogger “Greendem” wrote a post headlined “Colorado Springs, Rescuing Conservative Paradise.”

---

Leftist Talkers, Bloggers Find Conservatives Richly Deserve Colorado Fires, Florida Floods | NewsBusters.org
 
Radical Progressives: How Tides Washes the Left’s Money

7/2012 By Rachel Swaffer

In 2010, a collection of the most radical progressive organizations in the United States received a total of $113,900,000 in charitable donations, all stemming from one foundation: Tides– the grant-making non-profit that has been taking care of liberals’ dirty laundry for over 35 years now, helping obscure the money trail to radical activist organizations.

Tides’ 2010 list of grantees includes extreme left-wing and progressive organizations: Media Matters, Planned Parenthood, PETA, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACORN, Democracy Now, Healthcare for America Now, and Taxpayers for Common Sense (and many, many more).

The genius of the Tides foundation is that it allows donors to support radical activist groups while maintaining near complete anonymity – crucial for groups and individuals with their fingers in multiple, possibly contradictory, political pies.

In short, Tides accepts money from progressive and left-leaning donors – both individuals and large corporations – and then grants these donations back out to radically progressive groups, bank-rolling the left while preserving the anonymity that is so important to their donors.

---
Radical Progressives: How Tides Washes the Left’s Money | The Guardian Express
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top