Is Progressive Regressive?

Now for the sake of this discussion, I sat up one night and wondered why so many of my friends have abandon the term “liberal” and prefer to use the term “Progressive”. Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame said he was proud to be Liberal and I have heard this many times coming from others as well.

It confuse me because one of my friends once gave me a long list of what he considers Progressive polices, which corresponds with the same liberal polices. Nothing change other than the name. So why the change? Well there is a political motive behind this. There is a move over the years to protraye the democrat party and the polices behind it as more moderate than the liberal world behind it.

The Republicans stupidly have given ground to the Democrats by acting more liberal than conservative, through not living up to the very values Reagan and many other conservatives believe. From monstrous budgets to over spending on nearly every pet project around. This was the very reason the democrats won control of the congress in 2004. Literary give control to nut jobs like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

Suddenly the democrats acted more conservative than the Republicans. Out conservative the conservatives.
Yet not having to prove a Damm thing since their spending programs were just as bad and just as wild as Republicans.

In comes jumping in the newer title of being “Progressive” rather than liberal. A newer version of the same old story.
Going from renewable fuels to unionzation, Progressives could be called a political oxymoron since none of the so-call progressive inatitives are in actually liberal.
Each inatitionive would in effective strip people rights, some would even turned back the clock on including re-instituting Traiffs. It would prevent real competation in the market place and are trade deficits with other countries would go higher than what we currently have.

Our bank notes with other countries would increasing be withdrawn and create more umemployment. Strong unionization would in effect create more umemployment, our so-called crumbling infrastructure would continue to crumb since local and state governments would not have the money.

Federal deficits would run higher than what we currently have and with even higher cost on future so-called progressive programs tax reveune would botton out.

Trying to tax the rich and corporations would just create more umemployment since companies would not expand.

What Liberals and Progressives have never learned is simple and easy to understand when government taxes people suffer and in doing so there isn’t Progression, it is Regression.

One of my friends wrote the following These programs would:

“create a stable, prosperous middle class like we had before Reaganomics.”

Sadly Reaganomics was a progressive moment leading from the 80’s into the 90’s If a policy moves them closer to those two goals, they will find a reason to advocate it, regardless of how harmful the consequences of that policy may be.

Even the belief behind it is anything but regressive, It advocates a return to what they consider the good ole days of can I say liberalism.

Progressive moments promote individual rights, self determination and freedom and yet the progressives in the current moment wants to force unionization, universal healthcare, abortion without parental notification and restriction on trade. all of which is regressive. Is this so-called progressive moment freedom, or a danger to Freedom as we know it?

Blagojevich-Obama Scandal

We are now engage in what would consider one of th most diasterous scandels in democrat history and the question on everyones minds is not wheather the Illinois Governor commited a crime, but what did the President Elect know and when did he know it.

The President Elect comes from the wheeling and dealing of Chicago corruption, the only question is how much does his royal highness is evolved. The clean Boy Scout imagine that Obama will not fly as far as this blogger is concered and I like to see more of his evolvement investigated, before Obama raises his hand on Jan. 20th, and of course it would not be.

Obama briefly addressed the media, “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening. It’s a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment.”

This actually doesn’t make any sense what so ever. He either dosen’t know anything or he isn’t even aware how sad a day it really is for IIlinois? Is that not confusing to many?

When the criminal complaint was announced by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, he stated that “there is no allegation in the complaint that the president-elect was aware of it and that is all I can say!”

However according to ABCNews.com.
The 76-page criminal complaint refers to the president-elect and his representatives at least 40 times, however.
Item No. 99 in the document states that Blagojevich and Harris spoke on Nov. 7 with “Adviser B,” a Washington, D.C.-based consultant presumably working on behalf of the Obama transition team.

So we are to understand that Blagojevich indicated to many that that he would appoint a person the complaint identifies only as “Senate Candidate 1” -- presumably a candidate preferred by the Obama administration, which seem to be Valerie Jarrett, and in return for Blagojevich being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by Obama.

And of course there is Jessie Jackson Jr. who seems to be the number 5 pick by the corrupt governor and some of the favorites to replace Obama in the Senate.

During the conversations with Obama’s representatives, Blagojevich repeatedly made it clear he would not agree to name “Senate Candidate 1” to fill the position without a quid pro quo from the White House, if only indirectly, according to the complaint.

Blagojevich stated he wanted to make $250,000 to $300,000 annually.
The criminal complaint indicates Blagojevich and his staff were confident they could exact something from at least one candidate for the seat which some indicate is Jessie Jackson Jr.

Based on the complaint, it remains unclear whether any close Obama associate knew that Blagojevich was seeking monetary gain in return for the Senate appointment, but ceratinly it would seem that enough knew this and since they did not report it in a timely way could raise serious legal issues for the Obama Transition team.

If nothing else, the complaints represent an embarrassment to Obama given his support for Blagojevich’s gubernatorial reelection bid.

RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan released a statement calling Obama’s reaction to the arrests “insufficient at best.”
He added, “Given the President-elect’s history of supporting and advising Gov. Blagojevich, he has a responsibility to speak out and fully address the issue.”

However some would also indicate that when Obama takes office he would fire all 93 US Attorneys - claiming he wanted a clean slate.


This could afford Obama a oppotunity to sweep this scandal under the rug and since Blagojevich have had aclose relationship it remain to be told it Obama will axe Fitzgerald for cover? I do not believe Obama is as slick as Bill Clinton. BUt we are looking at a part of the corrupt Chicago Machine.

What seems to be a problem for Obama is his relationship with Blagojevich when he was running for Governor. How do you lie and say your contact is not extensive and be one of the contributors to his Blagojevich campaign in 2002?

Rahm Emanuel says that he, Obama and others "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. Obama adviser David Axelrod worked for Blagojevich in his races for Congress

ABC's Jake Tapper reported that Obama told the crowd, "We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Wll knowing the liberal or so-called Progressive Press we all can be sure that this would not be investigated before Jan. 20th... We always have Fox News!

Gov. Patterson: Saturday Night live Skip

I sorry, but I did enjoy this skip yesterday. SNL They doesn't owe anyone an apology. This is the nature of the show. Patterson's getting upset at this skit because it's making fun of his "disability" (he's not completely blind, anyway) and meanwhile he cuts the funding for the budget of the developmentally disabled & the mentally ill. What's worse than making fun of a disability is taking away funding that aids in their empowerment and independence. Blind in more ways than one.

Fellow Business Executives:

Editors Note: I received this from a friend and he thought it was quite fair, so what do you think?

As the CFO of this company of 140 employees, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that Clients will have to see an increase of about 8% in our fees. But since we cannot increase our fees right now, due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled through our parking lot and found 6 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I'm giving it to them.

Have a nice day.

Are Conservatives Nazis?

Editors Note:
Many years ago I wrote this piece concerning the poor excuse that some liberals use to calling conservatives, neocons, comparing us with Nazis. As you can seem that has been a very poor excuse and outright lie. The sad thing is must of the people who claim that are themselves Representative of National socialist than any conservative. So here goes:


Back in August 1996 when In the last two weeks of February, conservatives were shocked to see the onslaught the media mounted against Pat Buchanan and his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Even with all the distortion that conservatives have come to expect from the liberal biases of the newspaper and Television, the attacks on Buchanan seemed to go well beyond what most could remember or imagine.

Major newspapers, magazines, and columnists all piled on Buchanan to insinuate or claim outright that he is a "fascist," an "extremist," a "Nazi," a "racist," an "anti-Semite," a "xenophobe," a "sexist," a "homophobe," and a "nativist," not to mention half a dozen other epithets typical of left-wing demonology.


Many insisted on calling Conservatives, Nazis who they disagree with and it’s not just some that do it! Linda Ronstadt, who said of the 2004 election, ''Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers.'' And then there is Harry Belafonte who to used the same Hitler analogy when asked what impact prominent blacks such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had on the Bush administration's relations with minorities.

"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," Belafonte said


1 A Director of Holocaust studies would describes This is Incorrect: "The fact is that there were no Jews in Hitler's hierarchy; the policies of America and Israel are not similar to those of Hitler; and African-American conservatives are not comparable to Nazis."

And so many other personalities like David Hoffman, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), novelist/priest Andrew Greeley, former Vice-President Al Gore, and multi-billionaire anti-American George Soros (founder of MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups) have all destroyed their own arguments by invoking Nazi comparisons, as have many other politicians, artists, pundits, and garden-variety liberals.

That right, you all are Nazis, capital N with a.z.i.s. at the end, a pet insult that many liberals use for people too stupid to whole- hardheartedly embrace the liberal or progressive nightmare of policies. Why, they must all be mind-controlled. They must all be... Nazis!

Their is even a slur to describe Conservatives as “Neo-con”, my guess with this term they are using Nazis and conservatives in the same breath. This reaction comes from the conservatives use of the “liberal” a title conservatives use for them. The liberal term has become such a problem for the democrat party that they started to run away from it for a time. The “Neo con” label is something liberals would believe that conservatives would run away in the same fashion. They think that the public would embrace the title and compare conservatives with Nazis.

So Many liberals like to taunt conservatives with the term Nazi without understanding what it really means, the same way a three-year-old will endlessly repeat any four-letter words someone might happen to drop in front of him or her. The more you say, ''Don't say that; it's a bad word'' the more likely you are to hear it.

The Nazi slander is so over-abused that there's even a rule concerning it on the Internet, called Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Sooner or later, someone's going to resurrect the Nazis... and whoever does so is generally understood to have lost the argument.

Comparing someone to a Nazi involves far more of an emotional appeal than a factual argument, unless the person is, in fact, a card-carrying Nazi. If you're not actually discussing genocide and brutal world domination, the Nazi comparison is just plain offensive. What confuses most people is its frequent application to pretty much anybody to the ideological right of Lenin.

In fact, the Nazis were actually socialists by nature, not capitalists. In a 1927 speech, Hitler said, ''We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.''

The word ''Nazi'' is short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler came to power by turning the unemployed, the working class, and the academic elitists against the rather conservative German republic. In fact, once he gain power, anyone who questioned his policies was branded a ''conservative reactionary'' by the state press.

In a widely distributed 1932 pamphlet, Joseph Goebbels addressed the question of Socialism. ''We are socialists,'' he wrote, ''because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.''

The Nazi Party platform contained 25 demands, adopted in 1920 and essentially unaltered at the time Hitler took power. Many of those socialist demands resonate far better with modern-day American liberals than Conservatives. Consider the following examples:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Does this sound more akin to the liberal belief that the government is responsible for job losses or gains, or the conservative position that jobs are created by private enterprise (though helped or hindered by current economic policies)? Does it sound like a demand for welfare?

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

This is aimed directly at landlords and large business owners. It hardly seems likely that capitalists and conservatives would insist that no one receive any money unless he personally earn it by doing the actual work themselves.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

If that doesn't sound like today's standard liberal hate speech against Halliburton, nothing ever will.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Nationalization of industries is hardly in line with the conservative aim of privatization of industries. It's liberals, in general, who want to nationalize industries (starting with healthcare).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Wealth redistribution? Does that sound like a particularly right-wing ideal?

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Republicans and conservatives are accused of wanting to halt Medicare and steal Social Security in every election cycle, so this demand for expansion could hardly be a part of any conservative agenda.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.

Conservatives, who favor more limited government with lower taxes (in order to restrict its growth), would directly oppose a strong central government with unlimited authority (possibly resisting with guns, which German citizens first had to register, then surrender).

Despite the historical facts, liberals frequently insist on equating conservatives and Republicans to Nazis. This is only done to stir up feelings of hate, of course. If Democrats want to know why they keep losing elections, it's because they allow the left-wing politics of hatred to be their public face. Until the Democrats relegate liberals to the minority fringe where they belong, we will continue to see the country slide towards a one-party system, which would be detrimental to us all.

Editors note: I do believe that in someways Obama will have to get as far away from the Left wing reactionaries as possible.

Liberal (Progressive) Fascism: A Review

A new book by Jonah Goldberg what defines Liberalism and the history of it. In my course of Studies I found my Progressive coworkers here at the University and some friends trying to change the term for Liberal for a newer term as Progressives. The thinking I suppose is that in most American minds the words strike fear, most believe rightly, that it represents Higher taxes, a cowardice in the face of our enemies in this country. They have even try to redefine what conservatives are, But that is for another column.

Goldberg, the editor-at-large for National Review Online, argues in his book that fascism under Benito Mussolini and Nazism and even under Adolf Hitler came from the same intellectual source as Progressives, the birth-mother of American liberalism. The term “liberal fascism” comes from a speech made by author H. G. Wells when he told a group of Young Liberals at Oxford that Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”

However true, you may want to note that some liberals in the want to return to their roots and to be call "Progressives" Like some of my educated friends who see road blocks in using the term liberal. The new version with the old framework, very much similar to the Obama administration who use the word "Change" and find out that the same discredited Clinton administration officials willing be running the show, including Hillary herself.


Many people have called me a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings, and yet Goldberg claims that the accurate definition and history of fascism, a word which he claims is commonly misused. In the Book the author writes:

“Many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror.....Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the square like seditious pamphleteers.”

It’s not at all, that we don’t believe them when they claim superiority, it’s just we see so many contradictions when they used it.

Proposition 8 was a perfect example of modern day progressive behavior run a mock. Progressive Gays, lost the election the second time around. They felt it necessary to find a group to protest against, so who did choose to complaint about the lost of the election. A religious group that only represents 2 percent of California’s population.

That right, the Mormons! They picketed the temples, they picketed Mormon businesses and then they file sue about the church in courts and want to strip the church of it’s tax exempt status. They even came up with a list of people who donated money to promote the proposition and post it on the Internet to I suppose threaten them. On that very list they indemnified those who were Mormon and those who were not. How very Nazi them to do that!! What is sad and even embarrassing is that they the LDS Church did not spend one dine to defeat the proposition, not one penny.

Does this not remind you of the Nazi’s of the mid 20th century who claim the Jews were the evils of the world and did the same thing. However, Mormons are use to this, being one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the United States. Who would suspect liberal Progressives would be the storm troopers of the 21st century?

Goldberg attributes this side of fascism to American liberalism would not be associated with the works of George Orwell or the racism and genocide of the Holocaust.

It is much less brutal a kinda “smiley-face fascism,” as he puts it. Goldberg claims that some “Progressives hold very similar views to the many Regine's of the past, and everyone is taken care of. This seems to be base n the perfectibility of the people and the authority of experts; and where everything is political, including health and well-being.


It seems that the Nazis were strong promoters of organic foods and animal rights and promoted anti smoking and public health drives.

“The Nazi war on smoking would make Michael Bloomberg’s heart jump,” Goldberg jokingly said
According to Goldberg, fascism has a long history in American politics, spanning back to President Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and it seems that some fascist tendencies were within the presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Each tried to create an “all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing” state. His book traces more recent signs of fascist ideology in the economic ideas of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore. So how did fascism become associated with the political right? Goldberg asserts that this stems from the propaganda surrounding Marxism. In the 1920s, fascist ideas were popular among the American left as many saw Italian Fascism as a “worthwhile experiment.”


The German version that emerged in the 1930s had considerably less appeal. “The American left essentially picked a different team—the Red team,” Goldberg writes, “and as such swore fealty to communist talking points about fascism.”

At the same time, Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, found it beneficial to label all ideas which he did not agree with as fascist; this included socialists who were disloyal to Moscow and, of course, the political right. Those loyal to his social doctrine also began to see communism and fascism on opposite ends when, as Goldberg asserts, both are in fact socialist in nature. Hence the abbreviation to “Nazis” is National Socialist Party.

Goldberg asserts that Liberal Fascism is different from fascism of the past because today’s left are pacifists rather than militarists; their plan is to nanny, not to bully. Still, he warns that this method can be just as politically hazardous.

“Simply because the nanny state wants to hug you doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical when you don’t want to be hugged,” Goldberg concluded...”

It is not surprising however, that the many in the progressive fascism were sadden when the fascist Regine of Saddam Hussien was removed by those evil Americans or come to the defense of a fascist like Hugo Chavez by some in the progressives or liberals. Why they support such regimes is mind blowing!

Liberal fascism is a interesting read, What I have learn from it is sitting in my friend’s car and listening to it on the I-pod.

My close Friend thinks, I wasn’t listening, but it sure be nice if he would simply give me the book as a Christmas Present and let me read it rather than let me digest it in a car going 40 miles a hour. Hint Hint!!!

Shutting Up Churches

A long standing approach by liberals or so-called progressives is to use labels, and yet they are the ones that so often complain about the use of them. In the case of the Mormon church being involved in politics they often say something like the following:

“If the Mormon church or any other church wants to be involved in politics then they should give up their tax exempt status.”

Or they, the liberals want to take that tax exempt status away from the church in order to shut people up. In other words they threaten the church, “to be seen and not heard.” Politically castrating the churches role in society. A common tactic use in Europe and other socialist countries.

Liberals have a habit of claiming that a church does not have a right to say anything on a Moral issue once it becomes a political one. Marriage is a example of this. Not long ago, Gays would not even attempt to enter a marriage believing that the institution was the root cause of so much pain to them.

The whole make up of these types of marriages have lend themselves to abuse of the extended family or children involved in the relationships either adopted or whatever. It is a disaster waiting to happen, with complications that far out way heterosexual marriages.

One blogger indicated that something I would assume maybe right and that is the ultimate ending of marriage as a recognizable entity in California and most states, over the fact that the people of California have spoken.

This would in most aspects end not only marriage, but also divorces or for that matter child support. leaving it to the State to raise our children and co-opting marital and parental responsibility. This is all for the sake of making a institution between a man and a woman equal to all or what they think is equal?

For those who think this is simple by just extending the definition, have another thing coming. For those who feel the Mormon church or any church involved would be solved if tax exempt status was taken away have another bag of worms to be opened.

So if the Mormon church lost their tax exempted status they would in affect become a mouth piece for the state, a status where speech could be dictated under IRS laws and government interference.

What wold occur under this situations is preaching from the government. Closing down the church would become easy and like businesses a new more respectable “governmental” Church President wold become likely. Naturally the Mormon church is not going to stop talking about issues that effect the members belonging to it, and no amount of demonstrating would alter what it as a church feels is a Moral issue. This of course the same reasoning they are using for abortion.

Of course, many use the old tired red herring in the Mormon church’s past history with polygamy and of course Liberals excuse for the destruction of marriage on the whole. It is another interesting fact that Polygamy on the was never Gay. Even if those who use the excuse as a reason for alternative marriage it is in essence a silly argument and without merit since the Mormon Church gave up the practice more than a hundred years ago. The whole concept of shutting up a church on moral issues is amazing to me.

Churches on the whole expose Slavery as a Moral wrong, I realized some would jump onto this statement as a excuse for Gay marriage issue, but in this case the church is protecting a Moral issue in the same matter as it did when dealing with slavery.

For those who claim that gay marriage should find protection under the United States Constitution need to attend school to understand what is protected under this document.

Marriage, between a man and a woman, is protected as a fundamental right, having its foundation in both the history and traditions of this great nation. Homosexuality, however, has no such foundation. To the contrary, this conduct has a long history of being condemned and punished.

As such, it is not afforded the same protection as heterosexual marriage. This was why interracial marriage, although previously condemned, was legalized. Those who sought to be married to persons of other races still sought to enter this institution as a man and a woman.

Also, the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment does not protect against all forms of discrimination. The discrimination must come from the state government, or someone empowered to act by the state, and the discrimination usually is against a protected class. This includes race, national origin, gender, disability, etc. Homosexuals are not a protected class. and do not qualify for protection as such.

Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts!