We have arrived at a defining moment for the progressive movement in this nation.
The New York Times editorial board, which has generally given this president a lot of leeway throughout his career, wrote a scathing denunciation Friday of the Obama administration’s use of data mining, claiming that “the administration has now lost all credibility” on the issue of balancing civil rights with national security.
Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.
Progressives, Democrats must stand with New York Times against Obama on NSA phone records collection
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
“Progressive” and “moral consistency” in the same sentence? Calling that a contradiction is a gross understatement. It is a frontal assault on the English Language. They are neither progressive, moral, nor consistent. Their “morality” is the end justifies the means, anything you can get away with is OK, and the only evil is getting caught. Their ultimate defense is “they did it first” and if that doesn’t work “we meant well” and “we didn’t mean THAT to happen” are immediately put into service along with and angry “what does it matter now”. Reality is to be a swirling miasma of fog immediately conforming to their whims. Negative consequences are just bumps in the road especially if they are not the one’s paying the price.
Precisely. Holder said his actions made him “uncomfortable”, but he did not say that he would not do it again. Just as a woman might be “uncomfortable” killing a spider, that does not mean that the next arachnid in her kitchen has any better chance of survival.
This is why our founders picked up their muskets.
Oh! Check this passage out, bearing in mind that the author Julie Roginsky identifies herself in the third paragraph as a “liberal”:
“Many of us did not buy the previous administration’s excuse that overreaching infringement upon the civil rights of ordinary Americans was a necessary step in keeping those same ordinary American safe. We should not buy it from this administration now, simply because this president is ostensibly one of us.”
(My emphasis)
RTF
Just like climate science is hocuspocus, so is the “progressive” movement an Orwellian false religion. Progressive policies since WWII are the chief cause of our regressive realities, the shrinking middle class, growing underclass, and wealthier, politically subsidized class.
There’s a BIG difference between what “progressives” promote when they’re the underdog attempting to take over by undermining a society and what “progressives” practice once they’re in power. History shows that they govern in a repressive, dictatorial, and ruthless fashion.
You are right, Justa! Right down to the quotation marks. RTF
The first version of the Times’ editorial did not include this last clause: “…on the issue of balancing civil rights with national security.”
The edit is interesting, don’t you think?
“Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.”
Yes, perhaps all three of those Progressives can even share a cab some day.
“Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency”
Oxymoron. There is a fundamental inconsistency between our form of government and “progressive” political ideology. In our system of government, all rights derive from a power over over which no mortal human can rise and claim dominion. In turn, SOME of these rights are given to our federal government in a document from “We, the people” called The Constitution. The Constitution subordinates the federal government to the people and limits its powers to only those explicitly granted it.
“Progressives” must eliminate that sort of thinking and the first thing they must destroy in order to do that is the notion that people somehow can claim rights that have not been allocated to them by the government. In order to do that, the notion of any higher authority that could have given the people those rights via birthright must be destroyed. To do that, religion in all forms must be suppressed in its expression. The practice of it must be ridiculed. Believers must be ostracized and instead a religion of faith in the state put in its place. Government officials are to be worshiped as the high bishops of this religion and the practitioners of government services given status as a higher class of citizen with more rights and greater economic and social status than people in other occupations. Politicians become more than celebrities, they become impossible to do wrong (see Chris Matthews latest “Obama Has Literally Never Done Anything Wrong”) and become cult figures.
Eventually we get to the point where the notion that people have rights given them at birth by their creator is a “quaint” vestige of an old superstition and the people are fully subordinated to the government.
Oh, I forgot to explain the oxymoron. In the path to getting the people subordinated to the government, the end justifies the means. Nothing is immoral if it advances that goal. Lying, stealing, intentionally harming the “wrong” people is fine as long as it advances the “correct” line of thought. The only thing that is wrong is “betraying” their path to government domination.