Posted on 04/01/2012 3:52:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
That's because the word itself is tailored to imply some relationship with progress, but in reality, it does not.
Progressives don't want to make our country better, they want to make it different.
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own. But some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labor must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
Of the Several Forms of Government, Section VI, St. George Tucker, "View of the Constitution of the United States" 1803
Their concept of 'social justice' isn't about equality rights, but equality of condition. That's what wealth distribution is all about!
A totally socialist concept if there ever was one, IMHO.
“Progressives Simply Do Not Like The United States”
I don’t think there’s much that progressive like. As a generalization I find them to be the most sour and joyless people I’ve ever encountered, and they just don’t enjoy the miracle of being alive so they spend all their effort trying to nanny state others into their own state of misery.
Lithwick's profoundly ignorant comments and Hunter's reaction to them have triggered exactly the kind of discussion among Freepers that needs to be going on all over America today.
As a matter of fact, this is the discussion which GOP presidential candidates need to have with voters for Obama's so-called "progressive" "redistributive" vision for America conflicts with his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Those, like Lithwick, who come up with the touchy, feely "shared responsibility," or "obligation to others" descriptions never bother to tell us that the "progressive" vision requires a heavy-handed political regime to enforce its mandates, and that regime, in whatever combinations it may try to manifest itself, is precisely what the U. S. Constitution is designed to prevent.
That is why they are frustrated. The Constitution stands in the way of their custom-designed method of "changing" America from a free society to one in which some imperfect people plan, direct, manage and control all the other imperfect people.
That is their perverted vision of "justice," and they cannot enforce it without "changing" the Constitution, and they know that they cannot "change" it according to its own provisions; therefore, they must use Trojan Horses like "health care" and "shared responsibility" to trick "the People" into abandoning individual freedom.
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."
Last 5 paras. excerpted from:
Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) "Do We Have a Living Constitution?" (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5 (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)
I tuned on Leftist talk Radio on Friday, the Mike Malloy show. He seriously was saying the Supreme Court is now “illegitimate” and should be done away with, because 9 people should never be able to overturn law passed by congress. He also advocated another Civil War, but this time kicking “bumpkin land” as he called it out of the Union, referring of course to the red states. This is how sick and twisted and dangerous the left has got.
This is NOT the Democrat party of your parents and grandparents.
Another great post by you. Thanks
I don't know if you realize it, but your link leads to this article that I posted
Do they wear their hair that way to imply that someone could put up with them long enough to participate in coitus with them?
Thanks, Kaslin. “Posting after wife’s big birthday party last night and before coffee this morning” — need to watch out for that!
Your link, of course, is the right one.
They should all move to Sweden!
right on.
If the government can force us to buy health insurance, it can write our weekly shopping lists for us, force us to join gyms and all that. It can mandate how we spend our own income.
We have become serfs and slaves. This could no longer be considered a free country.
“bumpkin land” is supporting and feeding the rest of the country
The best way to fight against the government take over of health care is to draw out this primary to the convention. Then,if Romney wants to win, he would be forced to finally denounce RomneyCare or pass the nomination to someone who will rip it out by the roots.
A Romney advisor has been saying that after the Supreme Court throws out the federal mandate, to claim that Romney was right along, that the only right way to do it is with a state mandate.
I think that Obama’s plan is to help Romney secure the nomination before the Supremes rule, so that he can offer to withdraw the mandate and call for it to be replaced with state mandates, if the court will allow the rest of health care law to stand.
It will be a win-win for Obama and Romney and a heads they win, tails, we lose, for conservative voters.
No Obama and No Romney!
Any conservative who thinks a state-wide mandate, funded and managed by DC, is any improvement is a blithering moron.
Well, I guess we have a lot of morons on FreeRepublic, all Romney supporters.
The Ron Paul campaign, in WA, has thrown their delegates to Santorum, in an effort to slow down Romney. You know if the libertarians are willing to throw in with Santorum, that they know that RomneyCare is a major threat.
Here’s hoping that some of the other states follow suit.
Progs live in a fantasy world of their own making. They do not like the real world so they try to change things to match the fantasy they imagine—one that doesn’t and couldn’t exist.
You see it on TV a great deal. Corporations bad, poor people good. Ect... But its not real. We need realists to lead us—sadly that takes a spine and such things are few and far between in politics.
Call me when you’re ready. I mean it. the first one I’ll shoot is my kid brother. He’s the most vile , pugnacious little leftist sh!t in know. I kid you not. I’m glad my mother has left this world and my dad is infirm. My Dad, his greatest political hero is Franco.
This is the woman who told Obama to nominate “some cross between Rachel Maddow and Emma Goldman” to the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.