Backward Progressives

"There's nothing progressive about progressivism, just as there is nothing liberal about modern liberalism," write Investor's Business Daily editors.

Progressivism. It sounds positive and uncontroversial. After all, we all want progress, don't we?

But progressivism ... is not a road to progress or any attempt to make progress. It is a return to a tribal existence in which groups fight among each other for government-distributed resources.  Progressivism dates back to the late 19th century. Its animating objective is to use the power of government to design, order, mold and control society.

Under this idea, professional politicians and master bureaucrats identify what they believe to be societal flaws and use government to "fix" them. It results in the practice of unlimited government and the supremacy of the state, which has the duty, according to progressive political scientist John Burgess, to perfect humanity.

Burgess, who rose to influence in the late 19th century, also believed the state should have "original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects."

To realize their goal, progressives must reject the Constitution, the Founders, individualism, God-given freedom and, in fact, God himself.  
---
The divide between progressivism and the march toward free people and markets could hardly be wider. One is a system of compulsion and threats, the other an order of voluntary associations in which individuals decide how much they want to participate.

In fact, no one has to participate at all. In a truly free society, all of us can choose for ourselves. But those who don't participate should not expect to receive benefits from those who do.

There's nothing progressive about progressivism, just as there is nothing liberal about modern liberalism. Neither promotes liberty. Both return society to a tribal status in which individuals are sacrificed to the collective. This is not the American ideal. It's something much more ancient and foul.

Read more Progressivism is a Move Backward, Not Forward.

Turner: 10 Obamacare Predictions for 2014

Despite Kathleen Sebelius's PR campaign to promote Obamacare, 2014 is not going to be a good year for Obamacare, argues Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute.  She suggests 10 ways "things will continue to deteriorate" for the law, among them:

• Many who signed up for OCare plans won't pay the premiums so will never be insured.
• Others who begin paying premiums early in the year will stop paying and drop out.
• Many uninsured won't bother enrolling at all.
• Tens of millions will see employer insurance plans cancelled beginning in 2014.
• Sicker and older OCare enrollees will outweigh younger 'healthies', thus pushing premiums even higher in 2015.
• Fewer insurance companies will participate in 2015.
• Court cases will continue.

Read  Ten Obamacare Predictions for 2014 @ National Review Online.

Lies that Bite

"If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" was rated the "Lie of the Year" by PolitiFact, and it will likely form the basis of several powerful ads in 2014. Below are two early ones:





Branco at LegalInsurrection.com imagines myriad ways to make the lie bite:

What 'Progressive' Truly Means

Americans didn't pay much attention when the government Environmental Protection Agency quietly banned phosphates in household detergents (the stuff that actually cleaned dishes and clothes!). We didn't learn any lessons when government set in motion the ban on the import and sale of incandescent light bulbs that took effect on January 1, 2014.

The lessons we needed to learn from these and other earlier government legislative and regulatory bans (think 'Big Gulp') are these:  'Progressive' really means the systematic loss of individual liberty and personal choices in the progressive movement toward the tyranny of government control over every citizen and every decision in life. And 'progressives' reside in both political parties.

Benny Huang explains:

The bulb debate has become a flash point between conservatives and their progressive opponents. Notice I didn’t say between Republicans and Democrats; this overreaching law was proposed by a Republican congressman and signed into law by President Bush, though plenty of Democrats thought it was a great idea too. [snip]

There’s something very wrong with America when the federal government selects light bulbs for its citizens. The fight over illumination is about so much more than just light bulbs; it’s about governmental overreach. ... The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals. Here’s how they see the issue: energy-saving bulbs are better, therefore the others should be illegal. The pattern repeats itself in nearly every other realm: they determine the best policy, then impose it in a top down manner with no regard for states, localities, or individuals. Arguing with them about choice is futile because they cannot fathom the idea that the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide.

'Who gets to decide' goes to the heart of individual liberty.

Because we didn't learn, we now have Obamacare, one of the greatest progressive schemes to date. Government is systematically banning American health insurance plans and, through regulations, banning access to the doctors and hospitals Americans trust. Frighteningly, many Americans, who had health insurance they liked last year, are without insurance coverage today due to government incompetence.

Will Obamacare turn a majority of Americans against progressivism as Prohibition—another progressive scheme—did in the early 1900s? Or will Americans fail to learn from this lesson, too, and continue the march toward tyranny?

The choice is ours, for a little while longer.

Lawful Gun-Totin' Citizens Make Us Safer

More evidence that the lawful exercise of Second Amendment Rights makes the world a safer place.  From Quinnipiac University via Reason.com:

Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius has published a new study, "An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates," in the journal Applied Economics Letters. From the abstract:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997). [emphasis added]

Obamacare's Birth Control Mandate Temporarily Blocked

The year begins as last year ended with more news on Obamacare. "Advocates for a Denver-based congregation of Catholic nuns on Wednesday applauded an eleventh-hour order by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to temporarily block a requirement under the Affordable Care Act to insure birth control procedures," reports the Washington Times.  The Obama administration has until Friday to respond.

2013 in Poetry from National Review

2013 was "a fourth-quarter comeback for the ages," says Fred Schwarz at National Review Online. Putting the year in verse, Schwarz begins:

What an annus mirabilis, 2013 —
With dramatic reversals like we’ve never seen!
Back in January, the whole world was Obama’s;
Now his comeback hopes rest on a boy in pajamas.

Read his full article and enjoy!