Why Are Progressives So Dangerous? Well, Because They Are + I Can Prove It

Progressive Parents Refuse To Tell Child Its Sex...The Onion

• I've often said I don't have a problem with liberals. Many liberals are simply misguided and stupid. Progressives, on the other hand, can be dangerous.
• Recent data from New York State's Department of Corrections reports some very disturbing facts. In 2012 alone, 250 murderers and sexual predators were set free. Some of those freed had been arrested over 40 times. And who exactly are these people? One woman beat her 4-year old to death for drinking out of the toilet. She was sent to jail in 1994. She was released this past December. Another man strangled a 16 year old to death with is bare hands then he raped her corpse. He was sent to jail in 1981 and released last August. NY State has long been run by progressive politicians.
• But one does not have to stop at NY State to see evidence of what distorted progressive ideology does to major American cities. Just take a few moments to look at the current state of cities like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Camden, Cleveland and a host of other cities run by progressives for decades. The murder rates in many of these cities surpassed the rates of troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the same period during the wars.
• Just last week, the progressives at the FDA decided that a young girls, as young as 15, can purchase the morning-after pill without a prescription and without parental consent. Yet, these same children cannot get into a movie theatre to watch an R rated movie or purchase cigarettes. Forget the fact, that many young teens engage in reckless sex---41% of children are born out of wedlock today the rate is almost double for young black women. Forget the fact that the morning-after pill has some dangerous side effects such as excessive bleeding, nausea and vomiting.
• And look what we're witnessing coming out of the Gosnell abortion murder trial. One of the many reasons the progressive media has not reported on this story for the last two years is quite simple to understand: they know there are hundreds of other Gosnell's out there.
• Columbia University, a major progressive institution, actually hired a former domestic terrorist, Kathy Boudin, who is a felon. One of her crimes: being part of a gang that killed two police officers and a Brinks armored  car guard. Her group also planned on bombing the Officer's Club at Fort Dix, NJ.  One of her cohorts in crime said Boudin wanted to use "anti-personnel bombs" because she wanted to kill people as well as damage property. She was paroled in 2003.
• And since the Boston bombings, we've learned that our intelligence agencies were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers well in advance.  But it's clear now that progressive political correctness was complicit in these crimes largely due to our administration refusal to connect the dots to radical Islam. We saw the same warped political correctness among our own press and our own government with regard to the Ft. Hood shootings. His own colleagues called him belligerent and paranoid. We learned he communicated about suicide bombings with Anwar al-Awiaki, the American born al-Qaeda leader. But it didn't end there. The Ft. Hood shooting, to this day, is still considered "workplace violence" by this administration, not terrorism. Michael Goodwin, NY Post
• We are also learning that our warped political correctness and progressive ideology toward illegal immigration actually kills. In addition to the Tsarnaev brothers who were given asylum, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first WTC attack in 1993, was granted asylum. Gazi Ibrahim Mezer, plotted to bomb sites in NYC, also tried to get asylum. He missed his asylum hearing and a judge ordered him out of the country. Mezer ignored the order. He was arrested in 1997 after a roommate tipped of the police to the bomb plots. There are countless other examples. M. Malkin
• And, of course, there was the attack on Benghazi. Three reports, two non-partisan, pointed to significant systemic failures including the failure of leadership at the top. In other words, Hillary Clinton bears much of the responsibility for the attack.
• And how did these progressives respond to questions about Benghazi? If you recall, Hillary famously bellowed: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" And just last week, the fake, phony and back-stabbing progressive fraud, John F. Kerry said of Benghazi: "I do not want to spend the next year coming up here talking to you about Benghazi.
• Just as disturbing, after every terrorist attack, we have the same responses from the administration. These people were either "lone wolves" or "radicalized" in America. We always find out later those claims were absurd. When it comes to terrorists, there is no such thing as a lone wolf.
• These are but a few examples of the dangers of progressive ideology. I didn't even touch on the massive killings and slaughter of innocents  associated with the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro and other progressive tyrants.
• And for those who might counter it's absurd to connect progressive ideology to the likes of Communism and Socialism, it's not. Socialism and Communism are largely economic systems while progressivism is just the political side of the same coin.

And I don't even have time to get started on the progressive media. But, if you are interested, read some of my previous posts. I take them to task on a regular basis

Postscript: Since this posted, the progressive political class in NYC passed bills to give sanctuary to illegal aliens with felony records. In addition, they will ignore ICE warrants. Moreover, Al Sharpton is now considered the shadow NYPD police commissioner. NY Post

In addition, the Obama administration negotiated an Iran Deal, one of his biggest blunders to date. Moreover, these warped policies have led our enemies not to fear us or respect us. 

The Absurd Logic of Progressives Re: Plan B Contraceptives; Same Twisted Logic Applies in the War on Terror; How Will History Judge Us re: Gosnell?

Jihadist Woman Wishes Her Sons Could Be More Like Those Tsarnaev Boys...The Onion

• 2012 Statistic: 41% of children are born out of wedlock in the United States.  Of those 73% are black, 53% Latino and 29% white. Child Trends . 71% of poor families with children are not married. Census. The numbers are much higher in urban areas.
• If you have not heard the news yet, the Food and Drug Administration said it would allow the Plan B one-step contraceptive to be sold over the counter to girls as young as 15.
• After reading that news, I couldn't help thinking of how absurd that is. Excluding the obvious health risks from STD's, other scenarios popped into my very small brain. For example, I envisioned a 15 year old girl going into the pharmacy with her 17 year old boyfriend (who can't wait to bang her) and purchasing Plan B. But, like many couples, they like to have a cigarette after sex. Unfortunately, both are not old enough to legally purchase smokes.
• Hey, no big deal. He says to her, after we have sex, we'll go to a movie. So after having sex for several days (of course, he told her he does not need a condom since she is now on Plan B. Yeah, but what about safe-sex? He tells her he's clean. She does the same. They continue banging for several more days).
• They finally make it to the movie theatre (a tad tired). They approach the box office to purchase tickets for the 10 pm show. Unfortunately for her, the movie is R rated. She's not allowed---by law---to watch that film.  No big deal, she can go back to his house (a guy she's only known for about a week) and get it on for several more days. After all, she's on Plan B and her parents don't need to know a thing.
• Absurd? Perhaps. But there are reasons 15 year olds are not permitted to drive a car, go into the military, purchase alcohol, etc. It's simple. It's because most 15 year olds are friggin stupid.

Has Coming Out As Gay Now Clouded Our Sensibilities? Gay Is Now The New Black

"So Jason Collins is a hero because he's gay? Our standard for heroism has dropped quite a bit since Normandy." Tweet by Ben Shapiro

• Let me be clear before I write this knowing the "tolerant" ones in our society might well consider me homophobic. I have a family member who is gay. My closest and dearest friends have gay children. I grew up on the border of The Village in NYC. I have absolutely no problem with someone's sexuality. However, I do have a problem when many consider proclaiming one's sexuality is being "heroic." The airwaves in the last 24 hours have been filled with descriptions of Jason Collins as someone who just exhibited some type of remarkable bravery (I don't doubt for a moment that Collins is a man of genuine and remarkable character). He's a professional basketball player who happens to be gay. Get over it! I thought we were well passed thinking  declarations about one's sexuality demanded we show some type of reverence. For me, it's similar to the notion of "hate crimes." We bestow that label on victims of crimes who happen to be members of a particular ethnic group or on one's sexuality. I've always been opposed to that because it implies the lives of people in those groups have more value than my life because I happen to be an old white guy.
• I recall when one of my friends told me one of his children was gay (children I knew since birth). He and his wife took me aside to tell me the "news." My first response was: "By the way, when we eating dinner. I'm hungry." I loved his kid before he announced he was gay. I'm gonna love him after.
• And this notion of being gay as heroic took on an even stranger turn in my opinion. In USA TODAY, on Collins breaking the "gay barrier" (Oh please), Orin Starn, a professor of cultural anthropology at Duke, actually said this, "You could argue Jason Collins has become the Jackie Robinson of the gay rights movement in sports." No professor Starn, you could argue you are an idiot.
• In the same piece, NY Mets third baseman said it best in my opinion: "If you can play the game, I don't care the color of your skin, sexual orientation. Come on in welcome." In other words, lets play ball.
• You want to learn about real heroes? Read about heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen and what they had to live through. And, while you are at it, go to this blog and you'll learn something about genuine, everyday heroes http://dedicatedtoheroes.blogspot.com/

How Do Americans Reconcile The Dilemma Of More Security vs. Privacy + Freedom?

 Conan on Obama at Correspondent's Dinner: "We both went to Harvard, we both have two children and we both told Joe Biden we didn't have tickets for tonight's event."

• I have to be honest with you. I struggle with the issues of ensuring our privacy and freedom vs. ensuring our security.
• When I'm totally honest with myself, I understand our privacy has been compromised in countless ways from security cameras virtually everywhere to our neighborhood supermarket knowing our specific shopping likes to the Internet following every virtual step we make. And with those, I haven't even scratched the surface.
• Then I compose myself and take into consideration the vast number of national security threats. In addition to the many domestic terror threats (by the way, to date, none have been "homegrown." There's no such thing as "homegrown terrorists" as the media would have us believe), we're not only confronted with al-Qaeda, but now Chechnya, Hezbollah and several others being supported by Iran ( Our intelligence agencies were briefed about the potential of Chechnya terrorists 10 years ago. In January 2004, Homeland Security warned, "Many Chechen rebels are trained and supported by al Qaeda." They also warned about al-Qaeda's use of non-Arab and female terror operatives. In fact, many of the Chechen terrorists who attacked the Moscow theatre were women. Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration.").

• But will all of the security precautions we've taken protect us from future terrorists threats? The obvious answer is no. This statement in now way mitigates the outstanding work of our own intelligence agencies in the past decade. They've managed to prevent many terrorist attacks that we know of and many we'll never know about (Just in the last few weeks alone, Madrid and Canadian authorities busted several plots). Yet, even with all of the cameras we have in place, virtually none have prevented the attacks we know about. The cameras are immeasurably important in apprehending the bad guys, but not in stopping terrorism. In fact, many of the terrorist attacks we've prevented were foiled by observant citizens. The Times Square attempted bombing comes immediately to mind. It was averted by a street vendor. In fact, the captured Boston bomber was caught because of a citizen who alerted authorities.
• All of this leaves me with these dilemmas: After every attack, our first inclination as a society is to increase surveillance and expand security resulting in more loss of freedom and privacy. It appears a reasonable thing to do. But is it? These actions also imply the more security we have, the safer we will be. But are we? I don't have the answers yet. But I do know this. Whether it's our nation or any other nation that expands its security surveillance to thwart further acts of terrorism, the terrorists will strike again. Perhaps it's just a question of whether we are willing to take further risks and maintain our freedoms or allow the government to continue to intervene. In other words, are we safer or do we just perceive we're safer when we really are not?