Isn't the head of this insurance company a big lib/socialist? I seem to remember reading something to that effect. Any help to verify would be appreciated because every time I see their commericals I wonder.
Posted on 10/18/2007 12:17:43 AM PDT by rvoitier
In insurance land, it seems, things can be morally wrong, yet legally reasonable.
Isn't the head of this insurance company a big lib/socialist? I seem to remember reading something to that effect. Any help to verify would be appreciated because every time I see their commericals I wonder.
Yes, the scumfilth *is* a big time DemoPervert crook.
He’s a pusher/funder if the Deathocrat Death Cult agenda.
I recall that as well. I could be wrong but I think that’s why the company is called progressive.
Absolutely true. Peter Lewis is joined at the hip with George Soros as a major contributor to far Left causes. Google his name and you'll get several hits including this one: Peter Lewis
here you go:
In his book “Culture Warrior” Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly names Peter Lewis, billionaire founder and chairman of Progressive Insurance, as the number two funder and promoter of liberal causes, alongside billionaire investor George Soros.
O’Reilly calls those pushing the liberal agenda “social progressives”; and while Soros is known for financially backing them through what the author calls “smear sites” like MoveOn.org, he says Lewis has been nearly as influential, thanks to the dividends of more than a billion dollars worth of Progressive stock. Randy Sharp of the American Family Association feels the problem is Lewis’s use of that money for causes like legalizing drug use, and promoting abortion and euthanasia. “The profits from that stock go directly toward sponsoring these kinds of liberal causes and defeating specific candidates who share a conservative view with the majority of Americans,” Sharp says, as well as toward moving the nation toward an open, globalistic society that reflects the social and moral values of atheism that Soros follows. Lewis once made an $8.5-million contribution to the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFA spokesman notes. For those pro-family customers who do not want to support such causes, Sharp recommends they cancel their Progressive Insurance policies, which fund Lewis’s channeling of money to secular progressives.
Using “suckers” to fund progressive’s ideas. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?
visualops, yeah, he even calls it Progressive! At least he's out of the closet.
I wouldn't buy Progressive Insurance on a bet, even if it "saved me 50% or more".....
Who would knowingly support sex deviates or their enablers?
"The 70-year-old Lewis holds the distinction of being the second-largest donor during the ’04 election cycle to the non-party groups known as “527s” (after a section of the tax code that permits these huge donations). In fact, Lewis donated nearly $23 million to such organizations, including $16 million to the Joint Victory Campaign (created by combining the three largest 527s dedicated to President Bush’s defeat), $2.9 million to America Coming Together (ACT), and $2.5 million to Move On.Org. He is a close friend and associate of the billionaire financier George Soros."
"Lewis became the largest single donor to the American Civil Liberties Union. But, as with many of his charitable donations, there were some minor “strings attached” to his $7 million gift: namely, that $5 million be earmarked for the ACLU’s drug-policy litigation project, which challenges current laws dealing with drug testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana. Since 1996, prior to the recent Supreme Court decision calling such laws into question, seven states have passed ballot initiatives permitting the medical use of marijuana."
"Along with his Bush-bashing, financial reports show that Lewis’s favorite causes in 2004 included decriminalizing marijuana, gay rights and the environment. He donated $485,000 to the Marijuana Policy Project, $117,220 to the pro-gay Stonewall Democrats United, $100,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and $100,000 to the Sierra Club. The cause of marijuana legalization particularly interests Lewis, who openly acknowledges using marijuana and hashish and was arrested in New Zealand in 2000 for possessing them."
Why is it that anything named “Progressive” is hardly that at all?
IIRC According to a recent news report, Progressive is one of the insurance companies selling auto insurance to illegal unlicensed aliens. I’ll bet the stockholders and current policy holders are unhappy about that. Watch claims and premiums start to soar.
Thanks for the post.
They are better than you, don’tcha know.
Better and more compassionate.
More caring. More sensitive.
The word progressive as currently used means far left. True progressives will become the next rank of National socialists.
For the same reason "People's Republics" never are!
I'm currently reading David Horowitz's biography Radical Son. When he was a kid growing up in Queens in the 40's and every single one of his parents' friends were avowed communists, "progressive" was the term they used to mask their views. Everything was referred to as progressive rather than communist or socialist as a means to avoid unwanted attention during the Cold War. He even attended a party school called Sunnyside Progressive School from the time he was 18 months old. (When Hillary touts universal preschool, do we wonder why?)
By calling herself a modern progressive and expressing the desire to return to what it used to mean (as she said in that youtube debate), she invokes full blown marxism.
Here's the quote from the debate -
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."
According to David Horowitz, what the term meant at the beginning of the 20th century was flat out communism. Horowitz also says that in the sixties, the real radical "progressives" disavowed themselves of mainline liberals, looked upon them with contempt for being too centrist. So when Hillary distances herself from the term liberal in favor of the term progressive, as she does in the above quote, she's doing the very same thing.
I realize this isn't really news - most of us know she leans further left than she usually lets on, but we need to keep firmly in mind how radical she really is. Despite her rhetoric, she is telling us EXACTLY who she is and what she stands for.
Back in the 20s and 30s, the Communists described themselves with the word, "progressive". It aptly applies today to the liberals. When a lib corrected me calling her a liberal, and used the word "progressive", I let her know why that was also a good label.
Thanks for that insight. It's very informative.
As Johnny Carson would say, "I did not know that."
Remembe this guy?
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.