Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The “Progressive” brand — for what does it stand?

Yesterday we learned that Representative Allen West (R-FL) was disinvited from an NAACP fundraiser in his home state of Florida. Last week, West had commented that “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.”
West, who came under fire for his controversial comments, responded by penning a piece in The Hill:
My colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken umbrage with my equation of their ideals with those of communists. Why? Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?
We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.
In a follow-up interview with TheStreetTV, West commented that “…when you look at the history of the Communist Party, when it came to the United States of America, back at the turn of the century, they rebranded themselves and called themselves ‘Progressives’”:

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    Damn voter ID law in Florida. He is running in my district this year and I can only vote for him once.

    Terry

    III

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brock TownsendApril 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM

    Round up your buddies!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adobe_WallsApril 25, 2012 at 9:30 PM

    Something I wrote at TCOTS in 2010.
    "The socialists discovered that Americans understood how un-American their ideology was and renamed themselves progressives. Americans discovered the ruse so they renamed themselves liberals. They in turn became correctly branded tax and spend Liberals or “Radical Liberals” (Spiro was a blunt instrument but sure could turn a phrase). Now they are back to progressives.

    The problem with allowing what ever you want to call the left participate in government or the press is that they are literally un-constitutional, in the same sense as 7-Up is the un-cola. For instance I’ve noticed that when one asks any lefty, if it’s constitutional to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, whether they are in government, the press or are considered a pundit one gets the following answer. They immediately start to explain why it’s necessary for everyone to be in the insurance pool for their insurance reform scheme to work. Not for one second do they consider, let alone address the constitutional question. For the left “The United States Constitution” is a meaningless phrase, mumbo jumbo at best some quaint scrap of parchment from some misty distant past. In short the idea of limits to what government may do exceeds their comprehension skills."


    http://thecampofthesaints.org/2010/03/12/leftist-sleight-of-hand/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brock TownsendApril 25, 2012 at 9:35 PM

    it’s necessary for everyone to be in the insurance pool for their insurance reform scheme to work. Not for one second do they consider, let alone address the constitutional question. For the left “The United States Constitution” is a meaningless phrase, mumbo jumbo at best some quaint scrap of parchment from some misty distant past. In short the idea of limits to what government may do exceeds their comprehension skills."

    I just call them Collectivists or useful idiots.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)