Mediaboss Marketing

Last weeks elections delivered an overwhelming victory for progressives in Virginia, where Democrats solidified a majority in the General Assembly and candidates in local races followed suit. In Charlottesville, where the deadly white nationalist Unite the Right rally took place two years ago, voters elected a slate of progressive candidates to the city council, including an activist, Michael Payne, who is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

But the gap between electing progressive officials and enacting progressive policies is a wide one. An ongoing court battle over the Confederate statues at the center of the white nationalist rally shows how a little-known legal rule has been used to hamstring local democracy across the state.

On September 13, 2019, Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore overruled the Charlottesville City Councils decision to remove its public statues of the Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

The council had voted to remove the Lee statue in February 2017 and later voted to remove the Jackson statue. As the council voted to remove the monuments, the racist legacy of the Southern generals came into focus.

A national movement to remove Confederate monuments was gaining momentum after Dylann Roofs 2015 Confederacy-inspired massacre at the African American Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Following the white supremacist killings, statutes of Lee were targeted for removal. Many of the monuments had been erected by reactionaries in the early 1900s, by a movement to justify the Confederacy and reframe the Souths defeat in the Civil War. However, the myth that Lee somehow abhorred slavery has by now been intensely challenged. A piece in the The Atlantic in 2017 effectively debunked the myth, by making clear he held white supremacist views and treated his slaves brutally.

Two months after the councils decision to remove the Lee statute, a small group of local residents sued the city of Charlottesville, arguing the local government had overstepped its authority.

That August, white nationalists violently marched on the city at the Unite the Right rally to defend the statue. The rally would lead to the death of 32-year-old protester Heather Heyer, and two state officers who died in a helicopter crash while patrolling the rally.

In this context, Judge Moores ruling dealt an obvious blow to those seeking to challenge the rising tide of white supremacy. But theres another, critical implication that has received less attention. This lawsuit reaffirms a rule thats been thwarting progressive policy-making by cities and counties across the country.

Under Dillons Rule, there is no check on how far a state can go in usurping local democracy.

A lesser-known element of the lawsuit against the city is its argument that the city resolutions violated a century-old legal doctrine referred to in Virginia, as the Dillon Rule. That rule, also referred to as Dillons Rule, is named after a corporate railroad attorney and eventual judge named John F. Dillon. To this day, he is credited with pioneering a judicial attack on municipalities at the peak of post-Civil War Reconstructiona time of heightened African American electoral participation following the emancipation of slaves and expansion of suffrage to African American men.

Dillon became well-known for a legal treatise he wrote in 1873 called The Law of Municipal Corporations which raised alarms about local governments that were trying to redistribute wealth and expand democratic participation in local public services. Populations of urban immigrants were booming. At the time, there were numerous legal battles over local governments powers to tax property owners who were overwhelmingly whiteand set labor standards for city contractors. In a Yale University lecture, Dillon called laws that tax property discrimination legislation that infringes on property rights, and urged his audience to fear and guard against the despotism of the many,of the majority.

Similar arguments that upheld the rightful enjoyment of property, as he wrote, were at the time also being used to protect property owners rights to discriminate in private places, and shield them from taxation. His treatise arguedin reactionary fashionthat local governments only possess those powers which states explicitly grant them.

This idea has morphed into a legal doctrine that blankets the nation.

In 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively applied Dillons Rule to all American communities by citing it in a ruling that said an Indiana town didnt have the authority to sell bonds. The Court later reaffirmed and broadened Dillons Rule in 1907. Since then, its been used to undermine community democracy in many states.

Just as it was used in the late 1800s, Dillons Rule was a tool the State of Michigan used to successfully defend dissolving the power of half a dozen majority African American city governments after the financial crisis of 2008 (including Detroit and Flint). It has been used to defend the Alabama State Legislatures restrictions on the governing powers of Birmingham, a majority-African American city, and other cities. Everywhere, it defines fundamental power dynamics. The rule is rigorously defended by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate-led, state-level policy network.

In communities across the nation, local movements are stymied from raising the minimum wage, governing the fossil fuel industry, heightening civil rights protections, and otherwise weighing in on key societal questions.

Some states, such as Michigan, identify as Home Rule states. There, local governments enjoy some assumed local self-governing authority. However, this authority is superficial compared to the deeper influence Dillons Rule wields, which allows state legislators to unilaterally redefine and restrict what those Home Rule powers are, at their whim. Home Rule did not protect the power of the Detroit and Flint city councils from being gutted.

Thats because, under Dillons Rule, there is no check on how far a state can go in usurping local democracy.

The impact of Dillons Rule in Charlottesville is not limited to the fight over statues. Following the white nationalist Unite the Right rally there was an effort to ban assault weapons in public spaces. That too was prohibited by Dillons Rule.

A local movement also successfully lobbied the city to pursue racial justice reforms. This activism led the city to consider affordable housing reforms that were seen as a benefit to the African American community. It was a concrete response to the white nationalist rally.

But, according to Dillons Rule, the city had limited power to enact meaningful affordable housing measures. The Virginia General Assembly hadnt granted the city authority to pass something as simple as an inclusionary zoning ordinance to require developers set aside a percentage of new developments as affordable. That reformmuch less anything strongeralso never went forward.

Charlottesville community members also mobilized to establish a stronger civilian review panel to process complaints against local police officers. These efforts were also stymied by the legislature, which, thanks to Dillons Rule, does not allow subpoena powers for Charlottesvilles review board.

This form of repression is not unique to Virginia, Alabama, or Michigan. In communities across the nation, local movements are stymied from raising the minimum wage, governing the fossil fuel industry, heightening civil rights protections, and otherwise weighing in on key societal questions.

However, despite the racially-disproportionate impacts of Dillons Rule, demands for more local democracy are often misunderstood and confused with demands for racist libertarianism. Thats why communities that work with Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), which I work for, challenges Dillons Rule in a way that maintains a commitment to state and federal protections for civil and human rights, while fighting for local communities rights to increase and expand those protections.

CELDF works with local governments and local grassroots groups that aim to make fundamental change to state constitutional law, including abolishing Dillons Rule. This means redefining state law as a floor that local governments have a right to build upon, in order to heighten protections for civil and human rightsjust as federal law acts as a floor upon which states can increase protections. It means recognizing some constitutional democratic powers for local democracy, and moving away from the system we have todaywhere states remain unconstrained in their repression of local laws.

This means redefining state law as a floor that local governments have a right to build upon, in order to heighten protections for civil and human rights.

CELDF has worked with nearly 200 municipalities and Native nations across ten states that have adopted laws that embody this vision. Our partners are advancing state constitutional change and have passed and advanced local laws that challenge Dillons Rule.

Opposition to Dillons Rule is gaining some momentum in Virginia, where CELDF has organized with communities. The new Democratic majority has made some promises about allowing local governments more authority to take down racist statues. However, its support for structural change to reverse Dillons Rule is far from clear. And it will take more than a simple electoral majority to make such transformative change.

In Charlottesville, the battle over statues continues. Supporters of the Confederate monuments are pressing the city to spend money to protect the statues from vandalism. The city on the other hand is now appealing Judge Moores ruling, arguing the statues send a racist message. They will likely get some help from the new legislature.

One Charlottesville activist I spoke to told me, I wish a thousand locals and [University of Virginia] students would put a chain over [the statutes] and pull them down.

Originally posted here:
Progressive wins in Virginia are limited as long as Dillon's Rule is on the books - scalawagmagazine.org

I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

Read the original:
What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive ...

Roots of socialism in America

The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters of 1856, and Iron Moulders` Union of North America in 1859. Theodore H. White, author of Fire in the Ashes: Europe in Mid-Century (1953) wrote, "Socialism is the belief and the hope that by proper use of government power, men can be rescued from their helplessness in the wild cycling cruelty of depression and boom."

Progress of socialism

The Socialist Party in America was born and grew dramatically between 1900 and 1912. Under the charismatic leadership of Eugene V. Debs in 1912, 160 councilmen, 145 aldermen, one congressman, and 56 mayors, including Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Berkeley, California, and Schenectady, New York, were elected as Socialists. At the time, Socialists published 300 newspapers, including the Appeal of Reason, which was a Kansas-based publication with 700,000 subscribers. Membership in the Socialist Party totaled 125,000.

Debs converted to socialism while serving jail time for his part in the Pullman Strike in 1897, and began to edit the Appeal to Reason publication. From 1900 to 1920, he ran for president on the Socialist ticket while increasing membership to the Socialist Party tenfold. Although Debs insisted he was a Marxist, he spoke more about poverty and injustice than typical socialist concerns about the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx).

In 1912, Debs received 900,000 votes, which was six percent of the presidential votes cast that year, principally for his stand against America`s involvement in World War I. Debs appealed to blue collar workers hungry for improved working conditions and higher wages, but also such intellectuals as authors Jack London and Upton Sinclair.

Prominently with President Theodore Roosevelt and through the 20th century`s first years, the Progressive Movement came into view with its belief in the perfectability of man, and in an open society where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or worse."

The Socialist Party was included within the Progressive Movement. The party dealt with American problems in an American manner. Unlike the Communist Party, the Socialist Party at that time felt no obligation to adhere to an international party line. For example, socialists and other progressives campaigned at the local level for municipal ownership of waterworks, gas and electric plants, and made good progress in such endeavors. In 1911, there were 18 Socialist candidates for mayor, and they nearly won the Cleveland, Ohio, and Los Angeles, California, mayoral races.

In 1905, Upton Sinclair founded the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which soon had chapters in the leading universities. Lively young men and women discussed the New Gospel according to St. Marx." Universities were considered to be favorable ground for progressive thought.

Following the election of 1912, Socialist Party membership began to decline as some members cast their vote for Woodrow Wilson. Others were expelled, such as the Industrial Workers of the World, of which Debs and labor organizer "Mother" Mary Harris Jones had once been members. The IWW had been organized in 1905, grew into a radical, direct-action wing of American socialism by 1910, and had up to 100,000 workers by 1915.

By 1917, Socialist Party membership had slipped to 80,000. Nevertheless, by 1920 Debs managed to garner 919,800 votes for his presidential candidacy, the most a socialist has ever received in America, albeit making up only 3.4 percent of the popular vote. Those votes were representive of Americans` disillusionment with World War I, and of Debs himself, who spoke passionately against the country`s involvement in that war.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was crafted to jail anyone who interfered with the draft or encouraged disloyalty [to America]" and provided for jail sentences of 10 to 20 years. The Sedition Act of 1918 extended further penalties to those found obstructing the sale of U.S. war bonds, discouraging recruitment, uttering disloyal or abusive language" about the government, the Constitution, the American flag, or even the U.S. military uniform. Under those acts, the government arrested more than 1,500 people, including Eugene Debs.

The Socialist Party`s strength was further sapped by 1920, because of government suppression and public disapproval during World War I. Such anti-socialist hysteria as the Red Scare, and internal factionalism aggravated by the presence of Communists, took their toll. Fears associated with the Bolsheviks` seizure of power in Russia, bombings in the United States, along with a series of labor strikes, led to the Red Scare in 1919. Suspected socialists and Communists were arrested and thrown into jail. In the end, of the 5,000 people who were given arrest warrants, only slightly more than 600 aliens were actually deported.

In addition, the party`s failure during the 1920s was due to its inability to appeal to the upwardly mobile worker who yearned to be part of the middle class. The party also was divided along racial and ethnic lines. Their broadest appeal was to the well-educated members of society. In 1928, the Socialist presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received only 267,835 votes. Thomas was a Princeton graduate and Presbyterian minister in New York. He succeeded Debs after the latter`s death as the perennial presidential candidate in the 1928, 1932 and 1936 elections. Thomas stood as more indicative of the Socialist Party member, which was made up of mostly intellectuals and the middle class, rather than a worker`s party that Debs had basically represented.

Socialists were also plagued by extreme doubt on the part of most progressives, who were leading the charge to free America from the economic woes of the Great Depression and were weathering deep hostility from conservatives. By the mid-Twenties, the party was deeply divided and failed to revive itself during the depression years of the 1930s.

During the election of 1932, the Socialist and Communist parties, who had insisted that capitalism had collapsed, pulled less than one million votes combined. American voters had grown weary of Republican policies and therefore Democrats won big in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, illustrating that Americans had faith in their country and its institutions. In that election, Norman Thomas received only 892,000 votes.

During the election of 1936, Republican painted Franklin D. Roosevelt as leading the country towards the platform of the Socialist Party. This bothered both Roosevelt and Norman Thomas, who agreed on one thing, which was that Roosevelt was not a Socialist.

Creeping socialism," an expression used in modern times to describe America`s so-called drift towards a socialistic society, was coined by author F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. Published in 1944, Hayek`s book warned of the dangers of state control over the means of production, which he perceived to be occurring, especially in regards to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), during the New Deal and the Fair Deal administrations of presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, respectively.

Hayek believed that excessive governmental controls on society did not deliver on their promises and that their ideology actually delivered dismal economic results. But more importantly, he averred, it produces a psychological change in the character of the people in that man`s desire to better himself is what drives him to succeed and also improves the way of life for those around him. According to Hayek, socialism strips man of his desire to succeed.

Because of the Cold War, McCarthyism, and dominance of the Middle American" values, the Communist and Socialist parties virtually disappeared in the 1950s, when membership fell to below 2,000 members. Many Socialists left the party because it was seen that more progressive reform could be achieved through membership in the Democratic Party. Among those who departed were: Walter Reuther, Philip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin. Life was good for the average American, who worked fewer than 40 hours per week. Most received annual two-week vacations and had twice the income to spend as they had during the nation`s previous economic boom time in the late Twenties.

During the 1960s and `70s, the Socialist Party exerted little influence on American society because of intra-party conflict, as well as a refusal to support the anti-Vietnam War movement that was sweeping across America. In 1968 at the Socialist Party convention, members passed a resolution to support Democrat Hubert Humphrey for president, instead of nominating their own candidate.

And in 1972, the body chose to support George McGovern for president. But then for the first time in 20 years, in 1976, the Socialist Party decided to run its own presidential campaign with former Milwaukee mayor Frank Zeidler (1948-1960) for president and J. Quinn Brisben, a Chicago teacher, for vice president. Since that time, others have been nominated, including Willa Kenoyer (1988), J. Quinn Brisben (1992) and Mary Cal Hollis in 1996.

Modern socialist movements and organizations

In American society today, socialist groups range in political views from the extreme right to the extreme left. The extreme right wing groups comprise neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and fascist groups such as the National Socialist Movement or NSM, whose purpose is to purify" American society through violent and non-violent means. The NSM is said to wear the uniforms and paraphernalia of the Third Reich. According to their website, the NSM is an organization that is dedicated to the preservation of our Proud Aryan Heritage, and the creation of a National Socialist Society in America and around the world."

Representing the far left wing are such groups as the Socialist Party U.S.A. That party believes in what is called Democratic Socialism," defined as a political and economic system with freedom and equality for all, so that people may develop to their fullest potential in harmony with others." The party further states that it is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system" and that the ownership and control of the production and distribution of goods should be democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups." Other socialist groups include the Democratic Socialists of America, National Alliance, Young Democrat Socialist, and the Democratic Progressive Party.

- - - Books You May Like Include: ----

The Wobblies: The Story of the IWW & Syndicalism in the United States by Patrick Renshaw. Does anyone save historians remember the Wobblies? This nickname for the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), the revolutionary labor union founded...

See the original post:
Socialism in America - u-s-history.com

For a long time, the political left has been on the rampage trying to call out Donald Trump as literally Hitler, obviously as an emotionally charged incentive to try to get (braindead) people to not vote for him. In many cases even his mere supporters have been grouped into the label as well!

However, little do progressives and SJWs know, there are six (at the minimum!) ways in which it is actually they who are far more closely associated with Nazism, rather than the various libertarian and right-wing groups they are always attacking.

So dont just sit back and take the punishment. Call them out and fight back!

The Hitler salute used in Nazi Germany

A wannabe-tough and Hitleresque salute used by Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers

The Nazi salute or Hitler salute was a gesture used as a greeting to powerful Nazi officials, and to glorify the German nation under the Third Reich. The salute was performed by extending the right arm to at least eye level, and straightening the hand so that it is parallel to the arm.

The George Soros-funded domestic terrorist group Black Lives Matter, which has a great deal of sympathizers and supporters from the political left, has also adopted their own (ultimately meaningless) arm gesture. Conservatives, libertarians, and the Alt-Right simply dont bother with such try-hard tough and faux-fascist nonsense.

Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Hitler!

2. They Both Want Heavy Firearms Restrictions Or Outright Confiscation

In the build-up to Nazi Germany going on the war rampage, Hitler made damn sure that the non-military German populace (Jew and Gentile alike) would be thoroughly disarmed of any projectile firing weapons, as to prevent any kind of civilian insurrection or rebellion against his fascist regime.

Progressives and SJWs in the United States by and large hate guns, and repeatedly call for heavy restrictions on firearms or outright Hitler, Stalin, and Mao style confiscation.

On the other hand, conservatives, libertarians, and the Alt-Right (including neomasculinists) all respect and value the right to bear arms in order to stymie out-of-control criminality and keep government oppression in check. Not to mention its a damn good idea to have most of the population armed as a major deterrent against outside invaders.

Just ask Switzerland, who successfully avoided all of the chaos in Nazi-occupied Europe due to both their mountainous geography and by having the most strapped-up civilian population in all the land.

Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Hitler!

From Progressive website Alternet. Could have come straight out of Mein Kampf when talking about Jews.

Despite being responsible for about 95% of all major technological and medical advancements for the past 600 years, and the upholders or creators (along with Northeast Asians) of the most advanced infrastructure, high-income, low-corruption, politically stable, and peaceful countries on the planet (i.e. highly desired for migration for people of all races and colors around the world), progressives and SJWs almost never have anything positive to say about white males.

Every real or perceived societal issue must be caused by the white man and his supremacist outlook on life and his racist institutions, and no personal responsibility must be accepted for what plagues the African-American, Native American, or Chicano communities. The finger of righteous indignation can simply point straight back to heterosexual white males, who are privileged beyond all comparison.

(But please, keep it quiet that many Asian minority groups are economically outperforming white people and are being imprisoned far less per capita. Ok? Youll ruin the leftist narrative.)

In similar fashion, the Nazis blamed just about everything that caused pain to Germany on the mannerisms, behaviors, and business practices of Jews.

Nazi Germany: Jewness will explain away nearly anything.

Degenerate leftist outlets like Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, and MIC work day and night to humiliate, belittle, and blame white males for every perceived societal injustice, in the same way Nazi Germany blamed Jews for everything.

Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Hitler!

(2016 Alternate Universe: Black Lives Matter Protest And Beating Of Innocent Whites Begins At 0:42)

As part of the increasingly hostile treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, the Kristallnacht or crystal night was an evening in late 1938 where thousands of Jewish-owned businesses were destroyed or damaged in a coordinated act of malice. Additionally, several dozen Jews were murdered during the attacks and untold thousands were injured.

In the late 2010s, the progressive and SJW-supported Black Lives Matter have enacted several major protests (riots) in various cities across the United States which have seen hundreds of businesses burned or looted, and innocent white people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time have been specifically targeted for violent reprisal. Because, you know, another police officer (whether white or black) must have shot and killed another black felon.

But what do the SJW leaders of Black Lives Matter like DeRay Mckesson have to say about these destructive and inherently anti-white rioters? We Stand With You.

Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Hitler!

5. They Both Use Incessant Goebbles-Style Propaganda To Push Their Bogus Narratives

Ok, so Goebbles isnt (literally) Hitler, but hes close enough to how the progressive and SJW media acts in the 2010s. Much like the Nazi propaganda machine of the 1930s, leftist media outlets continually push lie after lie after lie upon the masses. All in the hopes that it will eventually become, via sheer repetition alone, the truth in the minds of the emotion-driven sheeple.

Even though these lies, such as campus rape culture, the gender wage gap, and institutional racism in policing (all by-products of a supposed white supremacy and toxic masculinity) have been disproven and debunked time and time again, they simply double down and keep pushing the lies one thousand times over. Like the Nazis, SJWsjustdont..QUITwith the lies and endless propaganda.

On the other hand, the vast majority of conservatives, libertarians, and the Alt-Right are receptive to digesting actual facts about people and society. Untethered by the scourge of political correctness, and the scourge of favoring egalitarian feelings against factual analysis and data which may be discomforting to many.

Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Goebbles!

An SJW book burning rally against authors Roosh, Cernovich, Vox Day, and others.

Finally, the Nazis despised any concept of freedom of speech. There was a huge verboden (forbidden) list of books people could read, names which new parents could give to their children, and people who spoke out against the Nazi regime would be arrested, have their livelihoods destroyed, or even get disappeared altogether.

Modern day progressives and SJWs take great delight in doxing people out of their jobs (and thus potentially reducing them to destitute poverty) if their manner of speech, writings, or opinions do not march lock-step with the social justice narrative.

If you dont think transgenders are brave and gorgeous people, that homosexuality is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that Islam will culturally enrich the West, and that high black arrest rates are because of racist white cops, then you put your livelihood in great danger if you make those opinions public.

Most conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and Alt-Right adherents place great value on freedom of speech as one of the most prominent vanguards against tyranny. Progressives, SJWs, and the former Nazis of 1933-1945 do not share that sentiment.

(1:10 We live in a free country. And that is a powerful idea. Thats a magnificent way to live. But there is a price for that freedom, which is that sometimes we have to tolerate things that we dont necessarily like.)

Progressives and SJWs do not tolerate your freedom of speech.Progressives and SJWs are (literally) Hitler!

Now of course we know progressives and SJWs are not literally Hitler (we act on logic and reason rather than wild emotional fervor), but people who closely identify with those sets can start to eat their own words when they want to moronically accuse Donald Trump of being literally Hitler.

Their own way of life, and the master whom they will likely vote for (Hillary), are far more closely associated with Nazi-era behaviors than Donald Trump and his supporters ever will be.

Read More: Fake Conservative Megyn Kelly Exposes Her Anti-Trump Agenda During Presidential Debate

Read more from the original source:
6 Reasons Progressives, Leftists, And SJWs Are (Literally ...

Progressive groups backing Rep. Nancy Pelosis (D-CA) bid to reclaim the House speakers gavel in the next Congress issued a sharp warning on Monday to the group of Democratic lawmakers seeking to deny her the requisite votes: do so at your own political peril.

If right-wing Democrats end up helping Republicans by voting against Nancy Pelosi as speaker, they can expect to face serious backlash from the same energized and mobilized base of progressive voters that just brought Democrats a majority in the House. Which certainly could extend to primaries, Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for the progressive bulwark MoveOn, told The Daily Beast.

The warning was the latest in an increasingly aggressive exchange of salvos between Pelosis detractors and a larger group of supporters. It came just hours after 16 Democrats went public in their vow to oppose her candidacy to lead their caucusa total that could seriously complicate Pelosis ability to corral the 218 votes she needs on the House floor come January.

The question between now and then is whether Pelosi can convince those 11 incumbent Democrats and five incoming freshmen lawmakers who signed onto the letter to reverse their position. An implicit threat from liberal groupsthat those lawmakers may face a primary challenger in 2020 if they dontcould potentially help.

On Monday, Daily Kosthe massive online progressive community that raised more than $8.7 million for Democratic candidates throughout the 2018 midterm cyclethrew its weight behind Pelosi. The group plans to remain heavily involved in the 2020 election cycle, too, and officials left the door open to backing Democrats who challenge Pelosis detractors in the primaries.

Well be taking a variety of factors into consideration, including this, and if good challengers run in those seats, well be keeping a close eye on the situation, communications director Carolyn Fiddler told The Daily Beast.

There are few more dynamic figures in politics than Pelosi, who has led her caucus since 2003 and became the first female speaker in history in 2007. For Democrats, her tenure has been filled with notable policy achievements and difficult election defeats. She is widely regarded as a powerhouse fundraiser and talented vote-getter. But she is also a lightning rod for conservatives and has long been a punching bag for Republican candidates. Those factors have made her a target for removal before; two years ago, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) won 63 votes to Pelosis 134 in the election to be Democratic minority leader.

For progressives, however, the fact that Pelosi was the bogeyman of a midterm cycle in which Democrats still gained the majority lends credence to the idea that she has earned another run at the speakership. So too does the fact that no challenger has yet to emerge against her. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), who did not sign the insurgent letter, has said she is considering running for the position. The most vocal Pelosi opponents, however, are both white male incumbents who are ideologically more conservative: Ryan and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA).

Activists dubbed the initial group of Pelosi opponents as the #FiveWhiteGuys last week. And on Monday night, Moulton encountered swift backlash for his position on Pelosi when he met with constituents at a town hall in his district. Isa Leshko, a 47-year-old Salem resident, organized a protest at the event, distributing stickers indicating that she and other constituents were backing Pelosi.

Leshko, who had previously voted for Moulton and was grateful that he held a number of town halls in the early months of the Trump administration, said that she now believes he is squandering the goodwill he had built up with residents of the district.

We have worked so incredibly hard to get the House back, Leshko told The Daily Beast. And it just feels like he would be squandering the gains that we have made. This really is a slap in the face to progressives and women of color who really are the backbone of the Democratic party.

I just cant see another experienced accomplished talented woman get taken down, added Leshko, an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter.

A spokesman for Moulton indicated that the Massachusetts Democrat would not be deterred by statements from progressive outfits encouraging primary challengers in the future.

Seth has made his position on the need for new leadership very clear for over a year and his constituents voted overwhelming to send him back to Congress for another term knowing what that position was, Moulton spokesman Matt Corridoni told The Daily Beast. Challenging the status quo and taking on the establishment is always met with resistance from those in power, but the American peopleand Seth as one of their representativesknow its the right thing to do.

But Leshkos sentiments are shared by a host of progressive organizations that have announced their backing of Pelosi during the past week. MoveOn voiced its support around the same time that the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said they had an encouraging meeting with Pelosi and extracted some key concessions, including the promise of favorable representation on powerful House committees. Indivisible, the resistance organization founded when Donald Trump came into office, quickly followed suit, adding that we shouldnt let a small group of white, moderate men sabotage her. We support Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the House. Some of the Democratic caucus most progressive members, including Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, have announced their support for Pelosi, too.

The 11 incumbents who signed Mondays letter are in relatively safe Democratic districts, which could prompt liberal groups to find and encourage future primary challengers. But the efforts to recruit a viable challenger to Pelosi are also being pushed by a group of newly elected Democrats who campaigned on their opposition to Pelosi.

Absent a decision by the incumbent members to drop their opposition to Pelosi, those members could be forced to take a politically treacherous vote: either torpedoing the partys primaryif not onlyoption for speaker, or breaking a campaign promise to help Pelosi win 218 votes.

See the original post here:
Progressives Threaten to Target Dem ... - thedailybeast.com