Free Speech: But Only If They Agree With It


The Far Left, which dominates Oregon’s Democrats, at the urging of their chief financial contributors, are once again demonstrating that they are committed to “free speech.” But only if that “speech” agrees with their political philosophy — or more directly with the political philosophy of their chief financial contributors — the unions. There is a consistent and remarkable lack of tolerance on the left for dissent coupled with an unrelenting attempt to use government to silence that opposition.

Senate Bill 519 has been introduced at the request of the AFL-CIO and is designed to inhibit communications between employers and their employees regarding political and religious issues — and more importantly “union issues.” That’s right, the Democrats at the request of the unions want to make sure that Oregon’s workers hear only one side of the debate — the union’s side, or the Democrats’ side — in Oregon they’re interchangeable.

This is a clever piece of drafting by the unions. Buried in the definition section (Section 1.5) is the following language:

(5) “Political matters” includes political party affiliation, campaigns for legislation or candidates for political office and the decision to join, not join, support or not support any lawful political or constituent group or activity. [Emphasis supplied]

That all sounds pretty benign until you also include Section 1.1 which reads as follows:

(1) “Constituent group” includes, but is not limited to, civic associations, community groups, social clubs and mutual benefit alliances, including labor organizations. [Emphasis supplied]

In other words, for purposes of inhibiting employer communications, “political matters” now includes a union’s organizational activities and collective bargaining activities as well as it’s true political views. This is as Orwellian as it gets — “all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.”

So let’s understand some of the matters to which this legislation would apply.

1. During an union organizing effort, the unions would be permitted unfettered access to employees, while the employers would be inhibited — particularly with regard to an employer’s arguments as to why a union is neither needed nor desirable.

2. During collective bargaining negotiations, the unions would be permitted unfettered access to employees, while the employers would be inhibited — particularly with regard to how union demands would effect the financial viability of the employer.

3. Assume that there is pending legislation imposing a carbon credits system (there is) that would adversely effect the viability of an employer — the employer would be inhibited while the unions would be free to communicate the position of their environmental allies.

4. Assume that there is a significant tax increase to business pending (there is) — the employer would be inhibited while the unions would be free to communicate the “benefits” to their brothers and sisters in the public employee unions.

5. Assume that there is federal legislation pending that would supercede state law and impose abortion on demand and prohibit medical professionals (doctors and nurses) from refusing to perform abortions even though their religious or moral beliefs are to the contrary (there is) — the employer would be inhibited while the unions would be free to communicate the position of their allies in the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

These are but a few instances. The legislation effectively limits political speech, religious speech, and employer speech while leaving the field clear for the unions and their allies. And if that were not enough, there is also a “kicker” for another Democrat ally — the trial lawyers association. Contained in the penalty section (Section 2.2) there is the ever popular trial lawyers demand:

“(2) . . . The court shall award a prevailing employee treble damages, together with reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
Please note that such an award only goes one way. There is no comparable provision for a prevailing employer. In other words if an employer wins, it gets nothing.

But the most frightening thing about bills such as SB 519 is that they are merely “the nose of the camel in the tent.” There seems to be a move afoot by liberals — and aided and abetted by their allies in the unions, the trial lawyers, and the pro-abortion advocates — to silence debate. It is much akin to the national efforts to deny employees a secret ballot during organizing efforts, to deny medical personnel the right to decline abortions for religious or moral beliefs, to impose the so-called “fairness doctrine” on talk radio, and to silence critics of gay marriage through the politics of personal destruction.

In a state where nude dancing and live sex acts are determined to be constitutionally protected forms of free speech and expression, it is hard to understand why Oregon’s legislature would tolerate anyone’s (and particularly the union’s self-serving) attempt to limit speech under SB 519.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 15 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Ok – Well this is one I have never heard of, but I am not surprised. Although liberals are good on some first amendment issues for the most part their record has been abysmal. From the Beck decision, hate speech, the attempts to silence talk radio and now this sort of thing the record is one of little but antagonism to the first amendment.

  • Rusty

    Mr. Huss: Nobody’s freedom of speech means that other people should be obligated to LISTEN to that speech. Neither unions nor employers.

    At my job, I don’t want to join a union… and I won’t get fired if I don’t show up for union informational meetings. Why should I get fired for not showing up to ANTI-union informational meetings?

    But given Mr. Huss’ out-of-touch ramblings, I can understand why he would see the need for a mandatory audience.

    The first amendment guarantees you a voice — not an audience! You want to talk about something “Orwellian,” talk about mandating people to come be an audience.

    • Max

      Good clarification Rusty. Mr Huss is allowing his paranoia of all things union to influence his analysis.

      • Bono

        Paranoia of MOST things union.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Why should I get fired for not showing up to ANTI-union informational meetings?

    Where in all of this was anyone advocating for the power to fire employees who don’t listen to the companies side on an issue? How was that connection made?

    Frankly I have a pretty good feeling that if a company fired someone for not attending a meeting on a political issue, that employee would sue and retire on the proceeds after an hour or so in court.

    Let’s also face some facts. With the current administration, with clear union favoritism efforts such as Card Check, a little of suspicion of union efforts is a probably more than warranted.

    Given that we have a very liberal administration ( God I hope no one is still trying to argue BO Co. are not liberal ) and given the liberal record on first ammendment issues, shouldnt be concerned when they start talking about even more restrictions on speech?

    • Max

      “and given the liberal record on first ammendment (sic) issues…”

      What record are you referencing? The ACLU? My experience is that “the left” has been pretty darn supportive of free speech as compared with “the right,” with some obvious exceptions (hate speech, etc…).

      Its a fact that some well known companies routinely fire workers who are trying to organize unions, and its a fact that companies have mandatory meetings for their workers where they lobby, and some feel intimidate workers into not joining unions. its also a fact that since companies began using these tactics, private union membership has steadily declined in the US, as have wages for blue collar people.

      I don’t point out any of this to argue for the so-called Card Check legislation. I think that may tip the balance back too far the other way. But I do think the balance does need to be tipped back in favor of working stiffs, particularly in the service and retail industries. Otherwise we are going to keep sinking to 3rd world wage levels.

      “God I hope no one is still trying to argue BO Co. are not liberal…”

      Well that depends on how one defines “liberal.” He is left of center. How far left seems to depend on the particular issue and the pragmatic consequences of a particular policy. I would argue that Obama leans liberal, but he weighs his policy choices and battles carefully before he proposes something. On a 1-10 scale of “liberalism,” if there is even could be such a thing, he might be a 3.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        First of all, thank you for the really polite tone of your reply. I truly appreciate it. Let me follow up.

        >Its a fact that some well known companies routinely fire workers who are trying to organize unions

        That is so against the law it is illegal. If it is routine then it is also widespread. Can you cite some cases of the labor department finding this had happened?

        >and its a fact that companies have mandatory meetings for their workers where they lobby, and some feel intimidate workers into not joining unions.

        Ok, that could be true depending on ones standard of what constitutes intimidation. However this was about being fired, not “some feeling intimidated”. If the standard is “feeling intimidated” then surely Card Check would also be intimidating. Where is the ire for that aspect of it?

        >its also a fact that since companies began using these tactics, private union membership has steadily declined in the US, as have wages for blue collar people.

        Its a fact? No it isn’t as intimidating workers into not joining a union is a crime as well. You are assuming causation due to correlation. Two facts being correlated does not mean one caused the other.

        >What record are you referencing?

        I will list a few:

        – Hate speech
        – McCain Feingold – largely supported by liberals, I know of know major right wing group, talk show host etc. that supported it.
        – The fairness doctrine – now being morphed into the concept of localism. Probably exclusively supported by liberals.
        – Opposition to the Beck decision. – Generally a liberal position even though it is clearly anti worker. Decided by the Supreme court under Bush 1. When Clinton rescinded the Bush executive order enforcing it ( his first act as president ) liberals voiced no opposition. This clearly was to suppress speech about union workers rights.
        – AGW – Generally a liberal issue. The current strategy is to vilify anyone who questions AGW ( a deny-er, bringing the inevitable Nazi comparison ) or to shut down any discussion with “the debate is over”.
        – Church and State, also a first amendment issue – While a lot of liberal opposition to speech in these matters is valid, a lot of it is absurd. Liberals opposed sectarian organizations getting government funds, sometimes with validity, sometimes not. It was clearly ridiculous to oppose AA getting funds for drug treatment for example, simply because they feel one has to acknowledge a higher power. AA has as good track record as any drug treatment program, and probably better.
        – Darwinism – Liberals will freak if anyone strays from the course on this one. Even the merest mention that Darwin provides no explanation of where life came from can get someone fired. Even though its true ( Evolution is a valid theory for explanation of how life developed, not how it started ), it is still forbidden speech. For examples of teachers who have been fired for exactly this see the movie “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed”. Yes, intelligent design has no factual basis other than a faith based one, I have seen all the documentaries on it and they all fail any sort of reasonable test. “Expelled” is not about that.
        – Political Dissent – There are numerous examples of invited guest speakers on the right being shouted down to such an extent they could not even enter the forum they were invited to speak in or if they did, could not speak in any reasonable manner. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Oliver North have all had this happen to them. One would be hard pressed to think of such examples from the right, but from the left it is not at all an uncommon phenomenon. Indeed, far left professors, let alone speakers, seem to have their say in the classroom on a fairly regular basis without being shouted down. Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis and Leonard Jefferies would be examples of this. The Jefferies case is clearly egregious since he is an open racist and yet was a tenured professor at City College in New York. Obviously in his case, hate speech codes do not seem to apply.

        The ACLU has a good record on some 1st amendment issues, a terrible record on others. I agree with their position on pornography but I strongly disagree with their position on things like Christmas trees in public squares and their obsessive squelching of any mention of religion in virtually any public accommodation no matter how non sectarian or banal. For this reason, on free speech I do not consider holding up the ACLU as an example of liberals strong support for the first amendment very valid. Their support of some first amendment issues is nullified by their opposition to it on others in my view.

        On the right I cannot think of very many anti first amendment positions other than not feeling pornography ( I am using the term broadly, it would also include strip bars ) is protected speech. I disagree with the rights position, however I do concede there is a reasonable argument on their side. Certainly it is hard to rationalize pornography being protected speech with the findings in McCain Feingold, which is clearly anti free speech. Frankly I would protect pornography and rescind McCain Feingold.

        >Well that depends on how one defines “liberal.”

        Ok, I define a liberal as someone who believes government can solve large amounts of societies problems though government means and generally spending a lot of money on the proposed solutions. In addition I would also say a liberal believes in increased taxation and spending in general, combined with low faith in free market solutions. Given that Obama has spent more in a matter of months than any other president, and given that he has inserted government into the free market in a way no other president has ( car companies as an example ) and intends to do more of the same ( national health care on the drawing board and cap and trade a probably reality ), I think he fits the bill aptly when compared with any other president in the lifetime of most people currently alive.

        Therefore, on a liberal scale of 1-10, with one being the least liberal president and 10 being the most liberal president, I would say in just about anyone’s lifetime, Obama is the most liberal president we have had.

        • Maxie

          OK. You have your own definition of liberal, so I can’t argue with your conclusion. I use a different definition of liberal, which is why I asked the question. I think Obama is a mixed bag. Obama has advocated a lot of spending, which Congress has appropriated, to avert a looming financial catastrophe. Recall that Bush got the ball rolling by bailing out various banks and AIG and Chrysler and GM before Obama took office. Had McCain been elected I expect he would have ended up spending as much or nearly as much as Obama. It was what the situation called for unless one wanted to be the next Herbert Hoover.

          There is nothing in McCain-Feinglod, as I understand it, that restricts what you can say. It merely restricts some of the means by which you can say it. Its not so much a speech issue as it is a restriction on the right of some types of organizations to buy a certain type of megaphone at a certain time period. They are still free to express themselves using other means, which are widely available.

          The Fairness doctrine is a red herring. No one on the left or otherwise is seriously pushing it.

          The Beck decision has what to do with free speech? I’m missing something.

          Global warming has what to do with free speech? Now you are really stretching things. Skeptics have lost the argument with AGW because arguing with reality is a losing proposition. They are still free to argue all they want, and reality will stay the same.

          On church and state, it seems to me that in opposing the government’s ability (and tendency) to favor certain religions over others in the public square, the left has the “right” position with respect to protecting individual rights. Yes, this limits use of the public square to religions. Its a balancing of rights however, in favor of the individual against the institution.

          On Darwinism…see AGW. Yes, the oirigin of that first spark of life is not fully understood. But does that open the door for teaching religious interpretations in public schools disguised under creation science? I hope not.

          Loudmouths on the left AND right shout each other down with equal idiocy. Watch Hannity or O’Reily any evening and tell me they are not shouting down the opposition. Or listen to Rush if some hapless liberal manages to get through the screener. Its equal opportunity.

          Far left professors having their say in the classroom is a function of tenureship and the teacher student relationship. A student who tries to shout a teacher down is not going to last very long in school because students do not have tenure, the professor does. And the professor is given control over the classroom. That is not a free speech restriction. It is common sense.

          I did not make any claim that “the right” is more or less prone to restrict free speech than “the left.” I merely challenged your claim. You have defended it. Fair enough.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Had McCain been elected I expect he would have ended up spending as much or nearly as much as Obama.

            I actually don’t think so. I think McCain would have spent like crazy, but nothing like Obama. However the comparison is not really all that valid because with McCain v. Obama you are pitting a moderate republican against a liberal democrat.

            >There is nothing in McCain-Feingold, as I understand it, that restricts what you can say. It merely restricts some of the means by which you can say it.

            The Supreme court long ago defined speech as involving the ability to promote that speech in the Buckley decision. You can think what you will, but I regard McCain Feingold’s restrictions on the means an average citizen has to promote their beliefs as a restriction on speech. You might think otherwise, but I have a feeling if the same standard were applied to pornography, you may have pornography as it is free speech but you may not spend any money to produce it, you would regard it as an infringement.

            >The Beck decision has what to do with free speech? I’m missing something.

            It does. It was arrived at because unions had for a long time kept members ignorant of the fact that they were allowed to keep back that portion of their dues used for political activity if joining the union was a requirement of the job. Obviously union companies had no interest in promoting that fact and a lot to lose as unions bosses could cause a lot of problems for them if they did inform workers. Thus we got the executive order from Bush 1, companies had to post a notice informing workers of that right. One more poster, among the myriad required by the government would hardly make a difference. Well, Clinton thought it did, so he rescinded that order as his first action in office.

            >Global warming has what to do with free speech? Now you are really stretching things. Skeptics have lost the argument with AGW because arguing with reality is a losing proposition.

            This is exactly what I am talking about. Sorry, the only way you arrive at the concept that the debate is settled is to cut off all debate. The empirical evidence does not agree with your conclusion. You simply can’t have hundreds of scientists taking out full page ads against AGW, members of the IPCC suing to have their names removed from the report and publishing books against AGW, and national conventions of scientists who hold the contrary view and say the debate is settled. You especially can’t do so when the foremost proponent, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the topic.

            Yes, I beleive it is fair to bring up Al Gore as relevant. He was just up on Capitol Hill promoting his little business in official testimony. Yes, again, debate or rebuttal of him was not allowed.

            >the left has the “right” position with respect to protecting individual rights. Yes, this limits use of the public square to religions.

            Fine, we differ on this. I simply think that a Christmas tree and a Menorah imposes so little on a few that it is ridiculous. The ACLU, going to this lengths they do to protect that tiny little imposition, if any, on a few, seems quite selective. How they see McCain Feingold or Beck as less of an imposition, and therefore not as worthy of the endevours remains a mystery to me.

            You might feel otherwise, but I feel non enforcement of Beck represents the far greater imposition on the individual than a Christmas tree.

            >On Darwinism…see AGW.

            I never argued against Darwinism and explicitly stated I supported the theory. My point was not about Darwinism as a valid theory, my point was on the censorship of even speaking about the things Darwin does not, and was not intended to, explain. Namely, the origin of life. The result of that is we are currently graduating people who think Darwin explains how life was created. It does nothing of the kind. It explains how life evolved.

            You mileage may vary, but I have stated twice now and will state again, Darwinism is the most accurate and valid theory we have for how life evolved. It does nothing whatsoever to explain how life, on the cellular level, was created and in fact does not even address such matters. This has caused substantial harm, because a lot of people think it does.

            If you can find me one single scientist ( or group, as you would need a physicist as well ) who will argue that Darwin’s theory explains how a bunch of amino acids first came into being and second of all formed a DNA strand and third of all formed a cellular structure, I am all ears. However this is not the realm of Darwin as Darwin does not involve theoretical physics or even quantum mechanics which would explain the existence of the amino acids in the first place. Nor does it encompass probability or any sort of stochastic forecasting which would give a reasonable approximation of how long randomly hitching up amino acids in a primordial soup ( again, how did that get there ) to form a DNA strand would take.

            The unfortunate thing is a lot of people think Darwin explains those things, it does not, and for that we are all the poorer.

            >Yes, the oirigin of that first spark of life is not fully understood. But does that open the door for teaching religious interpretations in public schools disguised under creation science? I hope not.

            Nope, and no one ever argued that.

            On attempts to teach religious interpolations see “Expelled, no intelligence allowed”. Its an eye opening movie, and any fair person seeing it would hardly take those interviewed as religious zealots trying to push any sort of agenda.

            >Loudmouths on the left AND right shout each other down with equal idiocy. Watch Hannity or O’Reily any evening

            Not true. I have never heard of Hannity or O’ Reilly show up at a public institution and shout down an invited speaker. Sure, I have heard them shout down a caller, but that is hardly an equal comparison.

            >Far left professors having their say in the classroom is a function of tenureship and the teacher student relationship.

            I was never arguing students should shout down a teacher in a classroom. What I was arguing is that I have never heard of members of the right storming into the classroom, or into a speech to shout down these people. That’s a very different thing. I have heard, innumerable times, and with examples given previously of the left doing this exact thing.

            Frankly I would think it far more reasonable for the right to do this in some instances. Leonard Jefferies is an overt racist and teaches racism as part of his curriculum ( or at least he did, he may have since retired ). Noam Chomsky is so far left half the left thinks he is nuts, I have never once heard of right wing activists storming into a lecture of his and shutting it down.

            I can, however, cite chapter and verse, as I did, in the examples given of the opposite.

            >I did not make any claim that “the right” is more or less prone to restrict free speech than “the left.” I merely challenged your claim. You have defended it. Fair enough.

            Its fair to challenge my claim and ask for examples of what I am talking about. I do not know if you heard them all but you did ask for them, and respond to them, in a reasonably polite manner. For that I thank you.

          • Maxine

            “You can think what you will, but I regard McCain Feingold’s restrictions on the means an average citizen has to promote their beliefs as a restriction on speech.”

            Only it had nothing to do with the average citizen. It banned the use of corporate and union funding for broadcast advertising within 30 days of an election. Average citizens were not paying out millions for political ads in the weeks before elections. Average citizens write letters to the editor, go door to door, or paste bumber stickers on their bicycles or Hummers.

            The Suprme Court upheld Mccain-Feingold 5-4, after it passed the Senate with 60 votes and the House by a large majority. So if it is a restriction on speech, apparently it is not enough of one to be unconstitutional.

            Pornography is already restricted. It can’t be made or even used with participants under 18. It can’t be shown on network television at any time, let alone 30 days from an erection….I mean election. You need a better analogy here (and I need to get Freud out of my head).

            Rescinding an order to post something obviously intended to deprive unions of dues is hardly a restriction on free speech. Did they prevent anyone from telling the workers about their rights? No. They just said no mas…you don’t have to put up a poster any longer. It has zero to do with free speech. Again, you need better analogies or examples.

            I did not say “the debate was settled” on AGW. I said, or implied that there is an agreed upon reality within science. Its not perfect knowledge and no one claims it to be. Recognizing this reality does nothing to stifle anyone’s right to say it is mistaken, wrong, a hoax, or whatever you prefer. “Hundreds of scientists” who study and research global warming have not taken out full page ads challenging it. And by the way, the very fact that some scientists, but mostly compyuter programers and engineers with PhDs, did take out a full page ad proves there is no stifling of their free speech.

            Gore has free speech rights, and Committee chairpersons decide who gets to testify and who doesn’t. When Imhoff controlled the committee he “stifled” the scientists who actually know what they are talking about by not inviting them, and invited skeptics to testify. Now the shoe is on the other foot, the only difference being that this shoe fits reality, while the other did not.

            I agree with you on a mere Christmas Tree and Menorah, as long as the invitation is there for the Koran, Buhdist Prayer Flags, Krishna, and the Giant Spaggetti Monster to share the space. The problem is that a simple xmas tree (a pagan symbol by the way) easily morphs into a giant rock of the 10 comandments or the Morman Tabernacle depending on the state. But the ACLU picks its battles as they see fit. They sued to uphold the right of the Nazi party to march through the predominately Jewish community of Skokie Illinois. Did they ask my permission? Oy vey.

            We graduate people who don’t know that South Dakota is below North Dakota, so I’m not surprised some don’t know all about Darwin’s theory. Again, I don’t see what you are saying as having anything to do with free speech. Public schools are for teaching that which is accepted by scholars, whether in math, history, English Science, or basket weaving. Darwin’s theory is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life and its relation to time and geography. No other explanation competes. The mechanism for the spark of the first life is not understood, and I presume that is what underpaid science teachers in high school teach. If they start offering up Biblical explanations….well they are in the wrong building and have the wrong pay master.

            I don’t follow how “we are all poorer” that “a lot of people think Darwin explains those things…”

            A lot of people don’t know squat about evolution, and most believe in Biblical creationism. Many, if not most believe in UFOs. My point being, we have bigger fish to fry that to worry about those who know enough about Darwin to even think it has an explanation for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question, which by the way is 42.

            Why would Hannity or O’Reilly show up at a rally to shout someone down? They get paid good money to do it on the air every night. Why do it for free?

            If “members of the right” ( I did not even know the right had members…learn something new every day here) stormed into a classroom to shout a professor down they would be breaking the law and would be hopefully busted for it. And it would make a great teachable moment for the prof, so I hope they try it out.

            I have spent a fair amount of time in and around campuses, and have yet to see any lefties shouting down any rightie professors either, so I guess that score is tied 0-0.

            Noam Chomsky teaches Linguistics, not politics. He does the latter on the side, off campus. A bunch of skinhead yahoos storming his linguistics lecture would be confused and disappointed. Then arrested.

            Look Rupert….I honestly don’t think you have much of a case here. You seem to be way over generalizing and drawing quite sweeping conclusions from not much more than conjecture. I doubt I’ve convinced you of anything, nor you me.

            By the way, I hear there is this Dean fellow who cannot post on Catalyst under his name, apparently because Catalyst does not like his ideas. Now is that stifling speech? On the one hand, Catalyst is not a public institution. It “owns” this space and has a perfect right to stifle whomever it wants. On the other hand, if it is going to post ridiculous arguments like Mr Huss’s that claims that “the far left” only tolerates speech that agrees with it….well draw your own conclusions.

  • Harry

    “Well that depends on how one defines “liberal.”

    Ah, yes. ‘Max’ is actually William J. Clinton. How is “is” defined?

    “He is left of center.”

    Duh! Hard to state otherwise.

    “How far left seems to depend on the particular issue and the pragmatic consequences of a particular policy. I would argue that Obama leans liberal, but he weighs his policy choices and battles carefully before he proposes something. On a 1-10 scale of “liberalism,” if there is even could be such a thing, he might be a 3.”

    BHO is recognized by the rating organizations as the MOST liberal Senator, when he served as Senator from IL for all 4 yrs.

    And he has moved left since he got into the Presidency. At his current rate of leftward movement, he won’t be considered liberal, but instead a fairly middle of the road SOCIALIST.

    • Max

      Then explain to everyone how someone farther left than Bernie Sanders, and actual socialist senator, extended the Iraq deployment, added 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, retained a lot of the Bush policies for dealing with captured terrorists, retained the Bush Secretary of defense, retained General Petraeus, and walked away from a single payer health care plan. How is all this “moving left” from his previous position as the farthest left of all senators?

      Don’t actually think about this before answering, because your head might explode.

  • Anonymous

    Progressives, once in power, are reliably militaristic. It would be difficult to come up with a progressive U.S. president who wasn’t militaristic, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and including FDR.

    Carter would not qualify as a Progressive president because of his passion against human rights abuses.

    This does not mean that Obama is a Progressive, although many on the Left had hoped he would be. At this point he’s behaved more like Benito Mussolini, in the tradition of corporate-statist fascism.

    Don’t forget, Mussolini was admired – even adored – by the U.S. Left until he invaded Ethiopia.

    • Anon

      Roosevelt, Wilson, Mussolini…

      This must be an example of how the GOP is trying hard to relate to today’s voters.

      Keep up the good work, because I am liking the outcomes! 🙂

  • Tania

    Greatings, Ugh, I liked! So clear and positively.
    Thank you
    Tania

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)