Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Blood Of Slaved On The Hands Of Progressives – Video


Blood Of Slaved On The Hands Of Progressives
http://www.atlah.org The Manning Report Blacks being taught that Islam is their original religion. Recorded on 8 October 2014. "ATLAH: THAT #39;S WHAT GOD SAID." Anointed to establish families,...

By: ATLAHWorldwide

Excerpt from:
Blood Of Slaved On The Hands Of Progressives - Video

The progressives are coming!: Why the latest attempt to save Democrats from populism is so pathetic

Last December, Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of the Wall Street-funded think tank Third Way penned a widely-discussed op-ed for the Wall Street Journal warning Democrats of the perils of economic populism, which Cowan and Kessler called a dead end for the party. The piece lambasted prominent progressives like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, asserting that their focus on income inequality and their unwillingness to back savage cuts to social insurance programs was both irresponsible and politically foolish.

The piece triggered a fierce backlash against Third Way, and even two co-chairs of the organization disavowed Cowan and Kesslers anti-populist screed. But the plutocratic wing of the Democratic Party hasnt breathed its last, and the latest centrist attack on progressive populism is a real doozy.

It comes courtesy of a Politico Magazine essay by Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall. A co-founder of the now-shuttered center right group the Democratic Leadership Council and a onetime aide to former Sen. Joe Lieberman, Marshall has long been a leading agitator on behalf of a more right-leaning Democratic Party. Aggressively hawkish on foreign affairs Marshall was associated with the erstwhile neoconservative group the Project for a New American Century and was a big booster of the Iraq War Marshall also harbors distinctly center-right views on economic issues, joining deficit scolds in railing against so-called borrow and spend policies and championing entitlement reform and corporate tax cuts.

Marshalls central thesis is that to win power, Democrats must capture the loyalties of moderate voters. Given the high number of Americans who tell pollsters that theyre moderate in their political orientation, it sounds sensible enough. But Marshall proceeds to simply ascribe to rank-and-file moderates the center-right views of the Beltway punditocracy, the better to make his case that progressive populism is a losing prospect. To win moderate voters, Marshall writes, Democrats must shun leftish orthodoxy on by supporting trade agreements, real accountability in education, changes in entitlements, development of Americas shale-gas windfall and efforts to lower regulatory obstacles to entrepreneurship. The party must refocus its efforts toward reducing the budget deficit and national debt, and it must place a higher priority on economic growth, not redistribution to achieve equality.

From a purely political standpoint the vantage from which Marshall is primarily writing this is nothing short of bunk. Most recent polling, for instance, shows Americans are skeptical of free trade agreements and support expanding Social Security. Moreover, while the way a poll frames choices may lead Americans to say growth should be a higher priority than reducing inequality, surveys indicate that Americans see inequality as a dire problem and want to raise taxes to solve it. Asked to chart an ideal distribution of wealth for society, a majority of Americans show preferences for a far more egalitarian society than we have now.

The policies Marshall advocates are no better than the politics. Reducing economic inequality, for instance, is essential to economic growth, while spikes in inequality contribute to financial crises. As economist Thomas Piketty points out, One consequence of increasing inequality was virtual stagnation of the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes in the United States, which inevitably made it more likely that modest households would take on debt, especially since unscrupulous banks and financial intermediaries offered credit on increasingly generous terms. Meanwhile, phrases like real accountability in education are meaningless sloganeering, designed to obfuscate an anti-union agenda and push education reforms that dont actually work. On climate change, Marshall is being nothing short of disingenuous when he suggests that pouring resources into natural gas production is compatible with a sustainable environmental policy. While natural gas itself may be cleaner than other fossil fuels, fracking for natural gas leaks methane, which is 34 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

When it comes to foreign policy, Marshall shows no signs of having learned the lessons of the disastrous militaristic policies he enthusiastically backed in the Bush administration. U.S. foreign policy cant simply be a series of belated, ad hoc reactions to crises,he argues, as if progressives were advocating a belated, ad hoc foreign policy. We need a new strategy for weakening Islamist extremism in whatever form it takes, for revitalizing NATO as a bulwark against Russian expansion, and for creating a balance of power in East Asia that protects the regions free and open societies. Marshall doesnt explain what achieving these sweeping goals would entail, but its clear that the Iraq War cheerleader is fearful that progressive Democrats arent as keen on American interventionism and chest-thumping as hed like.

While Cowan and Kessler at least had the courtesy to name high-profile adherents of the ideology they were castigating, Marshalls piece doesnt name-check a single soul; the closest he comes is a general swipe at self-appointed ideological minders like MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Its possible that Marshall genuinely believes, despite evidence to the contrary, that these unnamed leftist villains policies are politically perilous. But its hard to escape the sense that what really terrifies Marshall and his ilk is the realization that their brain-dead centrism finally faces a robust challenge.

See more here:
The progressives are coming!: Why the latest attempt to save Democrats from populism is so pathetic

Living in Obamaland

Guess what? Barack Obama eagerly promised to transform the U.S. during his presidency. Hopefully, the progressives are delighted that the president's desire to make the U.S. into a poor, economically undeveloped country, ruled by a small clique of concentrated elites, is coming to fruition.

We now live in Obamaland, where:

He forced ObamaCare on everyone but government officials and those he exempts.

He caused distrust in our governing institutions IRS, CDC, Secret Service, Justice Department, U.S. Customs, Federal Election Commission, etc.

He presided over the disaster of caring for our veterans.

He promoted a country of entitlement instead of opportunity.

His idea of diversity empowers quotas, not competency.

He continues to promote an educational system of socialists and communist radicals.

He is determined to destroy the greatest economic engine the world has known.

Now Obama wants us to trust him about Ebola.

Read more from the original source:
Living in Obamaland

Monster Progressives: Coronado’s Gold Slot Bonus – Free Spins, Nice Win – Video


Monster Progressives: Coronado #39;s Gold Slot Bonus - Free Spins, Nice Win
A nice, free spins win in WMS #39;s new Coronado #39;s Gold slot. This is one of the base games for Monster Progressives. This is a clone of Winning Fortunes Progres...

By: BeamMeUpSlotty

Original post:
Monster Progressives: Coronado's Gold Slot Bonus - Free Spins, Nice Win - Video

Left and Right Agree: War Is Popular

Common wisdom would purport that those on the so-called right are and have always been hawkish and pro-war, while those on the proverbial left have always been the tree-hugging, peacenik, anti-war folks. For many conservatives, unfortunately, this is more or less correct. However, progressives have once again airbrushed their own past, which is about as anti-war as, well, war.

Much of this perception is relatively recent and primarily boils down to the Iraq War. The neoconservative warmongering was in full swing and for his part, Barack Obama gave a rather pleasant speech about his opposition to the war before it began. In his book, Obama elaborated,

What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administrations rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete.[1]

Not terribly bad, at least for a politician.

Obama then proceeded to escalate the war in Afghanistan, go to war with Libya without Congressional approval, authorize airstrikes in Iraq as well as drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan while saber-rattling at Syria, Iran and the Ukraine. Even the American withdrawal from Iraq he oversaw which is now being ballyhooed by clueless neoconservatives was hardly different than the schedule George W. Bush had already agreed to.

Indeed, as far as Democratic, and ostensibly progressive, politicians were concerned, Obama was actually abnormal in his tepid opposition to the Iraq War. Senate Democrats voted in favor of letting George Bush go to war 25 to 20. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry all voted yes.

Furthermore, it wasnt long ago that the supposedly conservative Republicans were the ones against war and the supposedly liberal Democrats in favor of it. The big difference seemed to be nothing more than which partys politician was in office. For example, regarding the military action in Kosovo in 1999, Senate Republicans opposed the resolution giving Clinton authorization for military action 13 to 32 while the Democrats supported it 38 to 3. The 2000 Republican Party platform even criticized the Democrats for being too militaristic abroad. Only later, after almost unanimous support on both sides of the aisle for the war in Afghanistan, did the parties switch for Iraq. Well, sort of switched.

Progressive opposition to the Iraq War has been very much exaggerated. Both the left-liberal New York Times and Washington Post backed the war. Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Weisberg, George Packer and Jonathan Chait all supported the invasion. Current Senator and liberal-favorite Al Franken noted that I believed Colin Powell. I believed the presumption that the President is telling the truth. So I thought, I guess we have to go to war. The popular liberal blogger Matt Yglesias explained his support for the war as having been because he adhered to the school of thought (popular at the time) which held that one major problem in the world was that the US government was unduly constrained in the use of force abroad by domestic politics. In other words, progressives werent getting as much war in the 90s as they would have preferred.

Sure, most of them eventually repudiated their former support (with the notable exception of Christopher Hitchens). But almost everyone outside of a few neoconservative perma-hawks have done the same. When Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was asked in 2010 how many of his Republican colleagues thought the war was a mistake, he responded, I will say that the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake. Being against the Iraq War now is kind of like being against slavery now. Its certainly the correct moral position, but its not a particularly brave or impressive stance to take.

And while there were more on the Left who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, it must be noted that anti-war movement amongst progressives quickly dissipated as soon as Barack Obama was elected. And while some on the Left have opposed Obamas many interventions (albeit quietly), youll find more support than opposition amongst progressives for Obamas kinetic military actions. For example, Nancy Pelosi was pushing for a war with Syria while Progressive-favorite Elizabeth Warren wants to bomb Iraq. DNC Chair Michael Czin even channeled his inner-neoconservative by declaring that Rand Paul blames America for all the problems in the world because of Pauls (unfortunately short-lived) criticism of intervening in Iraq once again.

See the rest here:
Left and Right Agree: War Is Popular