progressive movement – USA Gov Policy

Those searching for the reasons that American politics has become so discordant need look no further the events of July. The Progressive Left’s actions, in assaulting journalists, slandering and threatening the political opposition, and attempting to dismantle constitutional institutions such as the Electoral College are geared towards a larger and deeply unsavory goal.

No single incident demonstrates more clearly the current mentality of the Progressive Left than that which happened to a reporter covering an Antifa demonstration in Portland, Oregon. This is Andy Ngo’s own words, which he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

“I was suddenly slammed on the back of my head with something hard… I was… punched and kicked by perhaps a dozen masked people in black. At an Antifa event … I, a gay journalist of color, was beaten so badly that I was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage…I have been targeted by Antifa and its allies for my critical coverage of their violent extremism. I’ve reported those incidents to the Portland Police Bureau, and in some cases I’ve identified suspects, but there were no arrests. The mainstream media describe Antifa as ‘antifascist,’ but in fact it is a far-left paramilitary-style movement of anarchists and communists agitating for a revolution.”

Progressive Left Mayor Ted Wheeler, a Democrat, has steadfastly refused to protect Portland’s citizenry from Antifa, the stormtroopers of the increasingly militant wing which now dominates the national Democratic Party. Much of the media has downplayed the story.

Antifa is not an outlier. It is, in fact, simply the most visible example of what the Progressive Left is. When some disappointed Clinton voters took to the streets and engaged in violence to protest the results of a fair and honest election that they lost in 2016, they expressed their ideology precisely: Surrender to us or be attacked. Hillary Clinton, when asked during a debate what her definition of what the “enemy” is, didn’t say poverty, discrimination, disease, war, Russia or China. She said “Republicans.”

To the left, fellow Americans who refuse to kowtow to them are indeed the enemy. The reason is that it is Read Full Article levitra on line sale. levitra is Sildenafil citrate. They usually start acting tadalafil tablets in india in around 30 minutes with hard-rock erections that last for about 5 to 6 hours. You on line levitra are advised to keep a track on blood glucose levels. Drinking healing mineral water at home that may make you feel like happy after long day in office Enjoying peaceful, restful, calm and enjoyable sleep throughout the night Being watchful to what you are going to do to your partner later by masturbating, but don’t climax. tadalafil 5mg online And all is fair when fighting the enemy, including violence and lies. The lies are extraordinary in size and scope, and survive because a partisan media, both traditional and on the web, refuses to adequately expose them.

Consider the slander, timed precisely for the 4^th of July week, that the “Betsy Ross” 13-star Revolutionary War flag was a symbol of white nationalists. The claim is sheer nonsense, but at least one major corporations, fearful of the economic and physical threats of the Progressive Left, surrendered in the blink of an eye.

One of the most significant issues on the current political scene concerns the mass influx of illegal immigrants, estimated to number 100,000 per month at an annual cost to the U.S. taxpayer of over $134 Billion. Unlike other immigrants of the past from Latin America or elsewhere, this massive wave is so large that reasonable safeguards including checking for contagious disease, membership in criminal gangs, and affiliations with terrorism cannot be effectively accomplished. But those bringing up these legitimate concerns are branded as “racists.”

The Progressive Left’s central lie in all this is that individual issues are the point. Economics, immigration, medical coverage, all are merely buzzword issues used to recruit support in the larger cause: the establishment of a far more powerful central government with the capability of shutting down individual rights, a necessity if socialism is to be implemented. This has been trending since the Obama Administration. Lois Lerner used the IRS to attack the Tea Party. Loretta Lynch used the Justice Department to suppress critics of the former president. Slander was used (unsuccessfully) against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Frederica Wilson, a Florida Democrat, seeks to “prosecute” anyone who criticizes lawmakers online.

The American public, shielded from the truth by a partisan media, has yet to fully awaken to the reality that there is a powerful, militant movement that seeks to destroy the freedoms that they have enjoyed for so long.

Modern American Progressive activists tend to think of themselves as an avant-garde movement at the cutting edge of a new wave. In reality, they are practicing a time worn script seen repeatedly through the ages. The trend has reached a crescendo since the 2016 election.

Throughout history, extremists of every sort have convinced their followers, and perhaps themselves, that their actions were justified. Absolute monarchs subscribed to the belief that their power came from God. Nazis alleged that they were restoring Germany. Communists claim they represent “the people.” Theocrats insist they are the one true voice of a deity.

The excuses may differ, but the reality is the same; conform or be punished. The methods are also similar. Block dissenting voices, utilize or threaten violence against those with differing views. Any action, including mass murder, aggressive warfare, censorship, deception and violence, are, in their eyes, valid because the means, no matter how extreme, justify the ends.

Within the United States, there is a rapidly growing and deeply disturbing trend that mirrors the attitudes and actions of totalitarian movements. On college campuses, guest speakers not conforming to a hard-left perspective are kept away, through violence or the threat thereof; non-progressive professors are not hired; centrist or conservative students are intimidated or ostracized. The actions of the Berkley rioters are not functionally different from the time-dishonored precedent of their fascistic forebears of the 1930’s.

Dr. Laurie Patton, president of Middlebury College, writing in USA Today, describes a scenario that has become unfortunately typical:

“Students protested when [a non-leftist] speaker took the stage. They prevented him from speaking and went on to disrupt attempts to continue the program…when [the speaker and moderator] left the building, outsiders [and] students physically confronted them and surrounded their car. [The moderator] was injured…”

In contrast, leftists speakers utter extreme anti-centrist and anti-conservative positions with impunity. One example: New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand delivered a profanity-laced address at New York University’ recent commencement exercise aimed the current White House. She faced no disruption.

As these students graduate and should they eventually assume positions of authority, book burning and the imprisonment of dissenters will not be far behind.

You will not hear these concerns expressed in most news analyses.

This pumping works with the help of a battery cipla cialis canada http://valsonindia.com/portfolio-items/airtex-yarn/ and the measure is very effective. The doctor also works to recognize the usefulness cialis without prescription of every herb, plant food, animal, mineral, and quite possibly other related synchronous phenomenons by their shapes, forms, actions, how and where they grow, and reside. Kamagra jelly includes generico levitra on line sildenafil citrate that easily boosts the movement of blood all through the body and through your penis. If possible, try limiting your work and give some time to the drug to assimilate in the body and the mind of an individual buy 10mg levitra which also elevates a person to stop doing over masturbation. Conventional media has abandoned objective coverage in favor of Progressive-oriented “advocacy journalism.” Internet search engines bury non-leftist search results, and social media sites claim the right to omit entries they deem inappropriate. The Black Lives Matter movement, citing examples of rare police misbehavior against minorities, condone establishing a permissive attitude towards violence against the forces of law. Terrorists, such as Bill Ayers, are welcomed into the halls of power, up to and including the former Obama administration. Anti-Semites such as Keith Ellison are given positions of exceptional influence, in Ellison’s case, as Deputy Director of the DNC. Adding to Ellison’s power is the recent naming of his top political aide, Will Hailer, as a key DNC adviser, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

The co-opting of federal agencies for partisan purposes, such as that which occurred when the IRS was used to attack Tea Party groups in the prior Administration, mirrors methods used in totalitarian governments, such as the USSR, in which the Communist Party, not the actual government, held true power.

In American grammar and high schools, traditional fact-based education has been replaced by politically-oriented indoctrination. Radical-left texts are utilized not as alternative viewpoints but as standard guides. The New York Post recently noted that a Brooklyn middle school teacher assigned an anti-capitalist screed as a homework assignment. A Texas text book asked students to compare the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center to the Boston Tea Party.

Objective science takes a back seat to Progressive philosophical course work, particularly “sustainability.”

As with all totalitarian movements, Progressivism utilizes a kind of reverse phraseology. The “AntiFa” (anti-facist) movement is, at its core, fascistic, in both practice and philosophy.

The concept of preventing “offensive speech” is merely the latest excuse to suppress differing perspectives. Advocates of censoring so-called offensive speech should review history. Eliminating the absolute power of monarchs, establishing representative government, allowing religious freedom, ending slavery, giving equal rights to women, all were considered deeply offensive concepts to many when they were first proposed.

The tolerance by the left of dictatorial regimes is disturbing, but quite revealing. Obama’s opening of relations with oppressive Cuba was inappropriate; so, to, was the refusal to condemn and take forceful action against radical Islam, which endorses the death of nonbelievers. Support by many prominent progressives, both those elected to office and in the entertainment industry of the destruction of Venezuela by a dictatorial socialist regime is inexcusable. Kindred souls feel no need to criticize each other.

Since the election of Donald Trump, the advocacy of violence against the elected president has become epidemic—and increasingly acceptable on the left. Writing in the Federalist, Daniel Payne notes “…There is reason to be genuinely, authentically concerned with the direction in which the left is headed. To cope with the political defeats they suffered in 2016, liberals appear to be embracing and championing political violence.” This, also, resembles the actions of totalitarian movements across the ages.

Leftists have brought America to a precipice.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.