Bravura rhetorical performance, but you could've saved yourself considerable trouble by just specifying a #27 following by a #7, with a side of #22. You're just engaging in the classical Republican reframing tactic, by discarding the definitions embodied in Rockridge's own statement of progressive philosophy, and substituting your strawman caricature that's easier to lampoon. Your "translation" of what they "really" mean bears no resemblance to reality.

To pick one of your more egregious reframes: "Economic justice" is about equality of opportunity. Achieving equality of opportunity in a society in which opportunity is unequally distributed on the basis of preexisting wealth might look like redistribution of wealth, to those who benefited unfairly from unequal opportunity, but understood in terms of the welfare of society as a whole and not just its elites, that is undeniably economic justice.

This difference in viewpoint comes from a corollary to Lakoff's categories of "strict-father" versus "nurturant parent", the ability to distinguish systemic causation in addition to direct causation. Direct causation is the strict-father's view that failure to prosper materially is due entirely to a person's own character flaws and moral shortcomings--that poverty is God's judgment on moral failings. In systemic causation, though, it's possible to see how circumstances that limit or even deny access to opportunity are consequently impositions on economic freedom.

In general, the progressive view of freedom is that it's not sufficient that there simply be no obstacles to action. The progressive view recognizes that freedom is only theoretical without the possibility of action. (Remember my parable of the leaky spacesuit?)

When an African-American could be denied a business loan for no better reason than race, discrimination rendered irrelevant that person's individual ability and character, and denied him/her the opportunity to participate equally in the free market. African-Americans were denied economic freedom by discrimination--access denied is economic injustice, and this kind of lack of access is cured by laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

Another economic injustice, one to which even Republicans give lip-service, is lack of access to education. The progressive view is that government is obliged to make economic freedom a reality by providing education as a fundamental prerequisite to prosperity.

There's more (that'll teach you to give me a straw man to burn).

Systemic causation leads to the recognition of a globally-interdependent economy, and the realization that the solution to the hemorrhaging of American jobs overseas is to export progressive values, such as a living wage, occupational health and safety standards (e.g. anti-sweatshop initiatives), voluntary unionization, and environmental protection, thus filling the economic sinkholes in other parts of the world that ultimately lower everybody's standard of living. The American economy has devolved into what Lakoff calls a "cheap labor trap", with all the economic forces aligned to lower the cost of labor and thus the standard of living of American workers. Wall Street applauds layoffs, and somehow increases in productivity never end up benefiting the workers who produce more. Productivity is only an excuse to lay off more people and keep wages flat.

So while "Indexing the minimum wage to inflation is like connecting your car's accelerator to the speedometer" is notably clever, it's also false--tail wagging the dog etc.--and ignores the constructive alternative of encouraging fully American-style economies, consumer and worker protection and all, in the rest of the world...thus blessing them with things like real estate speculation and general inflation that level the labor playing field, and, ironically, make life better for everybody.

And that was only only one limb of your straw man...;-)