My article, Beyond Politics: Removing the Progressive Drag On America has been published at Pajamas Media.
Read on to discover the full extent of their influence, and how to begin removing it...Fighting the soul-killing, wealth-destroying acts of progressives over the long term is going to take much more than winning an election or two. It will require neutralizing their influence throughout the culture. That’s much harder, of course, but essential if we’re to have a country that does more than seesaw between two power-hungry parties while spiraling ever downward.
The reasons that wider change is a must are not hard to find. Even where their relative numbers are low, progressives have come to dominate much more than just the Democratic Party and the major news outlets.
They control curricula for public K-12 education almost everywhere, despite the presence of a great many teachers who disagree with their views. Progressive educators’ numbers are bolstered by the roughly 70-85% of college educators and administrators who identify as liberals. They dominate credential-required education courses, and strongly influence textbook selection…
They represent a full-scale assault on all classical liberal values: reason, objective ethics, natural rights, capitalism, and their products — freedom and industrial production. Cleaning up Washington will be the barest beginning to reversing a century-long slide in America, one that has accelerated in the last four decades.
Ending bailouts, lowering federal spending, and tinkering with Social Security will give everyone some economic breathing room. But these actions won’t right a country that’s been increasingly tilting left for the past 40 years. And without fundamental change even those victories will be too small, and woefully short-lived…
Please weigh in both here and there with your views on what it will take to restore America to individualism and freedom.
Thanks,
Jeff
7 comments:
tilting left for the past 40 years
It's the past 100 years
1913 -Progressive Income Tax
1913 - Popular election to US Senate
1917 - US in WW1
1920 - Universal Franchise
1930 - Smoot-Hawley
1932 - ERA & RFC
1933 - Securities Act
1934 - Securities Exchange ACT, Glass-Steagall
1941 - US into WW2
1947 - Marshall Plan
1951 - Term Limits
1951 - Removal of MacArthur, refusal to take strategic action in Korea
1961 - DC Electors
1962 - Refusal to take strategic action lead to US defeat in Cuba and Turkey
1964 - Poll Taxes outlawed
1971 - Universal Youth Franchise
1973 - Refusal to take strategic action leads to US defeat in Vietnam
1990 - Refusal to take strategic action leads to US stalemate in Iraq
2010 - Refusal to take strategic action leads to US defeat in Iraq
2010 - Refusal to take strategic action leads to US defeat in Afganistan
To answer your question, it will take the United States to become numerous states in order to save Americans from the collectivists. And that will only come about after extreme hardship.
I really don't see a bright future for the U.S.
--Libertarian
Anon, do you regard it as a bad thing that nuclear war was averted in 1962?
Anon, do you regard it as a bad thing that nuclear war was averted in 1962?
Do you really not see that the decline of US power dates precisely from then?
In fact, I think it dates from 1951.
MacArthur would have won all Korea in a week.
it will take the United States to become numerous states in order to save Americans from the collectivists.
The vast majority of Americans are not collectivists, and they are armed.
President Palin in only two short years might be able to finish the job that Joseph McCarthy started.
The US constitution and government clearly has the ability to drive the collectivists/communists/socialists out of the US - or rather - to liquidate those that remain
All it has lacked since the mid-1950s is the will.
Under a President Palin, that will can change.
Lee, you stated that Anon regarded it as a bad thing that nuclear war was averted in 1962?
There was not going to be a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets were bluffing. Had the US invaded Cuba, then the Soviets would do nothing at all. The MAD principle ensured that if both sides were to fire nukes at each other, they both lose, but the Soviets would surrender first because of the overwhelming nuke arsenals of the US. The Soviets were not even going to fire one, regardless of what the US was doing at the time (such as invading Cuba, etc,...).
It would have been different it the Soviets were Iran. They wouldn't have given a damn if they did exchange nukes with the US in a confrontation, because they're suicidal by their nature.
Had the US invaded Cuba, then the Soviets would do nothing at all.... The Soviets were not even going to fire one,
Simply untrue. The Soviets had given both tactical IRMBs with range to reach the West Coast, and high-altitude SAMS, to the Cuban army, and had given them the authority to use those weapons were the US to invade.
The Cubans shot down a U2 and hit several low-level recon planes. The USAF and Army advised the president to initiate strategic action against Cuba if the plane was shot down. SAC was on full alert and DEFCON 2 - and about to transition to DEFCON 1 that would have initiated full military action, when the Democrat traitor Kennedy ordered a stand-down, and then betrayed NATO and Turkey by trading away IRBMs from Europe.
A tactical-strategic countervalue exchange would have eliminated Cuba as a socialist haven on the coast of the US and completely eliminated the Soviet bloc 40 years before Reagan managed it. US casualties estimated at < 50 MD were eminently survivable. Most crucially, the efficacy of the US strategic deterrent would have been maintained thus preventing later conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
As it is, the only way the US can regain the strategic initiative for freedom is with strategic action directed against states supporting Islamic terrorism. This action should be taken as soon as possible: and the potential casualties are far, far less than would have resulted from an exchange in 1962.
Post a Comment