Progressives loved Stalin, Mousolini

Yes, it is true. Progressives loved Stalin and Mussolini. At least that was the case until it turned out those progressives, fascists, were actually doing some really bad things over there. In fact, some progressives actually "loved what Hitler was doing over there," before it came out what his ulterior goal was.

Some progressives actually noted that they were jealous of Stalin because he made his country more progressive and faster than what was going on here in the United States. Of course such talk ceased once word got out that Hitter, Stalin and Mussolini were bad people.

I'm not joking here either. And, ironically, this is the part of the progressive history that progressive leaders don't want us to remember, and so they have left this part out of the history books our kids learn from in school.

As Jonah Goldberg notes in his book, "Liberal Fascism," "There were of course significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America, and between national cultures in general.

Progressivism in America, and fascism in Europe, were basically one and the same, and a trend of the times between 1900 and the 1930s. The goal, as Goldberg writes, and several other experts have noted, was to obtain "the great utopia." If we could take from the rich and give to the poor, we can make a world where there is no poor.

Although, as history later proves, there is no evidence a government can achieve such goals. Yet that wasn't evident in the early 20th century. Progressivism, fascism, was a "worldwide movement."

Jane Adams, at the 1912 progressive convention, noted that progressivism is like a science, and in science there is experimentation. Although, what she didn't realize, as none of the other progressives did at the time, was that if you "experiment" with something and you don't know what you're doing, you might create a bigger mess than you might expect.

Hence is the case with the progressive movement, and is why Europe is enveloped today in an economic disaster, and why America (still lagging behind Europe in the progressive movement) under Obama (and to some extend George W. Bush) is headed in the same direction if an opposing force doesn't stop it.

Goldberg mentions many members of the FDR administration who were "awed" by what was going on in Europe. He writes, "For countless liberals, Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin were all doing the same thing (as we progressives here in America): transforming corrupt, outdated societies.

In his own way, Goldberg writes, Woodrow Wilson was as much a part of modernizing the world, creating a more "evolved" world, organizing society so it was a better, more euphoric place, ideal place, as was Mussolini.

Hence note that, like Mussolini and Stalin and perhaps to some extend Hitler, Woodrow Wilson dictated his agenda through rationing, price fixing, telling Americans they needed to make "great sacrifices such as "meatless" and "wheatless" days. In this way, he was a totalitarian, controlling his people.

Benito Mussoline made the same claims that American progressives made, that he wanted to create a perfect society with perfect citizens who put society ahead of their individual needs. He was actually influenced by many of the same minds who influenced American progressives, including Karl Marx. He actually wanted to fight on the American side, but he ended up supporting Hitler, and was therefore called a right winger, even though he still had the same values as American Progressives.

FDR, like Wilson, became known for forcing rationalizing, placing American Japanese in concentration camps around the country, forcing Americans to turn in their gold, and the like. He, in this way like Hitler and Stalin, was a dictator. He was a socialist in the mould of Karl Marx. He was for social reform, just as the Europeans were for social reform.

Another thing Wilson and FDR did that was Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini-like, was to silence dissent. They often imprisoned people who spoke out about the war, or criticized. They both were known to even shut down newspapers that spoke out against the war. Can you imagine if that happened in 2003 during the Iraq War?

Wilson had the sedition act that banned "uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or the military."

Goldberg notes, "The government was given the authority to deny mailing privileges to any publication he saw fit -- effectively shutting it down. At least 75 periodicals were banned. Foreign publications were not allowed unless their content was first translated and approved by censors. Journalists also faced the very real threat of being jailed or having their supply of newsprint terminated by the War Industries Board. 'Unacceptable' articles included any discussion -- no matter how high minded or patriotic -- that disparaged the draft."

Sauerkraut was called "liberty cabbage." German measles were often called, "liberty measles."

Goldberg notes, "Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but it has been estimated that some 175,000 Americans were arrested for failing to demonstrate their patriotism in one way or another. All were punished, many went to jail."

Totalitarian. Marxist. Whatever you want to call it.

Benito Mussolini was doing many similar things. In fact, Goldberg notes, he was influenced by many of the same people progressives in America were influenced by: Marx, Nietzshe, Hegel, James, etc.

Yet, although what he was doing was eerily similar to what FDR was doing in America, when he decided to side with Hitler, he was deemed by American scholars as "right wing" even though he was actually quite "left wing."

Similar things occur today, as many liberals have threatened a return of the Fairness Doctrine because they don't like people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity talking bad about liberalism, or revealing the truth about the Progressive movement. If they can't shut them up, they at least want equal time for liberal talk show hosts, who otherwise cannot get their shows on the air because nobody wants to listen to them.

When Conservatives speak on popular TV shows like the Today Show they are introduced as "controversial," while when a progressive like Al Gore goes on the same show in the same day, he is introduced as, "Vice President Al Gore," with no mention of the liberal tag.

Goldberg notes, "In the liberal telling of America's story, there are only two perpetrators of official misdeeds: conservatives" and right wingers. So, even when someone is a progressive, fascist, socialist just as they are, they are called "right wingers," or "controversial."

Just as Mussolini was called a right winger, Newt Gingrich today is called a right winger, and even the progressive John McCain is referred to as a right winger by the media when their is a more progressive Obama running for President.

They also rewrite history. Did I mention that before. For instance, as Goldberg notes, you hardly hear tale that many progressives were supporters of Eugenics. You hardly hear tale that many with mental disabilities were castrated so they couldn't procreate. This was all their attempt to create an "ideal" people.

Yet, this was quickly set aside when it was realized Americans didn't like what was going on in Europe, especially Germany. And, later it was realized Stalin was killing his people too if he didn't like them, and castrating those he didn't want reproducing in order to create a more idealistic Russia.

Goldberg notes that "conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself."

The goal of both progressives in America and Fascists in Europe (of course neither is called such anymore, but is still the same), is to assure that there is no dividing line between the rich and the poor."

Hitler had a similar goal, when he preached, "What a difference compared with a certain other (Spain). There it is class against class, brother against brother. We have chosen the other route: rather than wrench you apart, we have brought you together."

However evil this sounds, that is the goal here in America for progressives too. That is why Woodrow Wilson and his progressive administration sought for and got passage of the progressive tax. They did so by "lying" to Americans that it would only generate a 3% tax on the upper class. Once it was passed the tax was ultimately increased to 75%.

The goal is to create "social programs" that benefit the poor. To pay for them, money must be taken from those who work. "You must do your fair share," is a common chant back then and now by progressives. "You must do your fair share for the state."

"Of course," Goldberg is smart to note, "such Utopian dreams would have to come at the price of personal liberty. But progressives and fascist alike were glad to pay it."

Note Volksgemeinschaft: a Nazi slogan about placing the common good before the private good.

Again, Goldberg notes, "This is the elephant in the corner that the American left has never been able to admit, explain or comprehend. Their inability and/or refusal to deal squarely with this fact has distorted our understanding of our politics, and ourselves. Liberals keep saying 'it can't happen here' with a clever wink or an ironic smile to insinuate that the right is constantly plotting fascist schemes. Meanwhile, hiding in plain sight is this simple fact: it did happen here, and it might very well happen again. To see the threat, however, you must look over your left shoulder, not your right."

Now we have Obama. Oh, how we did see it coming, yet nobody listened.

Liberals pro big business? The facts say it is so

Many liberals (aka progressives) like to say that the democratic party is the party of the people, and the republicans are the party of big corporations. This is what they want people to think, yet the opposite is true.

In fact, liberals are pro big business. They want fewer private businesses, because with few large corporations it's easier for liberals to tell these business owners what they want to hear, and then make laws that favor them, so that these progressives can slowly move forward their progressive agenda.

Of course we know that the progressive agenda is to create "social reform" by creating more state control and regulations. Thus, by the democrats creating more regulations, they are in turn driving out small businesses who cannot afford to pay the overhead. Big businesses, however the corporate bosses like to complain, can afford the new overhead, and are more likely to stay in business and live on.

The first perfect example I can think of is one of the first progressive actions way back in 1906 when Upton Sinclair wrote his book about the poor cases in the meat packing industry. He painted such a bad picture that President Theodor Roosevelt moved to pass regulations that would benefit the people, and force corporations to produce cleaner, healthier foods.

The problem with this picture is that not all meat packers were corrupt this way. In fact, a majority were small businesses that were honest with their work, and sold a healthy product. Yet the few bad big businesses that were out to make money at the expense of a good product were the few rotten apples that spoiled the batch.

So, in the end, most of the the small and (mostly) honest businesses were driven out of business because they couldn't afford to pay the new regulations, and pay to purchase all the new technology to make the product the way the "state" now regulated. So, in the end, the same big businesses that were "corrupt" were the same businesses that stayed in businesses.

Over the years I can think of many examples. The Federal government has created an environment, via high corporate taxes and high cost of regulations, where nearly all small businesses are gone.

As one example, during the hey day of the movie industry, 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theaters were independently owned. Due to regulations, and codes, and taxes, all in the name of making a better product for the consumer, has driven out most of the independent owners. I can drive down downtown Manistee, Michigan and see five buildings that used to house independently owned movie theaters., and down Ludington avenue and see the same, and Shoreline and see the same, and Grand Rapids, and Detroit.

Instead, what you see is one Star theater, or one GKC theater, or another large movie chain. The same is true of grocery stores. Only the big chains are around: Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Prevo's, Plumbs. You don't see many small grocery stores anymore. These are the little people who hire workers, and they were driven out of the market by the big businesses that can afford the high overhead of regulations, taxes, etc.

This is exactly what democrats say they are against, yet they are really for. They want a few big businesses that are easily controlled by the state (the Federal Government). You see, the owners of many of these businesses (see Goldman Sacs) give big contributions to the democratic party to make sure the Federal Government doesn't allow for any more competition for them.

It's the same big business/government collusion democrats hail against. Yet, they are guilty as the fascist government in Germany and Italy back in the 1930s. In fact, back before WWII, both Woodrow Wilson and FDR hailed in favor of what was going on in Europe, and vice versa.

You see, progressives are all about state control. They want to control you, the businesses you buy goods and services from, and the state. They know what's good for you. Yet, one obstacle in their way is the Constitution, which is why progressivism has been slower in the U.S. than in Europe.

Yet, in Europe and in the U.S., to pass the progressive agenda the leaders have to lie. They have to tell you what you want to hear to get their way. A perfect example, "We're going to clean up the meat packing industry for the good of society." Sure they cleaned up the meat packing industry, but at what price?

New Nationalism

Teddy Roosevelt believed in New Nationalism. Basically, in his own words, you might think of it as socialism, as he noted, "Th New Nationalism rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

Now do you think this is the kind of stuff they teach in schools. This sounds down right scary. Can you believe progressive presidents actually walked around saying things like this? I believe Barack Obama and many liberals today believe in the same type of New Nationalism as Roosevelt did, although they wouldn't dare say so out loud, hence Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would be all over their tails.

Actually, as Jonah Goldberg wrote in Libaral Fascism, "This sort of rhetoric conjured fears among classical liberals (again increasingly called conservatives) that Teddy would ride roughshod over American liberties."

It's scary to note this type of thing still occurs to this day. It kind of gives progressive Presidents the same power totolitarian rulers have. Actually, this is the kind of power FDR had, and how he ended up being president for four terms.

Actually, this is the very reason an amendment to the Constitution was added to make sure no more president could be President for more than 2 terms. A person in power too long gains totoliltarian powers, and abuses it, as we can see by the likes of FDR and his attempt to change the Supreme Court, and his concentration camps for American Japanese citizens, and his forcing Americans to turn in their gold, and rationing.

All of these are Unconstitutional, yet the totolitarian FDR didn't care so long as he thought he was doing it for the general good fo the state.

I think Obama believes in the same principles, as he has made attempts to delegate to big banks, and businesses as to how much money their CEOs can make, and in his attempts at making regulations that tell businesses that are "too big to fail" what they can and cannot do.

It's, as I've noted before, socialism and fascism in disguise.

Democrat is the party of big business

Most big business owners, and Wall Street moguls do not support republicans, which goes contrary to what some might think. Instead they support democrats.

The why is rather interesting. It has to do with competition. Progressives are all for state control of businesses. Progressives talk a lot about how they hate big business, yet at the same time they are statists, in that they believe the state should have control of business.

Businessmen thrive in a capitalistic system. Or, at least, capitalism provides an environment for which they can thrive. Yet, once a company becomes large enough, it wants to do whatever possible to reduce risk, and capitalism is all about risk. The best way to reduce risk is to eliminate, or at least limit, competition.

So, by creating regulations on industries and corporations, the small businesses that are barely hanging on will be driven out of business, while the large corporations will be able to pay the new regulations and taxes and stay in business.

Thus, more regulations actually benefits corporations because they will have less competition. The progressives benefit because with less competition, they find it's easier to control given markets. And since they have less competition, they have more money to pay Washington Lobbyists, and therefore have a greater impact on politicians.

Actually, history has proven that as the state obtains more control over a particular business, regulations go up. Yet, as regulations have gone up the number of lobbyists has gone up as well. The large corporations need lobbyists to petition government to keep the regulations so as to prevent competition.

This actually has resulted in corporatism in America, which the government drives out small corporations so that the larger ones will thrive, and in return the government has control of the corporations. In this way, the government drives the market.

In this way, the progressives have used big business to obtain their personal agenda of gaining state control of business. In a way, this was the whole goal of Obamacare: to gain control of health insurance companies. It's easier to control a few large companies as compared to many small ones.

This is actually the hidden history from the "big stick" Teddy Roosevelt used to break up monopolies in the early 19th century all the way to Obamacare. This is how big business becomes "to big to fail." If they fail, smaller companies will creep in to fill the void, meaning progressives lose control of that market.

The irony of this is that you'll hear often liberals saying that republicans are the party of big business and that they don't care about the little people, while the truth is the opposite holds closer to the truth.

The comparison of the elections of 1912 and 2008

If you want to change laws so that things in the United States are the way you want them to be, yet the people don't want, or are actually un-Constitutional, you have to lie.

Obama lied that he was an ardent supporter of change, that he was for a more open government, that he was a moderate democrat and a champion of the people. Yet when he became president we saw that he was actually a progressive/liberal.

This type of lying by Presidential candidates is nothing new. When Woodrow Wilson was running against then non-progressive republican William Howard Taft, and the progressive republican (progressive party) Teddy Roosevelt, he ran as a conservative.

Like what happened in the run up to the Obama election, conservatives said things like, "look at his books. Look at his associations. They all tell us that he is a progressive. He has no respect for the constitution."

The people didn't listen, and Obama, like Wilson before him, became president. Wilson became president by telling the people what they wanted to hear, and then doing what he wanted to do once he became President.

In fact, on the campaign trail Wilson said, "The history of liberty is the history of the limitations of government power." Yet this went against everything he had written to that point, and everything he did as president.

Once he became President, he said, "While we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson's which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible... But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise."

Wilson, as history reveals, governed as a New Nationalist, just as Roosevelt would have if he had won the presidential election of 1912.

As Jonah Goldberg notes in "Liberal Fascism," "America was going to get a progressive president no matter what in 1912. And while those of us with soft spots for Teddy might like to think things would have turned out differently had he won, we are probably deluding ourselves."
I like to wonder if progressive John McCain had won in 2008 if we would have ended up with a progressive president anyway, even though McCain lied and said he was a conservative republican. It's neat how history repeats itself isn't it.

We are all susceptible to liberal fascism

Liberal Fascism, as we saw from yesterday's post, is an attempt by governmental leaders to perfect society in name of doing what the "will of the people" calls for by tinkering with the government; by creating social programs, a type of totalitarian government with regulations, laws, tax hikes and the like to create an ideal state (utopia, a perfect society).

"Today's liberals," writes Jonah Goldberg in his book, "Liberal Fascism", "(don't) seek to conquer the world by force of arms," like the Nazi movement or Italian Fascism. "It is not a nationalist and genocidal project. To the contrary, it is an ideology of good intentions. But we all know where even the best of intentions can take us. I have not written a book about how all liberals are Nazis or fascist. Rather, I have tried to write a book warning that even the best of us are susceptible to the totalitarian temptation."

This type of fascism in the United States started actually in the late 1800s with the progressive movement where the call of that time was to make changes in the U.S. that were the desires of the people. Some of the changes that were made, according to Goldberg, and are still viewed as good are the eight-hour workday, cleaning up the food supply, and ending child labor. However, the movement was also famous for its attempt to purify society by authoring "Prohibition, the Palmer Raids, eugenics, loyal oaths, and, in its modern incarnation, what many call 'state capitalism.'"

While Communism was declared evil by liberals and conservatives alike, many liberals are often seen embracing communist dictators such as we have seen with Jimmy Carter or Barrack Obama supporting Fidel Castro. While they do not support communism per se, they do support the fascist ideals that are present in a communist society, such as a true welfare state, government run health care and shared wealth.

Liberalism, which is actually modern progressiveism, strongly supports such movements as the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on smoking, the "obsession" with animal rights, the "sanctification" of organic foods

These attempts at perfection are not far behind the Nazi's attempt at creating a perfect society by doing experiments on people, by discussing "the need to move the entire nation to vegetarianism as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism... In profound ways, the Nazi anti smoking and public health drives foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food, trans fat, and the like.." Only these modern crusades are friendlier, kinder than the Nazi versions.

Goldberg writes that "the Nazi's fixation on organic foods and personal health neatly fit their larger understanding of how the world works. Many Nazi's were convinced that Christianity, which held that men were intended to conquer nature rather than live in harmony with it, and capitalism, which alienated men from their natural state, conspired to undermine German health... Organic food was inextricably linked to what the Nazis then describe -- as the left does today -- as 'social justice' issues."

He writes that not every one who supports health, nutrition and the environment are fascist, but individuals who believe that "the individual has no right not to be healthy; and the state therefore has the obligation to force us to be healthy for our own good," definitely reek of fascism because they resort to "using the power of the state" to meet their desired agenda.

The environmentalist movement where people are forced in one way or another to conform to the idea that man is the reason for global warming is a form of fascism. Environmentalists who believe in global warming who want to force businesses to be more earth friendly by using governmental regulations is a form of fascism.

They believe by using the government is the only way to "force" the individual hand in being environmentally friendly. And this is why liberals reject conservative calls for tax incentives to encourage industries to voluntarily resort to more environmentally friendly means. And, thus, conservatives are made to be anti-environmentalists by fascist liberals, even though this is usually not true.

The welfare state, where people are forced to share their wealth with the unfortunate, is a form of fascism. The idea that the government should make laws banning people from using iPods, cell phones and to wear helmets and seat belts and to force parents to put their kids in booster seats are all fascist.

Conservatives will note that liberals are forcing their views on people, but these liberal fascists know that creating the perfect world cannot be done without forcing some people to accept some values of which they do not normally approve. Liberal fascists will do this in a "humane and decent" way, but they will still resort to "a kind of benign tyranny where some people get to impose their ideas of goodness and happiness on those who may not share them."

A perfect example of this is judicial activism; making laws from the bench. However this may be unconstitutional per se, it is for the better of the people because it is what the people in general want to be the law. While gay marriage, for example, may not be supported by a majority of Americans, it is supported by a majority of people worldwide. Thus, gay marriage is a fascist movement.

Liberals often claim that conservatives are the fascist because of free market economics, because of their attempt to obtain peace through war, "and therefore their own economic theories should be seen as the more virtuous, even though the truth is almost entirely the reverse."

Conservatives are not innocent of fascist ideals either, as they have made attempts to invade the bedroom in an attempt enforce certain laws that were "anti homosexual." Compassionate Conservatism is a form of progressivism, and George W. Bush's attempt to use government to obtain some of his goals is one of the reasons why conservatives are unhappy with him and one reason for his low approval ratings.

Bush's No-Child-Left-Behind act is a "totalitarian act" that seeks to solve the problems of all children in society. However, some people do not support this act, but they are thought to be "oppressive" by the totalitarian act.

Progressivism is liberalsim is fascism

Johah Goldberg has written an excellent and intelectually deep book called "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

It's quite interesting, because it brings up a concept about liberalism that I had heard of before, but was not aware that it was a form of fascism. Perhaps it's because liberals control the media and write the history books, and have decided to keep this bit of information a little untold secret.

So, if that is the case, then the cat is out of the bag. For, while we have heard that the big difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatives believe the world is flawed, that life is unfair, and that "the only real utopia, waits for us in the next life."

Liberals (who also might call themselves progressives), on the other hand, believe that "with a little tinkering" perfection is obtainable, that through the use of government regulations and government programs that a real utopia not only in the the U.S. but in the world is obtainable.

And that is why they place so much faith in creating government programs, adding regulations, and raising taxes to pay for these, and don't worry so much about replications of these on the economy because, in the long run, the goal is a utopia where there are no poor and that all people are paid a fair wage for their efforts in life.

According to Goldberg there are varying definitions of fascism depending on who is doing the writing, but he defines it as such: it is "a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."

He writes that modern fascism (liberalsim) is different from the fascism of Musolini and Hitler in that American fascism is "smiley faced fascism." He calls it nice fascism. Hence, the smiley picture on the front of his book.

Liberals love fascist ideals, but do not accept the extent that Hitler and Mulolini went to obtain this perfect society. Liberals will not kill off the jews, however they still make efforts to extinguish religion from society by supporting a more sectarian government, one of the "separation of church and state" mould as opposed to one of the "In God We Trust mould." They believe that religion accomplishes nothing more than to hold society back, to be a restraint in the way of creating utopia.

To obtain these goals, liberals seek to use the word "war" not in the sense that Hitler or Musolini did, but more as in a means of obtaining the "will of the people." Here are some examples as Goldberg provided: The war on poverty, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.

And while realists and conservatives will continue to contend that these wars are not winnable, or that there is proof that the war on poverty, for example, has not resulted in a decrease in the number of people on poverty but has actually had the reverse happen as the number of people in poverty has actually increased, liberals (fascists) believe this is no reason to stop the war, because it is the "will of the people" to win these wars. It is to the benefit of society, and the way to a perfect union.

It does not matter that others contend that since the "War on Peverty" per se is not working so lets try some other approach. That is not a good enough reason to stop a war, when the ultimate goal is a world that is better for every party involved -- eutopia.

It does not matter that the U.S. Constitution creates certain "inailenable rights" for the people, that what is more important is that we create a government and a society that is in tune with a world utopia, what is right for all the people of the world, as opposed to what is right for one nation as the United States. And it is for this reason that liberals love the United Nations and support the World Court, both of which, if given full power, would trump the will of the people of the United States by trumping the Constitution of the United States.

And it is for this reason that liberals tend to support judicial activism from the bench, and believe that judges should look beyond the Constitution and form opinions and make decisions (and thus laws) based on what judges outside the U.S. have ruled in similar cases. They support this type of activism, while conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, isolationsists and the like believe decisions in the U.S. should be soley based on the U.S. Constitution to protect "the will of the people." And it is for this reason that the U.S. has consistently opposed the world court.

Liberals in the U.S. cannot link themselves with the Nazis because that form of fasism, and fascism that occured in the communist U.S.S.R., have since been discredited.

However, before WWII, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States; the horror of the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism as something uniquely evil and ineluctably bound up with extreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism.

After the war, the American progressives who had praised Mussolini and even looked sympathetically at Hitler in the 1920s adn 1930s had to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazism."

"Americans," he writes, "like to think of themselves as imune to fascism by constantly being threatened by it.... but fascism definitely has a history in this country; and that is what this book is about." Fascism in the united states is "'smiley-faced fascism.' Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is 'liberal fascism.' And this liberal fascism was, and remains, fundamentally left wing.

It is left wing despite the claims of the left that the right wing is fascist, as you will hear on occasion that republicans, like George Bush, are Nazi's. Which is part of the plan by liberals to distance themselves from the fascist movement post Holocaust.

To be continued (click here for part 2)

Conservatives are not anti-choice

Another fallacy one hears about quite often via liberals in the media is that because Conservatives are pro-life they therefore have no respect for a woman's right to choose.

Truth is, most conservatives are pro-life, but they are NOT against a woman’s right to choose.

Hugh?

That’s right: conservatives are more for a woman’s right to choose than liberals. Liberals believe you have a right to kill your unborn baby or keep it alive, but they are not necessarily pro-choice.

Sean Hannity writes, in his book, “Let Freedom Ring:”

“When it comes to women’s freedom to choose better, safer schools for their children -- they’re anti-choice. The left opposes tuition tax credits, vouchers, K-12 educational savings accounts, and most other forms of parental choice in education.

“The left,” Hannity continues, “does not support a woman’s right to choose a handgun and carry it in her purse in case she might need it to defend her life or the life of her children… The left does not believe in choice when it comes to hardworking folks choosing personal retirement accounts within the context of social security, with the potential of yielding 2-3 times the earning of the Social Security system which gives them less than a poultry 2% return on their money.

“So, while we see the left making a lot of noise about choice, we see that choice itself is not the issue. The left doesn’t champion individual rights in a host of other areas and prefers to cede control over those decisions to government. No, this isn’t about freedom, unless you mean in its narrowest of context.”

The media would never tell you that. They’d simply say, "He’s anti-choice."

A columnist, E.J. Dionne, wrote of conservatives, "If you are for family values, how can you oppose Kennedy's call to give all employees at least seven days of paid leave a year so they don't face 'a cruel choice between losing their job, or neglecting their sick child or sick spouse at home.' Who can disagree that companies should make it easier for parents to 'attend a PTA meeting or a school play or sports contest'? Why, in short, shouldn't liberals challenge the economic marketplace to be more friendly to the needs of families?"

David Limbaugh, in his book "Bankrupt," writes that E.J. Dionne "misses the point. Liberals aren't just challenging the marketplace to be friendlies. They are using the coercive power of government to force employers to comply with these circumstances."

In other words, liberals aren't willing to allow businesses the right to choose, but want to force their hand on this issue. Conservatives believe in the right of businesses to chose.

Conservatives believe parents should have a choice where there children go to school so they don't have to send their children to failing schools, or they can choose to send their children to private schools via vouchers. Conservatives believe every person should have health care, but the best means of doing this is not by forcing all Americans to buy into a universal health care program.

Conservatives also believe if an individual doesn't want to have health care, he should have that choice too. If a person wants to spend all his money on material items and not plan for retirement, that's his choice. However, he might have to suffer the consequences later.

Conservatives believe in choice when it comes to abortion too. They believe, if the Constitution were followed, a woman would have a choice whether she lives in a state where abortion is legal or one where abortion is not legal.

It is not okay for anyone to force his or her views on anybody else. But that’s exactly what happened with Rowe -v- Wade. And that's exactly what would happen if the religious right got its way and abortion were made illegal.

Liberals should not be able to force their views on America any more than conservatives. That goes for the media too.

Despite this, the media continues to toss those conservative onions in the blender. That’s okay, so long as you know they are doing it so you can cover your eyes and plug your nose.