Tag: progressives

FIGHTING ELECTION FRAUD – BIG UPDATE: 20 Ohio Counties Launch Investigations into Suspicious Progressive Group that Allegedly Turned In Piles of Phony Voter Registrations

In August 2024, The Gateway Pundit’s Patty McMurray first reported on a Democrat-funded voter registration group accused of turning in hundreds of suspected fraudulent voter registrations—this time in Ohio!

** You can read the full TGP August report here.**

The Gateway Pundit discovered that a group called Black Fork Strategies, which operates across the state of Ohio, was being investigated by the Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose over another alleged fraudulent voter registration campaign.

On their website, Black Fork Strategies brags about registering a stunning 125,000+ voters in Ohio since 2018.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections has turned over several suspicious voter registration applications Ohio Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division.

According to Hamilton County Board of Elections members, the voter registrations in question were recently turned in by the self-described “progressive” voter registration organization Black Fork Strategies.

In the video below, Hamilton County Director of Elections Sherry Poland discusses three issues she identified with voter registrations tied to Black Fork Strategies, which she claims is running voter registration drives throughout the state of Ohio.

In one example, Ms. Poland explained how they received a voter registration from Black Fork Strategies, and  the name of the registrant was ‘Henry Kissinger.’

“We did do a match, the voter registration database as compared to the DMV database, and it was a mismatch on every item listed, any identifying information listed on this registration form. So we again asked Black Fork Strategies for the canvasser who submitted this registration form, and that is on your summary sheet.”

Keep reading

Progressivism: An Arrogant and Deadly Worldview

Call me crazy, but I don’t trust government officials who believe that population growth (AKA “our carbon footprint”) is the most pressing problem on the planet.  If we had bureaucrats who were encouraging us to get married early and have lots of children, I might listen to what they have to say.  If we had politicians who spoke endlessly of cheap energy, rising wages, higher standards of living, and the potential for all hard workers to become wealthy, I’d probably throw an attaboy in their general direction.  But why would I follow anyone who wants to control what I eat, confiscate what I earn, regulate how I live, and leave me with nothing?  When “authorities” tell us that too many people are alive today, we should probably see their words as a threat worth taking seriously.

That’s why I don’t trust the experimental “vaccines” that the government’s favorite pharmaceutical companies managed to manufacture in record time (shortening a process that normally takes fifteen or more years into a miraculously innovative seven or eight months).  “Here, take this injection.  It will save your life.”  Uh, you first.  Why don’t we see how your health fares before we start playing Russian roulette with the global population?

It’s nothing personal.  Maybe there are some good, decent scientists out there who actually want to fight disease.  But there are a whole lot of other scientists who talk quite openly about why humanity must cull the herd.  “Sustainable growth” sounds hunky-dory until you realize that you are the unsustainable growth that the “experts” want to stem.  Once a person has that epiphany, the magic juice in those COVID syringes looks a little less magical.  So you’re saying you want to save my friends and me today, so that you can depopulate the planet tomorrow?  Never mind, I’m good.  I just remembered that I have to be somewhere…far away.

Keep reading

How Progressive Policies Are Designed For Civilizational Suicide

We all understand, in the timeless words of the poet Robert Burns, that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

Most Americans are accustomed to assessing the various failed initiatives of our country’s leaders as well-intended actions that turned out badly. The Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, the 2008 financial meltdown, and the COVID pandemic overreaction, all in hindsight, can be viewed as simply the unfolding of human stupidity in the contingency of time.

In accordance, it is understandable that many are inclined to believe that our country’s current serious problems are, once again, merely the failed result of well-intentioned policies.

But what if, we ask, seemingly fumbled programs were intended to be the initial throes of civilizational suicide? What if apparent missteps were actually directed at the purposeful destruction of a prosperous, free, safe, and secure society?

As we examine the policies pushed by the Biden administration progressives regarding climate, national security, crime, and the border, we can rationally conclude that they are being purposely implemented to render our society unsuccessful, not successful, in its traditional aims, causing what could be the ultimate destruction of a thriving, liberal enlightenment society.

Let us begin with escalating climate mandates, now reaching gas stoves and tires, seeking the total elimination of fossil fuels. Because our mainstream media, more out of reflexive conformity than malevolence, constantly amplify climate alarmism, most Americans believe climate programs are designed in good faith to protect us from planetary disasters. Climate subsidies are aimed, they are led to believe, at increasing prosperity through good “green” jobs in emerging “green” industries, all part of the supposedly improved “Bidenomics” economy, however counterintuitive many think them to be.

When Biden, immediately upon assuming office, stopped issuing new drilling leases, canceled the Keystone Pipeline, and issued EPA regulations effectively shutting down multiple power plants in the near future, was he, however idealistically, trying to wean our country off of fossil fuels in favor of clean, “renewable” energy? If so, what could be wrong with that?

If the administration had calculated that lost energy from stifling fossil fuel sources could actually be replaced, these initiatives, even if overly optimistic, could be viewed as well-intended.

However, within the climate camp, it has been well known that fossil fuels, which power 82% of world energy needs, cannot conceivably be replaced by renewable energy to any substantial degree. So, as these policies take effect over the coming years, our hospitals and medical centers, relying on petroleum-based plastic furniture, fixtures, and equipment, energy-dependent stainless-steel implements, and high-power physical plants, will be hit hard. Health care costs will soar, while treatment will decrease to emerging society levels. Our food costs, already rising dramatically, will skyrocket as petroleum fertilizer, now tripling yields, becomes economically impractical. Housing costs, dependent on fuel-powered equipment and concrete and steel needing massive energy inputs to manufacture, will put homeownership out of reach for all but the rich and reduce housing to cramped, third-world levels. And, of course, transportation will become an expensive luxury for both people and products.

But isn’t this all meant well? For trusting, uncritical moderates and traditional liberals, yes. For the progressives pulling the strings, no.

Keep reading

Progressives Are Ditching Free Speech To Fight ‘Disinformation’

In my column last week, I detailed how GOP lawmakers in several Western states have jettisoned their usual concerns about free speech and have passed laws that require cellphone users to disable government-mandated filters before having open access to apps. It’s a foolhardy endeavor done in the name of protecting The Children from obscenity, but at least these measures are narrow in scope (and mostly about posturing).

Meanwhile, progressives are hatching attacks on “disinformation” that threaten the foundations of the Constitution. Republicans share some responsibility, as they’ve backed various proposals targeting Big Tech out of pique about the censorship of conservative views. These ideas included limits on liability protections for posted content and plans to treat social media sites as public utilities.

Conservatives have already shown a willingness to insert government into speech considerations, so they are left flat-footed as leftists hatch plots to rejigger open debate. Whenever the Right plays footsie with big government, the Left then ups the ante—and conservatives end up wondering what happened. What is happening now is an effort to use legitimate concerns about internet distortions to squelch what we read and say.

Traditionally, Americans of all political stripes have accepted that—except for a few strictly limited circumstances—people can say whatever they choose. The nation’s libel laws impose civil penalties on those who have engaged in defamatory speech, but those laws are narrowly tailored so the threat of lawsuits doesn’t halt legitimate speech. This emanates from the First Amendment, which said Congress shall make “no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Such protections were applied to all governments, of course. The courts wrestle with gray areas (commercial and corporate speech, pornography, political advertising), but our nation thankfully has tilted heavily in the direction of upholding the broadest speech rights. This legal framework has been bolstered by a broad consensus among the citizenry that speech rights are sacrosanct. There always have been those people who want to police speech, but they have largely been outliers.

The internet and the information free for all that’s followed have challenged that consensus. When I first got into the journalism business, Americans had limited access to information. We could read the daily newspaper, which didn’t cover many issues and where editors served as gatekeepers. We could watch the network news at 6 p. or subscribe to magazines. There was no internet or cable news. Talk radio was in its infancy. Now anyone can post anything online and traditional news sources are struggling.

Keep reading

America Today Is Governed By A Version Of The “Divine Right Of Kings”

Every time I hear the word “progressive” used to describe a person’s political philosophy, I know I am communicating with a person who thinks progressive is equal in nature to the word “advancing” or “improving.” A better way to understand the term progressive in today’s America is to think of it as regressive – or regressing back in time to use the same failed ideas that have forever plagued mankind. In fact, from 1912 to 1920, a Progressive Party formed in American politics whose desire was to embrace the radical liberal traditions that have been repackaged and resold for generations.

These failed ideas are like the worst white elephant gifts in history, repeatedly sold as new and shiny each time. The pretty wrapping, when removed, exposes a “gift” quickly handed off to the next person once seen for what it is. Eventually, everybody is left holding something they do not want and cannot get rid of. Let the gift giver and receiver beware: the shiny wrapping only temporarily disguises the communist, fascist, socialist, atheistic, and morally depraved ideas contained within. Communism is still communism, even when “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” are replaced by “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

I am reminded of Ecclesiastes Chapter 1,

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.[i]

There is another old idea that hangs around, but only in another form. The “Divine Right of Kings” was a political and religious doctrine used by monarchs to claim divine and absolute authority and not have to answer the people or for any actions they took necessary to maintain their own power. Loyal people would surround the throne, taste the royal’s wine, and take the fall when needed. The goal was to have an entire system around the throne to protect them and keep those annoying, unwashed peasants and deplorables away.

In America, we have no King or Queen, but we do have a uniparty that thinks it does not answer to the people. They use a corrupt system to run interference for them. This system of agencies does not wear armor or carry pikes but acts similarly. Pick the agency, and you will find them surrounding the throne that is the entirety of the corrupt and evil Washington, D.C. system.

Keep reading

Chicago’s progressive Mayor Brandon Johnson announces plans to ax Windy City’s high-achieving selective-enrollment high schools to boost ‘equity’ despite promising not to during election campaign

Chicago’s progressive mayor has announced plans to axe the Windy City’s high-achieving selective-enrollment schools to boost ‘equity.’  

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Board of Education has proposed shifting back toward neighborhood schools – away from the system where kids compete for selective programs.

But when he was campaigning to become Mayor, Johnson put out a statement saying that he would not get rid of Chicago‘s selective-enrollment schools. 

According to the Chicago Tribune, woke Johnson specifically said: ‘A Johnson administration would not end selective enrollment at CPS schools.’

Now, he is seen to be back peddling – by allowing a vote to stop gifted children from lower income backgrounds from academically competing to get into high-performing schools. 

Selective schools cause a ‘stratification and inequity in Chicago Public Schools,’ according to the board’s CEO. 

Chicago has 11 selective-enrollment high schools — Northside College Prep, Gwendolyn Brooks College Preparatory Academy, John Hancock College Prep, Jones College Prep, Lane Tech, Lindblom Math and Science Academy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. College Preparatory High School.

Walter Payton College Prep, South Shore International College Prep, Westinghouse College Prep and Whitney M. Young Magnet School are also on the list. 

The schools are not just the best in Chicago – but rank among the top high schools in the entire country. 

Walter Payton College Prep is ranked 10th best school in the US. Northside College Prep is 37th. Jones College Prep ranks 60th. 

Now, a resolution is up for a vote by the school board on Thursday.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez has prepared a resolution for ‘a transition away from privatization and admissions/enrollment policies and approaches that further stratification and inequity in CPS and drive student enrollment away from neighborhood schools.’

It would lay out a five-year ‘transformation’ to effectively get rid of selective schools in Chicago – which have been heralded as the gems of the city’s education system. 

Keep reading

The Abundance Agenda Promises Everything to Everyone All at Once

In summer 2023, American progressivism was spending big and riding high. Despite razor-thin majorities in Congress, Democrats had spent the last two years enacting hundreds of billions of dollars in new subsidies—for green energy, public transportation, domestic manufacturing, scientific research, and more. This progressive pork was now in the hands of Democratic President Joe Biden to distribute as his administration saw fit.

Yet when California Gov. Gavin Newsom looked upon the piles of fresh federal cash, all he could do was despair.

“We’re going to lose billions and billions of dollars in the status quo,” he complained to New York Times columnist Ezra Klein in June. “The beneficiaries of a lot of these dollars are red states that don’t give a damn about these issues, and they’re getting the projects.”

Newsom was right about the distribution of the funds: More than 80 percent of the new federal funding for clean energy and semiconductors was headed for GOP districts, according to the Financial Times. His outburst spoke to the anxiety of much of liberal America.

Despite a string of progressive policy victories at the federal level, a Democratic Party under the grip of progressives, and ironclad Democratic control over some of the country’s largest and wealthiest cities and states, blue America just wasn’t delivering what its boosters said the country needed.

“We need to build more homes, trains, clean energy, research centers, disease surveillance. And we need to do it faster and cheaper,” Klein himself had written a few weeks before his Newsom interview was published. Yet “in New York or California or Oregon…it is too slow and too costly to build even where Republicans are weak—perhaps especially where they are weak.”

The blue strongholds’ failure to build had added countervailing losses to all their wins.

These states aren’t just losing federal grants. They’re losing residents to states where housing construction is easier. They’re losing companies to places where the regulatory burden is lighter. They’re losing voters, tax dollars, congressional seats, and more to places that build the things people want. If the trend keeps up, the progressive vision for America may be lost as well.

This threat has provoked some surprising self-reflection from liberal wonks, writers, and officials.

America, and particularly blue America, has consciously wrapped itself in red tape, regulations, and special-interest carve-outs, to the point that it has become nearly impossible to convert either government subsidies or private capital into needed physical things.

As Newsom said to Klein, “We’re not getting the money because our rules are getting in the way.”

Keep reading

Democrats Say They’re Fighting Inequality. But Many of Their Policies Favor the Rich.

In the grand ballroom of American politics, Democrats have long waltzed to the melody of progressivism while ridiculing Republicans’ preference for outdated tax cut tunes. Ironically, they don’t want to pay for their style of big government with higher taxes on ordinary Americans, which their expansionary ambitions would require. Instead, they loudly proclaim that they want to tax the rich. It remains to be seen how true this is.

Indeed, while Democrats profess their devotion to social justice and fight against income inequality, they often push for policies that favor the rich. Take their nonstop battle over the last five years to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents.

The State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap, part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), placed a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal taxable income. This move predominantly affected high earners in high-tax states like New York, California, and many others that are Democratic strongholds.

That’s a tax hike on the rich. This shouldn’t bother Democrats, who are usually happy to demonstrate their egalitarian chops by clamoring for that very thing. Yet this time, by demanding repeal of the SALT cap, they are on the front lines of a battle to restore tax breaks for the rich. As it turns out, when affluent Californians and Northeasterners felt the pinch, Democrats were ready to cha-cha for tax relief.

Contrast this with the refusal by moderate New York Republicans to vote for Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) for House speaker in exchange for doubling the deduction cap to $20,000 for individuals and $40,000 for married couples. Now, this might mean these guys really didn’t want Jordan as speaker, but they wouldn’t roll over even in exchange for tax cuts for their own constituencies.

Would New York Democrats be so principled? Back in 2021, 17 of 19 members of this delegation threatened to block a Democrat-sponsored infrastructure bill if the SALT deduction cap wasn’t entirely repealed. I would have been OK with that crony bill failing; I highlight this incident only to reveal some Democrats’ commitment to tax breaks for rich blue-state voters.

Keep reading