pro·gres·sive:
Posted on 04/19/2012 12:00:17 PM PDT by DBeers
In politics, truth-telling can get you into trouble, even if you stumble upon it by accident. Just ask Rep. Allen West (R-FL).
West is feeling the heat for a pregnant pause he took during a town hall meeting after he was asked "What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialists?"
"It's a good question," West responded, "I believe there's [sic] about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. (Long pause) "They don't actually hide. It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus." The left became unhinged.
Obviously West touched a nerve; before long, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) drafted their response: "Calling fellow Members of Congress 'Communists' is reminiscent of the days when Joe McCarthy divided Americans with name-calling and modern-day witch hunts that don't advance policies to benefit people's lives..."
The CPC's response is just another sign of the political times we live in. But something about their argument doesn't pass the "smell test."
While there may not be large numbers of card-carrying communists lining the halls of Congress, there is a clear tie between the Democratic Party's Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
It really boils down to marketing. In marketing, many times the same product is given a different name or label in order to increase its appeal to certain groups. Names are sometimes changed due to the product's connection to other products, or the public's association to a prior name.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Solzhenitsyn: "In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. Communist propaganda would sometimes include statements such as 'We include almost all the commandments of the Gospel in our ideology.' The difference is that the Gospel asks all this to be achieved through love, through self-limitation, but socialism only uses coercion. This is one point.
"Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive."
Does anyone doubt that mandates, taxation and regulation are means of the "coercion" Solzhenitsyn so eloquently describes?
Further, does anyone doubt that recent attempts by the President to link the teachings of Jesus to his coercive policies, as he did at the National Prayer Breakfast, are not consistent with what Solzhenitsyn described as "Communist propaganda" in the above-quoted interview?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
So, how is Obama doing?
No. It’s the same old totalitarian collectivism, with a new brand name. One that hasn’t yet been linked yet with all the byproducts of a worker’s paradise like mass murder and starvation and totalitarianism.
Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” isn't Affordable and it sure isn't Care. People hear the name of the Bill and think it means what is says.
This is the new face of communism.
Like a glacier it moves slowly.
Like a glacier it moves everything.
Its a deeply rooted disease to America, first it must be put to the nation just how dangerous it is even in its most docile form. Identify its pogroms, cut out the supporters of it, abolish it.
Ride the communists out of town on a rail.
Many would like to believe that is so, but the truth is, Americans are simply dumbed-down intentionally to revise history...another communist goal.
The Hegelian Principle in Education
Excerpt: “John Dewey, father of progressive education — what is happening inside the local school house doors, was a disciple of Georg Hegel. John Dewey stated that literacy was the greatest obstacle to socialism.”
And:
“The conditions had to be created in which society would accept such a system. Education began a downhill slide. While the roots go back much further, those of us researching education reform can pinpoint the beginning of the noticeable downhill slide at about 1965 with the advent of the ESEA — the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — when the federal government began giving out money to those states and school districts that would accept the strings attached. Slowly but surely the carrot got bigger until the states and schools could no longer function without the federal dollars — the states and school districts were ‘hooked’, they were addicted.”
Source: http://www.learn-usa.com/education_transformation/er003.htm
Was Hegel Christian or Atheist?
Excerpt: “The Right Hegelians were Christian fundamentalists. They found Christian inspiration in Hegel's philosophy, and they condemned David Strauss’ progressive New Testament critique, The Life of Jesus.”
Source: http://philosophy.eserver.org/hegel-christianity.html
pro·gres·sive:
I gather is was Roosevelt who said this to Ickes in private, that was relayed by Ickes later.
Progressives are the OLD Communism, any difference are attributable to normal differences within communist ranks, i.e. communists do not always agree on every detail.
THE REASON communists do not run openly is simple: There are still laws on the Federal (and many states) books which prohibit communists, anarchists and the like from running for public office. A person whose mission is to bring down the government through revolution is simply not qualified to hold office, and years ago Americans understood this.
Don’t worry though - Progressives have almost enough of a following to change those laws now.
Well... before the undercover and clandestine progressive 'communist takeover' is all said and done I suspect a few patriots will join Allen West and maybe we will see some hearings on the issue.
ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
After reading this pamphlet, What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America from the Democratic Socialists of America website I would say the answer to your question is a definite YES.
A few excerpts from the pamphlet:
What is Democratic Socialism?
Questions and Answers from the Democratic Socialists of America
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.
Q
Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?
No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.
"Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?"
"No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
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.