However, there is a dark side.  There is a well-organized “progressive” organization that is currently in operation. The Progressive States Network coordinates efforts across states to pass “progressive” legislation.  As with all “progressive” legislation, these tend to limit freedom, cost jobs, corrupt elections, and increase the power of government.  They appear to be well funded, and they have a significant head start.

Some of the issues being undertaken by the PSN include:

Paid Sick Days – Require employers to provide paid sick days to employees for them to take care of their own illness, that of a family member, or deal with domestic violence.

Election Reforms to Help Drive Turnout in 2010 and 2012 – Enact legislation to increase voter turnout, including improved public assistance agency compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), allowing all voters to vote by mail, and making presidential elections competitive in every state by implementing a national popular vote for the President.

Prescription Drug Reforms: Reducing Costs and Improving Quality – Enact an integrated prescription drug policy to curb costly industry marketing practices, promote generic medications and join multi-state collaboratives to pool state purchasing power.

Corporate Transparency in State Budgets – Require full public information about how corporate interests benefiting from government contracts, economic subsidies and tax breaks are spending the money received.

Green Buildings – Implement policies aimed at making new and existing buildings more environmentally friendly.

Foreclosure and Predatory Lending Reform – Require lenders to use mediation, require proper maintenance of foreclosed homes, give homeowners right to rent former homes, increase state enforcement powers, and give whistle-blower protections to employees at lending institutions.

There are several bloggers that are going to focus on this organization, their ideas, their legislation, and their connections.  I am obviously part of this group.  For me, I think that any organization can be judged by who is at the helm.  Consequently, my first post in this effort will focus on the board of directors of the PSN.  Here are some highlights from their site.  It is not complete, but you can see the entire list here.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Wes Boyd, President of MoveOn.org

Wes and his wife Joan Blades were the cofounders in 1987 of Berkeley Systems, a San Francisco Bay area software company. After selling the company in 1997, Boyd and Blades went on to found MoveOn.org, which has quickly become a major national political force by using cutting edge online methods to coordinate fundraising and advocacy for progressive causes and candidates.

David Brock, President and CEO, Media Matters for America

David is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. His preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, was a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir in which he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock serves on the advisory board of Democracy Radio Inc. and is the recipient of the New Democrat Network’s first award for political entrepreneurship.

Anna Burger, International Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU

Hailed by Fortune Magazine as “the most powerful woman in the labor movement” and named as one of Washingtonian’s 100 Most Powerful Women in 2006, Anna is both a top ranking officer at SEIU, the nation’s largest and fastest growing union, and the first chair of America’s newest labor federation, Change to Win. Before moving to SEIU’s international office in Washington D.C., Anna served as the first full-time woman President of SEIU Local 668 in Pennsylvania.

Leo Gerard, President, United Steelworkers, Vice President, AFL-CIO

After starting his career as a nickel smelter at age 18, Leo rose quickly through the ranks of the United Steelworkers Union, becoming Director of USW District 16 in 1985, National Director for Canada in 1991, International Secretary Treasurer in 1994, and finally as President of the USW International in 2001. Leo also serves as Vice President of the AFL-CIO, where he chairs the organization’s Public Policy Committee. Has been instrumental in forging the Blue/Green alliance for sustainable energy and green jobs and was a central figure in the founding of the Apollo Alliance.

John Podesta, President and CEO, the Center for American Progress

Prior to founding the Center for American Progress, Podesta served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He had served previously as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Clinton Administration and as Counselor to former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle. Currently, John is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on technology policy.

Lee Saunders, Secretary-Treasurer of AFSCME

Lee serves as executive assistant to Gerald McEntee, the President of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Previously, he served as administrator of AFSCME District Council 37 in New York.

As you can see, this is a laundry list of “progressive” causes.  Given the connections to the unions, the Apollo Alliance, and the  Soros funded operations; it is safe to conclude that this organization is a direct threat to liberty.  Many of the organizations represented here are far left, if not openly Marxist.  Complicating matters is the fact that they operate behind the scenes, and are little known.  That is about to change.

Over the next several weeks, John from the Current, Steve, from Motor City Times, The CH 2.0, and others, will be covering the activities and agenda of the Progressive States Network.  I would encourage everyone to share this information with their friends and family, as well as their state legislators.  As the saying goes, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”  It ‘s time to pull up the shades and let some sunlight in.

Cross-posted at the Conservative Hideout.

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 500,000 in the week ended August 14, the highest since mid-November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 476,000 from the previously reported 484,000 the prior week, which was revised up to 488,000 in Thursday’s report.

A Labor Department official said there was nothing unusual in the state level data. The data covered the survey week for the government’s closely watched employment report for August, scheduled for release early next month.

“There are some technical factors out there and the seasonal factors seem to be pushing it up a little bit. But given the trend of claims it looks like the economy ran into a wall in August,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-MitsubishI UFJ in New York. (Emphasis mine)

I think the title says it all, why is our government and their media lapdogs surprised by economic reality?  ObamaCare, with its increased costs and requirements, hangs over the heads of business owners like the Sword of Damocles.  The pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts will increase costs.  If a lame duck Congress passes Cap and Trade, the costs to businesses will increase exponentially.  If card check passes, workers will be subjected to intimidation tactics until they signed a card to join a union.  Given all of these factors, would you start hiring?  Would you expand?

The “progressives” say that capitalism causes the problems that we face.  However, we evil capitalists have been predicting exactly what is happening right now.  None of this is “unexpected.”  It’s reality! The more the government tampers with the market, the worse it performs.  Every tax and regulation increases costs, which, in turn, costs jobs.  Either people are laid off, or businesses refuse to hire.  Since the left denies reality, they are surprised when the results of their activities come to fruition.  Our government has introduced a great deal of uncertainty into the market, and  are then blindsided by the results of that uncertainty.

The only solution is to embrace reality and accept that the free market creates wealth and jobs, not the government.  However, I don’t see our “progressive” friends understanding this anytime soon.  They’ll just continue to run “unexpected, surprising, and unanticipated” headlines.

Cross posted from the Conservative Hideout

Apparently, the talking heads (useful idiots) at MSNBC are now telling us what to drink.

On MSNBC’s July 6 “Morning Joe,” Brzezinski boasted about San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s vending machine soda ban that took effect today. But Brzezinski wanted to take it a step further – not to just ban them in city vending machines, but just stop people from drinking soda altogether.

“And in San Francisco, a ban on sugary drinks in city vending machines is starting to take effect,” Brzezinski said. “That’s so great. It was issued by Mayor Gavin Newsom, my new hero, Mike Barnicle — in an effort to combat obesity and improve citizen’s health, and it will. In fact, if people would just not drink soda pop, they would be healthier and less fat.”

Perhaps Brzezinski missed irony of making this statement during her show, “Morning Joe brewed by Starbucks Coffee.” Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) is regularly under attack from food police group the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). In 2002, CSPI accused the coffee of giant of “pouring food porn.”

“We need to stop producing things like this,” Brzezinski declared.

Brzezinski also revealed her other anti-junk food sentiments, but said ultimately getting “rid of soda pop” would be suit her.

“I don’t like birthday cake,” Brzezinski said. “It’s fattening. And no cupcakes either in schools. No, just get rid of soda pop. That would make me happy. We don’t need it.”

I am impressed.  She starts by telling us how she would ban things that are bad for us.  Then, she showed great generosity by permitting us to have SOME of the things she doesn’t like.  I think I cried from gratitude.

Isn’t it great when the self appointed arbiters of all things throw us some crumbs?  I don’t know about you, but this peasant is most grateful.  Basically, the goddess has said, “let them eat cake!”

End of rant.
H/T: Newsbusters

Cross posted from the Conservative Hideout 2.0.

Gateway Pundit has compiled a short list of the administrations actions, or lack thereof.

** The feds only accepted assistance from 5 of 28 countries.
** It took the Obama Administration 53 days to accept help from the Dutch and British.
** It took them 58 days to mobilize the US military to the Gulf.
** The feds shut down crude-sucking barges due to fire extinguisher concerns.
** The Obama Administration ignore oil boom manufacturers that have miles of product stockpiled in their warehouses.
** They only have moved 31 of 2,000 oil skimmers to the disaster area off of Florida.
** Florida hired an additional 5 skimmer boats to operate off its coast due to federal inaction.
** There are no skimmer boats off the coast of Mississippi.
** The massive A-Boat skimmer won’t be allowed to join the cleanup effort until the Coast Guard and the EPA figure out whether it meets their standards.
** The feds shut down sand berm dredging off the Louisiana coast.
** The president continues to hit the golf course, ball games, hold BBQ’s and party while the crude oil washes up on shore.

If you took any one of these individually, it would be easy to say that it’s incompetence.  This is a big government response, and big government is inefficient and unresponsive by virtue of the fact that it’s a giant bureaucracy.  However, when you look at all of them, a pattern of obstruction emerges.  I have a difficult time believing that all of this obstruction is not intentional.  There are simply too many incidents of federal authorities actively preventing the spill from being contained or cleaned up to be written off as pure incompetence or chance.   As the saying goes,  “…if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…”

Additionally, this matches the Democrat/”progressive” standard of either creating or exploiting a crisis.  We’ve heard that the words of Rahm Emanuel.  We also heard that from Senator Kyl when he discussed securing the border (while that was denied by the administration, audio from Obama’s time as a Senator shows that he stated it himself several years ago).  Basically, using a crisis to forward a political agenda is part of this administration’s “toolbox.”

I could be wrong, but if I am, this is the single most incompetent administration in our history.   Either way, it is terrible news for the POTUS, and a direct indictment of big government.

Cross-posted at the Conservative Hideout 2.0

Recent polls have shown that America is beginning to move to the right, with 40% claiming to be Conservative, 21% liberal, and 38% “moderate.”

With nearly a 2-1 margin, Conservatives might see this as a cause for celebration. This has happened before- people do turn more conservative when there are difficult economic times.  It might also be because the POTUS has been caught in many of his lies, and his polices are being exposed, stalled, and (hopefully) defeated.

The research I noted indicates that neither ideology has a sufficient voting bloc to win an election outright, the liberals even more so.  Obviously, this explains why the POTUS appeared more moderate in his rhetoric during the campaign, and why he distanced himself from his associations with ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.  They knew what to say, and when to say it, to put the moderates at ease.  Also consider that the MSM selectively covers the left in a way that ignores their failure and promotes or invents the successes, and consequently,  there was a mass deception.  Combine all of that with the fact that the left and the MSM browbeat Bush for eight years (And Bush did an abysmal job in explaining his positions), inducing ‘Bush fatigue.”  In the end, as the saying goes, the “center did not hold.”

The implications of this are clear.  The Democrats cannot win elections without taking the middle.  They were able to do that in 2006, and 2008.  However, 2010 looks to be pretty bad for the Democrats.  Additionally, as I noted last July, the POTUS tried to appear moderate to set the middle at ease when he ran for office.  After the last 15 months of actually governing (or not), the people have gotten a taste of Obama’s policies, and it has proven to be a most sour flavor.  Needless to say, he’ll not be able to replicate that strategy.

Gallup has duplicated their polling. And the results seem a bit worse for the Democrats.

PRINCETON, NJ — Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup’s history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.

Here’s a telling trend.

Independents today are slightly more likely to say they are moderate than conservative, with fewer than 20% identifying as liberal. While this is similar to 2009, it represents an increase in conservatism among this group since 2008. (emphasis mine)

So, this is a potentially disastrous trend for Democrats, and especially the “progressive” wing.  They need moderates and independents to vote for them.  Otherwise, they are a fringe party.  However, the independents and moderates have been increasingly alienated by the Democrat’s schemes, and are moving to the right.    Essentially, both poles need the middle to win, but the left needs far more of that segment than the right to pull off electoral victories.  Also, we must consider that not all members of any segment will vote, but at this point in time, enthusiasm goes to the Conservatives, so the GOP should expect greater turnout and gains in November.

I looked forward for this polling data, as Gallup does it yearly.   I was interested in seeing if the trends had changed.  However, it has some particular importance, given the recent immigration debate.  Over the last week or so, I’ve been stressing to other bloggers that ” Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) is solely targeted at leveling the ideological/demographic  imbalance.  If the “progressives” can grant amnesty to millions of illegals, and make them dependent on government programming, they can do much to “correct” this imbalance.  It’s not that they care for the illegals any more than any of their other client groups.  They keep them down just enough to keep them on the government plantation (as well as letting them think that they are doing them a favor).  That way, they know they’ll have their votes every election day.

Cross-posted at the Conservative Hideout.

Impeachment puts Obama on the defense, and that might play to his strengths.  I like to keep in mind that Obama is really a community organizer.  He’s not a leader, or a “uniter,” he’s an Alinskyite-to the bone.  Part of their game is to portray themselves as the victim(s), and their opposition as the “oppressor.”  While Obama doesn’t know how to speak without a prompter, go to a foreign country without bowing to someone, or how to handle a national crisis, he does know how to distort, lie, deflect, smear, and pay power politics with people.  Those are his strengths, and impeaching him pushes him right back onto them.

Put him on the defensive, and we might just get to see what he is really good at.  Race cards will be played.  Narratives will be written and rewritten.  The MSM will fabricate or selectively cover whatever it takes to defend Obama. Rent-a-mob will be purchased and deployed.   The people prompting the impeachment will find themselves on the defensive in short order.  Also, don’t forget that in politics, it’s always easier to play to role of the “principled defense.”  Just ask the GOP.  They’ve been able to stay on message as a united front (with the exception of some RINOs).  For that, they’re polling higher, and are looking to make some significant gains come November.

Putting him “under attack” will also likely energize his base.  They’re not so active right now.  They had to pay Purple People Beaters to show up for Martha Coakley in January.  They probably had to pay the People Beaters to show up and scare the stuffing out of a teenager last week.  However, threaten his presidency, and the zombies will awaken.  That might put us on the defensive…literally (not that particularly bothers me, I see it as an eventuality anyway) .

Another reason to avoid impeachment is that it takes us off message and task.  No matter what, our agenda should be put forward.  Lower taxes, less spending, smaller government, school choice, repealing ObamaCare, and repairing the damage that Obama has caused should be front and center.  Impeaching Obama will take time and political capital, both of which are in short supply, and neither can be squandered.  The stakes are simply too high.  We either stop correcting damage, and getting the country back on track, or we spend time trying to remove a sitting President; a task that has never been accomplished.

The third reason centers on the fact that Obama is failing already.  He’s taking heat for the slow reaction time on the oil spill.  He is increasing alienating his lapdogs in the media, and they’re starting to notice.  All the “Easter Eggs” that were in ObamaCare are becoming public.  He is now a laughing stock overseas, and belligerent nations are taking his presidency as an excuse to become more aggressive.  They can say that the economy and jobs are getting better, but Main Street says otherwise, and a few hundred thousand-census workers are about to lose their jobs.  Democratic candidates are running against him, and treat him like the plague.  In fact, almost every candidate that he has campaigned for has lost.  It’s not an impressive record.  It’s going to get worse, and more and more people are noticing.  If you impeach him, you actually distract from his own record of failure, making him the victim instead of Jimmy Carter 2.0.

I’ve often said that Obama, in and of himself,  is irrelevant.  He’s only the latest “progressive” that’s trying to destroy the Republic.  Clinton, Kerry, or any other Democrat could have won, and we’d be still facing the same challenges that we are tackling now.  It’s the agenda that we need to target, not the man.  If we stick with ideas, people will see what a disaster the Obama Presidency is, and will continue to be.  Impeach him, and it becomes personal, and he can use his skills to make himself a sympathetic character that is being set upon by those “evil Conservatives that don’t want a black man to be president.”

Don’t play into his hands.  Instead, let’s send him home in January of 2013 as a failure-because he is.  Let’s also make sure take he takes failed, statist  ideas with him as well.

That, of course set off a debate on people being punished for speaking out-no matter the reprehensible manner.  But, there was something forgotten in all of this.  As usual, the left engaged in this same behavior, on a much larger scope and intensity.  For some background, let’s take a look at the California Proposition 8 debate from the last election cycle.  First up, here is an article from Human Events.

No matter that Prejean was representing California, majorities of whose voters have twice voted to enshrine in their constitution the exact belief Prejean articulated on stage.

The real apology needed to come from homosexual activists who, immediately after more than six million Californians voted last November to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, participated in riot-like protests across the nation.

Conservative churches were picketed and vandalized, and church services were disrupted.  Envelopes containing white powder were sent to several Mormon temples. And a postcard sent to the homes and businesses of many financial donors of Proposition 8 read:  “If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”  Other donors were forced to resign from their jobs after they were revealed as contributors to the Prop 8 effort.

This may seem like a harsh reaction to democracy in action.  But the gay rights movement has always had an erratic relationship with basic democratic values.

Last May, gay activists shut down an American Psychiatric Association panel because two evangelicals were scheduled to appear. Ahead of the California vote, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that same-sex marriage was coming to California “whether you like it or not.”  Recently, a student at Los Angeles City College sued the school after a professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to allow him to finish a speech against gay marriage during a public speaking class.

That just oozes “tolerance” and “diversity,” doesn’t it?  Then again, the gay rights crowd used campaign contribution regs to find out who contributed to Prop 8, and created a map to their homes.

And the results of that?

More to the point, what Eightmaps intends to accomplish happened to me and my famly last year. And it was terrifying. Here’s the story:

Someone got my address from publicly available sources, made a malicious flyer with that information on it, went to the city’s homeless shelters and passed it around (the police told me that someone on staff at a shelter told them he saw a stranger distributing the flyers). The flyer told the homeless that if they came to my house, we’d give them money. This person did not care that it was summer, and he was tricking the poorest of the poor to a four-mile walk from the downtown shelters to my house. All he cared about was striking out at me.

We knew something was up after the second rough-looking person showed up demanding money, and got angry when he was told we had no idea what he was talking about. (All this happened when I was at work; imagine your wife opening the door to confront a homeless man who has just learned from her that he’d walked all that way in the heat for no reason). But we could tell they had some sort of flyer with our address on it. We called the police, who advised us to stall the next person who showed up, then call them on 911. That we did. Julie phoned me at work one day to say a scary-looking guy was at the front door with one of the flyers, and that she’d just called 911.

By the time I got home, the police were there questioning this guy, who looked like he’d wondered what the heck he’d gotten into. The cops said that this guy meant no harm, that he’d been the victim of this prankster just as we had. They also said he was a registered sex offender.

But wait…there’s more.

Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs

Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”[34] and using vulgar language.[35] Sometimes harassers called at work.[36] A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.[37] Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language[38] and offensive labels like “gay hater.”[39] Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”[40] One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.[41]

Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.[42] In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church.[43] At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”[44] A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted].”[45] One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through Amazon.com, that contained “the greatest homosexual love stories of all time.”[46]

I would encourage you to visit the links. Though I quoted extensively, there is far, far more to see.  Death threats, violence, physical attacks, lost jobs, boycotts, and intimidation were used extensively.   All of these come right out of the “progressive”/Alinsky playbook.  And, as usual, the MSM didn’t say a thing about it.

Obviously, things haven’t changed.  Here is the latest on the current situation.

Just remember folks, that “tolerance” means that you’re free to agree with “progressive” ideology as much as you like.  “Diversity,” when dealing with “progressives,” is simply an oxymoron.  If you disagree, you will be attacked in some way.  Facts are irrelevant.  Truth and reality are to be disregarded.  The agenda and the narrative of the now are the only reality for the “progressives.”

Image Credit: Pat Dollard

Originally posted at the Conservative Hideout.

Religion: While Obama may have a soft spot for Islam, he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years.  While Wright’s teachings are radical, they are clearly not Islamic.  Like the rest of us, the radical wing of Islam would cut his head off, unless he converted.

It is well documented that he attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia.  That, in and of itself, does not mean that he is a Muslim, but unlike other Presidents, he has a depth of knowledge into Islam that unparalleled.  That might bias him, and blind him to the potential dangers that we face.  Either way, he does not appear to be Muslim, or, for that matter, Christian (or at least any Christianity with which we would be familiar).

Politics: You can call Obama a socialist.  It seems to fit his model of wealth redistribution rather nicely.  You might also call him a fascist, as his tampering in the banking, auto, and health care industries closely matches the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, for example, “Corporatism.”  You can also call him a “progressive,” as they believed that the state, run by an “intellectual” elite, can/should wield power to shape society into something more equitable and structured.  The common threads between all three are statism and elitism.  The idea that the state has primacy over all human activity seems a common thread though all of Obama’s policies.   And, of course, the idea of elitism; that a small group of “really smart people that know way better than you,” have the right and obligation to instruct everyone on how to live is central to any totalitarian view.

Some will say that the political theories and backgrounds conflict.  They do… and they don’t.  While that might come off as a contradictory statement, there is a case for stating it.  To draw the comparisons and contrasts, a brief look at history is required.

During the mid to late 19^th century, new political ideologies were emerging.  Communism and socialism were taking root in Europe, and to a lesser degree, here in the US as well.  Also, the progressive movement was emerging in the US.  The leading minds of these movements were aware of each other, and followed each other’s writings and actions closely.  It is safe to assume that they influenced each other.

When it became apparent that Europe was going to explode into war (WWI), there was much excitement among the socialists/communists.  They had been predicting that if war came, the proletariat would rise, and there would be a vast, international communist revolution.  They thought that under the stress, death, and deprivation that would come with a war, that the people would grow weary with their governments and economic systems, and “throw off their oppressors.”

It didn’t happen.  With the exception of Russia, there were no successful communist revolutions.  Communists certainly did make a nuisance of themselves, but the established order in the West held.  More surprising was the fact that many socialists were patriotic and supported their nations in the war.

This is a crucial point in history for the socialist movement, as schisms were created by their differing reactions and ideas about the failure of the international revolution.   The hard-core communists decided to use the USSR as a “base” from which to spread communism throughout the world.  A smaller group of communists in Germany decided to examine what caused the failure of the international.  Working from the “Frankfort School,” they tagged Western Culture as the culprit.  Since Western Culture promoted patriotism, individualism, religious faith, capitalism, and self-reliance, they argued, communism couldn’t take root.  Their mission, therefore, was to find ways to negate Western Culture, and allow communism to take over.  We’ll get back to the Cultural Marxists in a bit.

However, it doesn’t end there.  There was yet another wing.  Some socialists, particularly Mussolini, decided that rather than reject national pride and western culture, that they would embrace it and use it to justify their socialism.  The terms, “National Socialism and totalitarianism,” were, if memory serves, coined by Mussolini.  Since the international revolution failed, he postulated that revolutions could be done in single nations instead-hence, National Socialism.  He proved that assumption in his takeover of Italy.  Franco (of Spain) and Hitler followed suit.

The fascists, you see, were socialists.  They used socialist rhetoric and policies.  While they didn’t take over the means of production, they controlled it completely via regulation.  They did redistribute wealth.  They did tax heavily.  They did institute massive levels of government intervention; like heavy regulation of industry, gun control, socialized medicine, and so on.  They simply used the individual cultures and histories of their nations as a “wrapper” for their policies, corrupting the culture to serve their ends.  Even Hitler himself suggested that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had more in common than what separated them.  He simply saw them as a competing ideology, NOT an antithetical one.  From the opposite perspective, Lenin was said to lament the “loss” of Mussolini, as early in his career, Mussolini was a powerful and well thought of advocate of socialism.

At this point, it is also important to note that there was no “pure” versions of either communism or fascism.  In each nation or movement, there were wide variations in doctrine and application.  For example, fascist Italy did not rely on antisemitism to forward it’s goals.  While Mussolini wanted to restore an “Roman Empire,” Hitler espoused the superiority of the “Aryan Race.”  All had variations, just as Leninism was different from Stalinism, or, in turn, Maoism.

Meanwhile, the progressives continued to grow in strength in the US as well.  While they never seemed to gain a doctrinal type of theory or central organization, they did press foreword with all sorts of governmental controls, such as eugenics (forced sterilization), increased government control over banking, labor, industry, and so on.  Many prominent progressives were also were great admirers of both Mussolini and Hitler (until Hitler’s anti-Semitism became too inconvenient to ignore).  In turn, the Nazis took some pages out of the progressive’s playbook in terms of media manipulation and eugenics.

So, we see that the Socialists and fascists are not antithetical, but “brothers.”  They were separated by their differing opinions on how to spread socialism.  Progressivism was a cousin, or at least a fellow traveler of Socialism and fascism.  They all knew about each other, often spoke kindly of each other, and seemed to have “cross pollinated” each other’s ideas.

But what happened to the Cultural Marxists?  They were booted from Germany when Hitler came to power, and they migrated to here, eventually settling at Columbia University, where they continued their work.  They proposed a “long march through the institutions” in order to destroy western culture.  They made good on that idea, and now, education, media, law, and even theology have all been “infected” with cultural Marxism.  Here is an excerpt from an article that I quoted in a previous post on Cultural Marxism.

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Does that sound familiar?  Or what about this?

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

I would say that this is a correct assessment.

Needless to say, Cultural Marxism has infected all of our institutions.  When Obama said he associated with the “radical professors,” he was being steeped in Cultural Marxism.  The idea that it is somehow “unfair” that the US is so powerful and prosperous is part of that equation.  Think about many of Obama’s policies and actions, and you will see Cultural Marxism.

So, as a “progressive,” Obama stands on an intellectual base that has as its foundation, elements of fascism and Marxism.  Then, it’s finished off with a thick coat of Cultural Marxism.  It is safe (though at least partially inaccurate) to say that he is a fascist, socialist, and a “progressive.”  While none are exclusive, all are part of the foundation of his beliefs; and therefore, his actions.

Disclaimer: As usual, I could have wrote a book on this.  Kindly consider this post an outline.  However, Jonah Goldberg covered much of it in his fantastic book Liberal Fascism.

Cross posted at the Conservative Hideout 2.0