Glenn Beck Exposing Progressives, your Chavez is showing!

Here is a great piece on the progressive movement and Glenn Beck's efforts to expose these evil people.
Source: Glenn Beck Exposing Progressives, your Chavez is showing By Jen Shroder

Glenn Beck Exposing Progressives,
your Chavez is showing
By Jen Shroder / Free to repost
2/1/10

Ever feel like both Republicans and Democrats are just puppets on a stage of distraction? Glenn Beck has been explaining why to millions of captivated Americans. It’s the Progressive movement and it attacks the Constitution from BOTH parties. If you haven’t been watching his show, you need to.

Glenn explains how Progressivism has been with us since the turn of the century. It isn’t discussed in textbooks because President Woodrow Wilson and Walter Litman were part of the "Council of Foreign Relations" whose goal it was to change history as we knew it through education and the media. The movement (alive and well today) is out to replace our beloved Constitution with a philosophy that the elite should rule. Woodrow Wilson said, "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment and the nation will still stand forth…" He said the preamble of the Constitution should never be read and the Declaration of Independence has zero relevance to any other age other than 1776.

I never heard that in school…

Academic elites hold George Bernard Shaw dearly in their hearts. Are they aware he was a Progressive that said, "I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, "Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself."

This is from a religious site but the author was spot on in my opinion. Anyways, I wanted to start discussions on progressives and the plans they have under their sleeves so any contribution is welcome here. Thanks.







Mod Edit: Quote trimmed and link added. Please see Posting work written by others. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 11/2/10 by JAK]

Originally posted by Locoman8
Academic elites hold George Bernard Shaw dearly in their hearts. Are they aware he was a Progressive that said, "I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, "Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself."

That sounds more like an argument against welfare than against progressivism, excuse me, socialism. This is absolutely prosophobia, fear of progress, and xenophobia, fear of the unkown.

I have to note that the article specifically said, "The turn of the century," while referring to the turn of the 20th century, maybe they just don't want to think that time moves forward...

I would be happy to contradict Glenn Beck but I don't ever, ever watch him because he uses fear to get his message across.

Remember your fearful synonyms while watching Beck; Socialism=Hitler=Communism=Stalin=Mao=Fascism=Progressivism=Liberal=Democrat=Obama

So using Beck's method of guilt by association, Obama=Hitler.

reply to post by links234


How is equating Obama with Hitler any different than the liberals equating Bush with Hitler? Obama is a socialist and freely admits it and the NAZI's were known as the "National Socialist Party". If you don't watch Beck, don't put words in his mouth like he's using fear to scare people or something like that. He is giving facts that no one can call him on... They just try to smear his name and try to shut him up or try to twist what he said.

Beck is ok, some of what he preaches thou he does not back up to well.

Like the other day when he was talking about the stock market crash of 1920, I disagreed with how he explained we recovered, Ironically I was studying about the federal reserve and how it started, just that same day and and researched the crash of 1920, and how we recovered, which was differant then what Beck said. This is what I read to be true and factual.

From 1921 to 1929 the Fed again increased the money supply resulting once again in extensive loans to the public and banks. There was also a fairly new type of loan called the margin loan in the stock market. Very simply, the margin loan allowed an investor to put down only 10% of the stock's price with the other 90% being loaned from the broker. In other words, a person could own a $1000 worth of stock, with only a $100 down. This method was very popular in the roaring 1920's as everyone seemed to be making money in the market. However, there was a catch to this loan. It could be called in at any time and had to be paid within 24 hours. This is termed "a margin call", and a typical result of a margin call was the selling of the stock purchased with the loan.

source.. webskeptic.wikidot.com...

that is when I learned not to beleive or take all of Beck's lectures as rule of law.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Bicent76]

Turn off Glen Beck.

Every time I see someone on ATS say something about Progressive's, I can be rest assured it's something they heard from Glen Beck. After all, it's what he focuses almost entirely on now.

The guy ignores more corruption than he claims to expose and constantly rails against Obama calling him every name in the book that he can get away with.

He states there are "good" democrats out there.....well what, in his definition, a good democrat? A Conservative Democrat? The guy is focused on word play for the most part.

Obama is a socialist and freely admits it and the NAZI's were known as the "National Socialist Party"

Word play. Hitler turned Germany into a Fascist state before it turned to Nazism. The definition of Fascism used to be "the integration of government and business" in the 70's. It has since changed...I wonder why..... Look it up.

Neither Bush nor Obama is comparable to Hitler...so are you playing..."Well he did it first! So it's ok if I say something similar!"

Originally posted by David9176
Turn off Glen Beck.

Every time I see someone on ATS say something about Progressive's, I can be rest assured it's something they heard from Glen Beck. After all, it's what he focuses almost entirely on now.

Why not focus on it? These are the people running our country right now.

The guy ignores more corruption than he claims to expose and constantly rails against Obama calling him every name in the book that he can get away with.

All he does is use Obama's own words against him. He only calls Obama what Obama admits to being.. Progressive, Socialist, Idealist. What is he ignoring? Conspiracy theories? He's smart to stay away from those topics and focus on our current situation to get people thinking for themselves again. Out with the old and in with the new... that's a lesson people should learn more often.

He states there are "good" democrats out there.....well what, in his definition, a good democrat? A Conservative Democrat? The guy is focused on word play for the most part.

Good democrats are out there. Joe Lieberman was one before becoming an independent. John Edwards was one before his affair blew up in his face. The current bunch of democrats in Washington are just playing party games right now. Pushing the republicans to the side and keeping everything "partisan".

Obama is a socialist and freely admits it and the NAZI's were known as the "National Socialist Party"

Word play. Hitler turned Germany into a Fascist state before it turned to Nazism. The definition of Fascism used to be "the integration of government and business" in the 70's. It has since changed...I wonder why..... Look it up.

The integration of government and business? Government Motors anyone?

Neither Bush nor Obama is comparable to Hitler...so are you playing..."Well he did it first! So it's ok if I say something similar!"

I'm not playing that at all. I'm saying that liberals calling Bush comparable to Hitler was just as rediculous as conservatives calling Obama Hitler.

glenn beck has no idea what he is talking about and nor do you.

Equating progressives with Hitler is utterly idiotic and shows absolutely no grasp of either history or more specifically the actual differences between the NAZI's and progressives....and the same is true between them and Mao or Stalin.

He does this nation a grave disservice by spreading such lies to people who have neither the historical/cultural/political knowledge to know the difference...who then lap it up like sugar and spread the manure around.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


Once again, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo but no facts or examples to back up what you are saying. Progressives are the Robin Hoods of the world. They believe in the "take from the rich and give to the poor" way of life. They believe in the "collective" well-being as opposed to individual liberties. And what happens if a person of the "collective" doesn't contribute to the well being of that group? This is where people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Gruvera, Castro and others come in to the scenario. They start off peacefully but stab you in the back if you don't play ball... literally.

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by iMacFanatic

 

This is where people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Gruvera, Castro and others come in to the scenario. They start off peacefully but stab you in the back if you don't play ball... literally.

Hitler, Guevarra, Castro, Mao, and Stalin did NOT start peacefully.

Hitler used bullying tactics in politics and in the streets to come to power, under the guise of socialism he FOUGHT the communists and killed many sympathizers in Germany...not to mention killing millions of people regardless of political persuasion. That is not a socialst, that is a fascist dictator.

Guevarra and Castro were revolutionaries fighting Batista the moment they stepped foot onto Cuba.

Mao came to power shortly after two-decades of civil and international war in China.

Lenin died a few years after the Bolshevik revolution and Stalin killed any other possible candidates as leader of the communist party.

On the contrary, Barack Obama was elected by a democratic majority of, not just the population, but the government laws in place without having to shoot people!

Glenn Beck draws non-existent parallels to progressives today and dictators...or those considered 'bad guys'. I don't watch Beck, but I've listened to him on the radio several times. Please, oh please, give me one thing Beck states as absolute truth about modern day progressives so we can make a judgement on it. Not just, "Glenn Beck is right about everything."

reply to post by links234


These are Progressives with EVIL philosophies, admiring mass murderers like Che, Castro, Stalin and Mao. So who do we know that’s a Progressive today? Beck plays the clips:

HILLARY CLINTON: "I prefer the word Progressive which has a real American meaning going back to the Progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century. I consider myself a modern Progressive.

BARACK OBAMA: "You will carry on the best Progressive forward looking values of this proud commonwealth…," "Change has always come from places like Wisconsin, the State where the Progressive movement was born." He refers to Democrats as Progressives.

Before becoming President, Obama said the Warren court failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal. Then he stood there in his State of the Union Address and chastised the US Supreme Court for their decision to uphold the Constitution.

MICHELLE OBAMA on the campaign trail: "…and Barack knows that we are gonna have to make sacrifices, we are gonna have to change our conversation, we are gonna have to change our traditions, our history, we are gonna have to move into a different place."

ANITA DUNN, former White House Communications Director: "Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa; not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most."

Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people!

RON BLOOM, Manufacturing ‘Czar’: "We know that the free market is nonsense.... We know that this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

There are 82 members of the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party. In fact, 11 out of 20 standing committees are chaired by members of the Progressive Caucus.

reply to post by Locoman8


There is where it all falls apart, Beck is the only one calling a communist a progressive, it leads us back to communist=socialist=etc, etc, etc.

Mao Ze Dong...eh...I'm really up and down with that guy. Great political philosopher, sure. Horrible, careless leader, yeah. I, personally, believe you can admire a philosophy while showing contempt for a policy. If you don't agree, then we're just different in that respect.

I don't recognize Che Guevara as a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin or Mao. Not even Castro, not on the scale of millions, maybe hundreds or even thousands. Looking at the general idea of the Cuban people it's highly debatable on what kind of leader Fidel Castro has been, why would he still be in power if he was such a horrible person? Why did the Bay of Pigs invasion fail?

Specifically with the Cubans, I think it's an odd double standard where the rebellious forefathers of America are heroes fighting for freedom while socialist revolutionaries of the 20th century are derided for fighting for equality against percieved opression.

Our forefathers didn't install a totalitarian dictatorship. Castro, Mao, Stalin and Most of today's Socialist leaders have done just that. The two are apples and oranges!

Zindo

In the US people want to seem to assign themselves a political allegiance. There's something insufferable about lay folk who decide from the outset that they're a Democrat or Republican. Many people have a set of conclusions that they then set out to justify. There's little reasoning with people like that in my experience. People don't want to be labelled, they want to sound like discerning individuals but will ultimately end up parroting some ideology or mantras of a particular party. For example, many who accept the main tenets of Marxism without a second thought would not call themselves Marxists but call their views "common sense", and proles who want to vent about immigration or foreigners in the most undiplomatic terms will always precede statements with "I'm not a racist/Nazi, but..."

reply to post by concernedcitizan


People who claim not to be part of any political persuasion lie to themselves and have some notion that their thoughts can't be classified because of their unique individuality. Political Compass Test

reply to post by Locoman8


Do you know what the definition of progressivism is and its history-without switching on Glenn Beck and spreading his opinion?

[edit on 15-2-2010 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite

Ideas and Movements, 19th century
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quarter of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism.

Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions, and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.

Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.

source: www.u-s-history.com...


A few things that caught my eye in this are as follows:

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

This gave government control economically and socially... a recipe for facism and dictatorship.

The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Why elect senators? The constitution dosn't call for that in the first place. We see how well prohibition worked out. Progressives want to control our lives, just face it. No matter how buttered up it is. We get less individual freedoms and more control through progressivism and socialism.


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link





[edit on Mon Feb 15 2010 by Jbird]

A few things that caught my eye in this are as follows: the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters. This gave government control economically and socially... a recipe for facism and dictatorship.

And this is the fatal flaw of any political ideology supporting government regulation as the universal cure to all society's woes. For such a system to work there can be no corruption in government... ever.

Originally posted by Locoman8
How is equating Obama with Hitler any different than the liberals equating Bush

It isn't, it the same partisan polarization we saw under Bush. We're programmed to react this way by TPTB. Both Obama and Bush are puppets who serve similar agendas and both grew the government and the debt. This right-left illusion is designed to keep us Americans in the dark while the real enemies, the greedy corporations, banks and ultra-rich make off with all the loot. The gap between rich and poor in this country is a chasm and if you take in the entire world there is a supermassive blackhole between the impoverished and the Elite. Billionaires, IMO, have no excuse when literally thousands DIE of hunger each day, then again the Elite know the population is rising too fast for their liking, probably why the hungry never get fed.

Do yourself a favor and stop listening to the MSM, people like Glen Beck are designed to poison your mind and keep you locked in the illusion.

Down with Glenn Beck and his fear-mongering lies. Long live progressives!

It's really sad to see that so many people are afraid of progression. Moving forward. And to those who want the government completely out of our lives, have you thought what this country would be like without it?

People wouldn't need a license to drive.
Roads would be in disrepair if they existed at all.
Criminals would run free and wild.
If a building caught fire, it would burn to the ground.
Someone steals from you and rapes your child? Too bad. No laws OR enforcement.
Want food? Good luck hunting it down.
Water? I hope the local stream isn't contaminated from your upstream neighbors...
Buy food it in a store? Can you trust it? No government regulation.
Libraries and schools? Nope.
Parks? Forget about it.

Glenn Beck is nothing but a FOX Corporate Shill. If you're listening to him AT ALL, you really should get out more.

reply to post by Locoman8


Without copying and pasting from another website (which is against T&C btw)

So the answer to my question, was no. You don't know the meaning of progressivism.

Thank you