Progressives Pride Themselves on Dividing America: New Website?



February 21, 2013

From Discover the Networks:


  • A project of the Campaign for America’s Future

  • Advises Democratic political candidates to engage in “class war” in order “to win the who’s-side-are-you-on battle” in the eyes of the voting public (WCW) was launched on November 15, 2012 as a project of the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF). As articulated by CAF co-founder Robert Borosage, WCW’s mission is to protect the interests of middle class people who are “besieged” by “America’s extreme inequality and rigged [economic] system” and are “looking for champions” to stand up for them. Toward this end, WCW supports progressive Democratic political candidates and openly advises them to engage in “class war” in order “to win the who’s-side-are-you-on battle” in the eyes of the voting public. The surest way to achieve this goal, says WCW, is to constantly emphasize “the reality that the wealthy and special corporate interests [are] rigging the rules to benefit themselves, while the middle class [is] getting crushed.” According to WCW, the Occupy Wall Street movement—through its ceaseless repetition of slogans about “the 99%,” “the 1%,” “inequality,” and the evils of “Wall Street”—“brought this reality to national attention and demonstrated widespread American sympathy for its analysis.”

To prove the efficacy of its proposed “class war” strategy, WCW in November 2012 identified several Democratic politicians who had expertly used it to their own great advantage in that year’s elections. For instance, WCW claimed that President Barack Obama, who had a sub-40% approval rating in mid-2011, was able to win re-election just 16 months later because of his “decision to engage in class warfare, to directly engage the class war being waged by the 1 percent against the rest of the country.” In certain key battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, said WCW, Obama “took on the class warrior role” with particular aggressiveness by:

  • “constantly reinforc[ing] the contrasts” between himself and Republican challenger Mitt Romney “regarding the middle class”;
  • “indict[ing] the ‘you’re on your own’ economics of Republicans”;
  • emphasizing his desire to “eliminat[e] the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”; and
  • “painting a believable picture of … Romney as the plutocrat who … can’t empathize with your struggles.”

Further, noted WCW, Obama had gained “a clear advantage” as a result of Occupy Wall Street‘s “reframing of the nation’s most important economic issue.”
WCW also praised Obama for dividing Americans not only along class lines, but also gender and racial/ethnic lines.

For example, explained WCW, Obama “defended contraception and pay equity” for women while offering a palatable alternative to the “harsh anti-immigrant posturing” of Republicans—whom Borosage depicts as a “stale, male, pale, Southern-based party in a nation of diversity”—that “drove Hispanics and Asians into Democratic arms.”

Similarly, WCW attributed Elizabeth Warren‘s U.S. Senate victory in 2012 to a class-warfare campaign wherein she burnished “her populist credentials” by demanding “financial reform” on Wall Street, placing “the people over the powerful,” and claiming that wealthy individuals were morally obligated to pay high taxes for the benefit of the poor because “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” WCW also gave high marks to Warren’s Democratic National Convention speech, in which she complained that “the system is rigged” in favor of oil companies that “guzzle down billions in subsidies,” billionaires who “pay lower tax rates than their secretaries,” and “Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs.”

Other worthy political role models, in WCW’s estimation, included:

  • newly elected Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), who “campaigned as a class warrior with class” and effectively portrayed her Republican opponent as a “multimillionaire landlord” who “would fight for tax cuts for the wealthy while placing all of the burden of spending cuts on seniors and the economically vulnerable”;
  • Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who won re-election with a campaign that “always put him on the side of ordinary people fighting the powerful,” while casting his Tea Party-allied opponent as “a land developer solidly allied with the powerful, whether in business or government”;
  • Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who ran as “a full-throated populist” pledging to “put the reins on Wall Street banks” and “end taxpayer-funded giveaways to huge corporations that ship American jobs overseas”; and
  • Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who hammered her Republican challenger for “his well-paid work as a lobbyist on behalf of greedy corporate interests,” and “stressed that wealthy people like Warren Buffett shouldn’t be paying a lower share of their income in taxes than the people who work for them.”




Easily Another Progressive Radical Few Americans Know About…..READ, LEARN and EMPOWER…..


Robert Borosage

Robert Borosage is easily one of America’s most dangerous radicals.

He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the ultra-left Institute for Policy Studies. He is also the President of the Institute for America’s Future and the Secretary-Treasurer of Campaign for America’s Future.

He writes widely on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Nation and The American Prospect magazine.

Borosage is acting chair for the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, which is a major conduit of socialist policies from the Institute for Policy Studies, into the US Congress via the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

On April 10, 1982, an IPS-sponsored group, including Borosage, visiting Moscow for a week of meetings with high-level Soviet officials responsible for disseminating disinformation and propaganda for U.S. consumption. The IPS group identified only two of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Central Committee officials they met – Georgi A. Arbatov, head of the Institute of the USA and Canada, a “think-tank” that provides research and analysis and also cultivates and develops contacts with Americans at the direction of the KGB and the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee; and Vadim V. Zagladin, first deputy chief of the International Department.



Class Warfare is PURE Saul Alinsky: The Haves  vs.  The Have NOTS.

Of Means and Ends [Forget  moral or ethical considerations]

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…”p.36

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:

“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”

Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what “the world… should be?”




Are the Progressives utilizing the same argument when it comes to the 2nd Amendment argument today?

Progressives Paternalization over American citizens is obvious:

a. You do not know HOW to live your life.

b. You need to listen to the false reasoning about WHY you shouldn’t have a gun.

c. You need to let us GOVERNMENT tell you what to wear, eat, and think (because we think you are too stupid to think on your own/make your own choices).

The Antithesis of Paternalization is INDIVIDUAL Liberty and Freedom!

The Progressives always harp on reasoning behind abortion as The Woman’s Right to Choose……

Mom with gun a woman's right to choose




The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. You always do so much work on your blogs and I really, really look forward to reading them… (even on the days I can’t read all of the links) I do appreciate you working so hard and continuing to post here! 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: