1. Nothing in this "Op-Ed" is accurate, and it would take too much time to refute all the bald assertions presented. However, since it's easy to debunk the main points Robert Di Padua Sr. makes, I'll take a few minutes and do that.

Mr. Di Padua claims "progressives" have been plotting to take over the USA to impose "a European style form of government (aka: Socialist/Marxist/Fascist )" of course he offers no proof of this assertion--because it's pure paranoid fabrication. He claims this began in the 1930s, ignoring that it never happened, also ignoring that the Progressive Movement began during the late 1800s long before the 1930s, and espousing entirely different goals. In short, every "fact" Mr. Di Padua presents in his "history lesson" is inaccurate.

In reality, the Progressive movement was a grass-roots effort that arose in response to abuses by monopolist corporations and bought off government officials. Progressives worked to rebalance power between the people who were getting abused by corrupt politicians (bosses, machines, etc.) and robber baron industrialists alike. (continued)

2. Thanks to Progressives, plain folks were and are protected from the worst abuses of corporate and government power. The weekend. End to child labor. Safe food and drugs. Overtime pay. Safer workplaces. Greater participation and less corruption in our government. Cleaner environment. More efficient, honest and trustworthy investments and banking. All these are legacies of progressive Americans. All this is documented in American History text books, contemporaneous newspapers and magazines, scholarly papers and articles and so on. It's stunning that Mr. Di Padua misstates things anyone who recalls their history knows.

Mr. Padua claims, "The last hurtle [sic] to reach utopia was the biggest challenge. THEIR GROUP HAD TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS in Washington D.C." Clearly he doesn't understand that Democrats--including Democrats well to the left of President Obama--enjoyed just such a situation for several of the years since this supposed "grand conspiracy" began in the 1930s. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter all served as President while Democrats controlled Congress. Harry Truman, and Bill Clinton presided with Democratic majorities during part of their terms. So much for this "biggest challenge!" (continued)

3. During all this time--30 of the 76 years before President Obama's inauguration--Democrats actually did "WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS." All throughout that time, Democrats never sought to impose anything like "Socialist/Marxist/Fascist" policies.

Which brings us to Mr. Di Padua's main point, which is also a gross misstatement, specifically that somehow President Obama is a far-left zealot intent on imposing a communist regime on the USA. Contrary to claims of his right-wing critics, this is just not true, and is refuted by all known facts.

President Obama is not left wing in any regard, and we can prove it. Let's assess the most important policies:

International and Defense: President Obama has continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even increased the number of troops in the former. He has initiated military operations with NATO in Libya, and expanded operations into Pakistan. Drone attacks have increased. President Obama is pushing several "free trade" agreements--with Korea and South American nations. Gitmo is still open. Where are the stark differences one would expect to see? (continued)

4. Economics: Tax rates under the Obama administration are actually LOWER than they were under Bush. The federal work force is SMALLER than under Bush. The stimulus Obama signed into law and the auto bail-out continued the Bush bail-out / tax cut policies. Again, no meaningful difference at all. From statements bragging about smaller government and lower taxes in the State of the Union speeches to actual policies pushed by his administration, President Obama's austerity approach and proposed cuts to everything other than military spending reveal he is to the right of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman and FDR. His willingness to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security put Obama to the right of GHW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower, none of whom even considered any such cuts during their presidencies! (continued)

Healthcare: claims that "Obamacare" was a "takeover" of the health sector are flatly wrong. President Obama merely continued Bush approaches. Confronted with exploding health and health insurance costs--the leading cause of personal bankruptcy and a major contributing factor to business decline and failure--the Obama administration followed the Bush lead. Taking expanded, improved Medicare for everyone "off the table," and withdrawing the "public option," President Obama angered progressives and coddled industry lobbyists. (continued)

5. Much like the Medicare Part D plan Bush forced through Congress, President Obama signed an industry-friendly health insurance reform bill. Both Bush's and Obama's policies force taxpayers to enrich private corporations. More proof "Obamacare" is a Republican-style approach: It was modeled on the plan Republican front-runner Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts. It closely resembles plans proposed by various Republicans since RIchard Nixon. It is not a progressive approach whatsoever.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans support a much stronger, not-for-profit solution to our health care crisis. We spend more than any other nation per capita on health, but our results are mediocre. The US is among the 30th to 40th best on infant mortality, life expectancy, work days lost to illness, and so on. Overwhelming majorities of Americans demand an end to the War in Afghanistan, cuts to wasteful weapons spending (especially obsolete systems designed to fight the USSR), higher taxes on corporations and the wealthiest elite. Overwhelming majorities of Americans support stronger regulations of Wall Street, industry in general and especially polluters. Yet none of these solutions are forthcoming from President Obama. (continued)

6. This is the mark of the Obama Administration. Lofty rhetoric wrung through the political process until the results are watered down: middle of the road or right of center! So where are the progressive Obama policies? President Obama is not a "progressive." He is to the right of "old-fashion [sic], middle of the road Democrats" to borrow Mr. Padua's phrase. On most major issues, the differences between the Obama and both Bush administrations (as well as previous Republican Administrations) are small to nonexistent.

Irrespective of all these facts and factors, Mr. Di Padua claims: "Obama and the progressive Democrats used the Cloward & Piven plan to the fullest degree. They became the masters of divide and conquer then divide more as to conquer even more. Class warfare to them, along with union activism, minorities constantly screaming outrage against anybody and anything, along with the promise that you did not have do much of anything and still would get a check from the government for food, school, medical, blah, blah, blah, etc."

Of course none of this is remotely true. President Obama unilaterally froze salaries for federal workers. He unilaterally froze non-military discretionary spending. Union membership is way down, not up as Mr. Di Padua asserts. The President withdrew, watered down, or gave up on efforts to promote a progressive agenda. (continued)

7. The Obama-era new Wall Street and banking regulations are weak, especially considering the massive corruption, deceit and failure which triggered the Great Recession. Obama's response resembles the Reagan/Bush I reaction to the S&L melt-downs. Too little too late, and not enough to prevent another crisis.

Cap and trade was a lukewarm response to the climate change crisis, and even that weak measure failed to pass the Senate, Elizabeth Warren and Van Jones were pulled from consideration for Administration positions. The Administration is populated by people from Wall Street and industry who advocate for those interests.

Mr. Di Padua shows he is either unaware of or not concerned with any of these facts as he claims, "This became the mainstream of their campaign. Remember what Obama told Joe the plumber,  We have to spread the wealth.'" Of course this out-of-context quote was not the theme of the Obama campaign. To my knowledge this is just an outright misquote: "We will take from those that work and/or are rich and give to those that have not." In any case, President Obama has done the opposite of these purported objectives. (continued)

8. Nothing President Obama has done resembles the Cloward & Piven strategy. Nothing in his approaches mirror the assertive progressive response to robber barons or abusive corporations. Despite unfounded claims to the contrary, unions, President Obama, other elected Democrats etc. do not advocate for the imposed crisis Cloward & Piven argued for. Rather it's the Tea Party right and their supporters in Congress who cause economic crises by pushing extreme austerity and trying to block the United States from paying its debt obligations!

These facts speak for themselves:

* lowest federal workforce since the Eisenhower Administration
* frozen federal salaries and non-military discretionary spending
* lowest taxes since the Eisenhower Administration
* pro-industry health care plan and pro-industry bail-outs
* weak regulation of Wall St. and industry in response to massive abuse and failure

Strip away the overheated rhetoric and partisan (or worse) sniping, and this "Op-Ed" is a fact-free screed against known history and facts. It is misleading and inaccurate propaganda of the type spewed by hate radio (Limbaugh, Savage, Beck et al) and Faux News talking heads (whose ownership is currently accused of hacking phones and lying about nearly everything). This right down to the demonization and confusion about the aims and goals of unions, Democrats, Progressives, etc. (continued)

9. Mr. Di Padua insinuates that the mainstream media are left wingers. This is an oft-repeated and just as frequently debunked canard. It's true that in opposition to outright racism and gay-bashing the entertainment media are more or less tolerant. Still, on economic and political issues the media are increasingly pro-corporation and anti-progressive. Of course they are!

Almost all the talking heads and top writers employed by mainstream news are millionaires or close to it. All the decision-makers who choose what we see, read and hear are millionaires or billionaires. This because the 5 or 6 of corporations which control 90% of TV, radio, and print media are run by millionaires and billionaires, and are beholden to the corporations that advertise in the media. Why would such plutocrats support progressive agenda? They wouldn't and don't.

And a word about class warfare. Mr. Di Padua implies progressives started to turn poor people against the rich some time during the 1930s. This is backwards and anachronistic. The wealthy and powerful elite rely on exploiting others to gain their wealth and power. Marxism? No, that was the observation of Adam Smith in his labor theory of value. (continued)

10. The very first line in Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations _ is: "THE annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life...."

So why does Mr. Di Padua demonize progressives in his fabricated "history lesson?" One might suspect he's been enthralled by billionaire right wing Faux News / faux populist elitists Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers, and their well-paid media cheerleaders. Maybe he imagines these Robber Barons are on his side? If so he's wrong. The progressives he attacks really are on his side.

Our founders were progressives, as were Lincoln and both Presidents Roosevelt. The Tea Party, by contrast, is the John Birch Society by a different name. Their extremist views and misguided tactics--such as forcing a stand-off that shocks the markets and risks default--are bad for America. Their lack of understanding of economics, history, and basic human nature risk returning the USA to the days of poisonous medications, tainted food, and "Depressiononmics."

It's quite simple: reversing the policies that keep us out of another Great Depression will cause another Great Depression. Apparently, the Tea Party and Robert Di Padua Sr. don't understand this. Or they do, but they just don't care. To conclude: if you're among the 98% exploited by the powerful elite, progressives are on your side. Want to see what a Progressive looks like? Look at Mt. Rushmore.

Mike is on target in everything he says, so I can't say much else.

I do know that I'm always confused, however, when someone says something about Socialist/Marxist/Fascist government as if they are all one and the same. It seems pretty obvious that civics, history, and government studies eluded them in their educational upbringing. In what way do Socialism, Marxism and Fascism compare? They don't. At all. But I don't want to get into any of the political studies I have done and bore the uninitiated.

I would just love to tell this misguided, misdirected, under-educated lover of one channel on TV that, were I as un-blessed in the grey matter department as him and feeling a need to be so very distressed about all of these things that I hadn't done any valid research on, I'd prefer to slash my wrists rather than display my ignorance to any of my fellow citizens.

Isn't he just a little embarrassed? How pathetic.

I can accept the counter points in the article that Mike Pda wrote about my piece. It was well written and that's what a good debate should bring forth. I enjoyed his point of view, however and of course I disagree with it. As far as Elke S points go his ugly violent spew is just a-typical of the progressive points of view that has divided and damaged America . I am not a betting man because I have worked way to hard supporting my family in my own business over many years to gamble my earnings away.However I would wager that neither Mike nor Elke are business people. I would also wager that they work at a federal, state, city, or town job and would double down that they belong to a union and split my aces and bet that they are the progressive teachers I referred to. Well maybe Mike is (he made a good argument that was close to being respectful ) as for Elke its hard to tell what the story is. One thing is for sure , If i had to guess, I would say that both Mike and Elke are students of Cloward & Piven and have learned their lesson well.
RADP

the Yankeefan
I think Roberto will win those bets!!!

it appears that the writer loves being a puppet of Corporate America. he is either rich, paid for or just ideologically blind, Then again maybe he is a paticipant in corporate indoctrination that the American public has been subjected to since the formation of the first corporation.
I suggest he look up the definition of fascism.
nevermind...... i don't have time for this fake, MikePDA he is all yours'

Mr. di Padua CANNOT substantiate his rehashed demonization of Piven and Cloward, and by extension everyone he accuses of being a communist including the decidedly moderate President Obama. This is red-baiting with a red herring, something many of us hoped had gone out of style after the fall of the USSR. Maybe Mr. di Padua never received those history lessons? Mentioning Piven and Cloward, then claiming--without any logical or factual basis--that they wrote the game plan for the Obama Administration is facile at best. I've read some of their writing, and anyone who has done so knows no one in the Obama Administration has implemented the tactics they advocated decades ago. What were their proposed tactics? I doubt Mr. di Padua has the slightest idea!

It's not at all surprising that Mr. di Padua resorts to ad hominem argument, specifically speculation about what his critics do for a living, etc. rather than providing any kind of reasoned response. This is typical of those in thrall to right wing propagandists and corporate cheerleaders. This is because such people are among the least-informed Americans, but ironically they believe they are among the best-informed. They listen repeatedly to nonsense, fabrications, and other BS, even outright racist, sexist and other bigoted blathering. Because they memorize this sad, empty rhetoric, they imagine they know things. As Mr. di Padua's "Op-Ed" proves, in Will Roger's words: "They 'know' many things that just ain't so."

Mike PDA you sir are an idiot