Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« "On American Patriotism" - A Response To A Commenter | Main | Re: "While the world slams Israel for defending her borders..." »

May 17, 2011

Today's Must Read: 'Woodrow Obama: Jon Stewart Gets Played' (An essential lesson on the history of progressivism)

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Today's must read is Jeffrey Lord's piece over at The American Spectator. Titled 'Woodrow Obama: Jon Stewart Gets Played', he begins with the question of "Just how smart is Jon Stewart?" in relation to the Common affair and his startling attack on Fox News, then gets into some relevant political history to put Mr. Stewart's recent attack on Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other Fox stars into the historical context of progressivism and race ... and how its strategy model is being employed in today's issues.

Lord's piece is an essential history lesson on liberal progressive politics and how progressives use race to further their agenda and solidify their voting base.

Among other examples, Lord writes that taken together -- Common's White House invite, the President's alligators in the moat comment, Attorney General Holder's actions with illegal immigration and voting rights in Philadelphia -- all of it collectively boils down to employing precisely the disgraceful political formula Woodrow Wilson used at the beginning of the century. Play off race X against race Y. Honor a racist film or racial and cop-killing lyrics at the White House. Segregate the federal government or refuse to enforce border security or voting rights. Do whatever is needed because without playing the race card, progressive politics restricting individual freedom is a hard-sell if not a no-sale altogether. It's the very same type of strategy model at work with raising the debt ceiling level. On the surface the Obama Administration is issuing stark warnings about default. What they are really about is preventing spending cuts -- cuts that would eat away at their political base just as halting their eternal appeals to race would do the same.

Here's a few excerpts to pique your interest:

[...] The point then -- as now -- is not the artist's freedom to write or film or sing. The First Amendment can and should provide absolute freedom both for Griffith and Common. The question is whether such racially insensitive work supporting a film lionizing the Ku Klux Klan or rap music celebrating leftist cop killers (insensitive -- now there's an understatement) should be honored by the President of the United States in the White House.

And since this kind of vividly disgraceful work was honored by the President of the United States -- Jon Stewart is apparently clueless to the obvious question: What is the real reason the Wilson and Obama White House chose to do so?

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor last night, Stewart was absolutely clueless. "Who gives a crap?" he asked at one point. "This is nothing" he sputtered, again clueless that he was being used as just one more cog in the long running, not to mention shameful, race and politics game for which progressives have earned such an enduringly disgraceful reputation. For raising even the possibility that race was afoot in all of this Stewart dismissed Fox News as "the infection machine."

Wow. The guy is an ardent believer in a point of view that has sold its very soul to racial politics and he thinks of Fox as an "infection machine"????

BOTH WOODROW WILSON and Barack Obama, progressive presidents serving almost a century apart, have exhibited the desperate need for progressives to sell their programs by ginning up attention for those who peddle racial animosity.

[...] And it was only weeks ago that Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress that he resented allegations from longtime Democratic civil rights activist and ex-Robert Kennedy aide Bartle Bull about captured-on-videotape alleged violations of voting rights law because the Black Panthers involved were "my people." Which is to say Holder simply doesn't see a nation of Americans and view them in a colorblind fashion. No, the Holder view -- thoroughly progressive in its historical roots -- is to divide by race. And if race X is "my people" -- that means Holder was engaging in the old if not-so-subtle attempt to gin up "my people" against "you people" -- the latter defined apparently in this context as anyone who isn't black.

Take the time to read it all from the beginning.

After reading Lord's piece, then be sure to take the time to read Damon W. Root's "When bigots become reformers: the Progressive Era's shameful record on race." It's a review of "The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917", by David W. Southern, and Wheeling, W.V.

Clearly, the time has come to bone up on the history of progressivism, race, and "social justice" in the U.S., and learn more about how people like Barack Obama and his ilk think and how they work their agenda. The more "normal" Americans know about progressivism the less they are apt to be fooled by it and its proponents.

Posted by Hyscience at May 17, 2011 6:50 AM

Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: