Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

In California Sex Ed For Ninth Graders Now Features Sex Toys, Oral Sex And, Of Course, BONDAGE

by Eric Owens
Over a thousand outraged parents who have children enrolled in taxpayer-funded public schools in Fremont, Calif. have signed petitions threatening legal action over a ninth-grade health textbook featuring oral sex, vibrators and, of course, bondage.

The 392-page textbook, which will be in use in the Bay Area school district, is called “Your Health Today.” It is rarely assigned to ninth graders, and it is not used in any other California school districts. Instead, it is most frequently used by professors in college-level health classes, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The semester-long course in which the textbook will be used is a required course for graduation.

In addition to the bondage information, Fremont high school freshmen get to see detailed illustrations of female and male sexual organs in different phases of arousal. Those phases are “excitement,” “plateau,” “orgasm” and “resolution.”

The book also contains guidelines for using Internet dating sites, information concerning masturbation and explanations of the major sexual positions. Other sections are devoted to gay marriage and e-cigarettes. Lady Gaga, actors from the “Harry Potter” movies and rapper Rick Ross also make cameos in the academic tome.

School officials have defended their decision to utilize the textbook by saying that 14-year-old kids need to know about sex, bondage and orgasms well before they reach college.

“We really want them to have a safe place to get facts about their bodies and how to handle things and how they need to be mature to deal with these things,” Fremont Unified School District board president Lara Calvert-York told the Chronicle.

Impressed school district health teachers unanimously chose the textbook for their 2,400 ninth-grade charges. The school board narrowly voted 3-2 to adopt it.

Michele Hartmangruber, who works at a Fremont high school, heartily endorsed the book’s raunchy contents.

“I want to let everyone know, if you think sex isn’t happening with your freshmen, you need to take your blinders off,” she said at a June school board meeting. “It’s happening, and it’s happening in the corners, in the bathrooms, in the cars, in the parks and even on the 50-yard line in front of everyone.”
Thus, Hartmangruber concluded, “You have to educate at the ninth-grade level.”

The parents who have signed the petition disagree.

“I feel that it’s not age appropriate for these kids,” mad mother Asfia Ahmed, who has a son entering ninth grade, told the Chronicle.

In a letter to the school board, Ahmed described the textbook as offensive and essentially pornographic at certain points.

“I was shocked when I looked at the book the first time,” she wrote, according to the Chronicle. “I am willing to pursue legal action, and I have other parents willing to support me on this.”

Read more:

The Trouble Isn’t Liberals. It’s Progressives.


Social conservatives. Libertarians. Country-club conservatives. Tea party conservatives. Everybody in politics knows that those sets of people who usually vote Republican cannot be arrayed in a continuum from moderately conservative to extremely conservative. They are on different political planes. They usually have just enough in common to vote for the same candidate.
Why then do we still talk about the left in terms of a continuum from moderately liberal to extremely liberal? Divisions have been occurring on the left that mirror the divisions on the right. Different segments of the left are now on different planes.
A few weeks ago, I was thrown into a situation where I shared drinks and dinner with two men who have held high positions in Democratic administrations. Both men are lifelong liberals. There’s nothing “moderate” about their liberalism. But as the pleasant evening wore on (we knew that there was no point in trying to change anyone’s opinion on anything), I was struck by how little their politics have to do with other elements of the left.
Their liberalism has nothing in common with the political mind-set that wants right-of-center speakers kept off college campuses, rationalizes the forced resignation of a CEO who opposes gay marriage, or thinks George F. Will should be fired for writing a column disagreeable to that mind-set. It has nothing to do with executive orders unilaterally disregarding large chunks of legislation signed into law or with using the IRS as a political weapon. My companions are on a different political plane from those on the left with that outlook—the progressive mind-set.
Wait, doesn’t “progressive” today reflect the spirit of the Progressive Era a century ago, when the country benefited from the righteous efforts of muckrakers and others who fought big-city political bosses, attacked business monopolies and promoted Good Government The era was partly about that. But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.
That’s not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.
It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I’m saying, read Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.
Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don’t like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.
They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.
These Democrats should get exclusive possession of the word “liberal.”
As a libertarian, I am reluctant to give up the word “liberal.” It used to refer to laissez-faire economics and limited government. But since libertarians aren’t ever going to be able to retrieve its original meaning, we should start using “liberal” to designate the good guys on the left, reserving “progressive” for those who are enthusiastic about an unrestrained regulatory state, who think it’s just fine to subordinate the interests of individuals to large social projects, who cheer the president’s abuse of executive power and who have no problem rationalizing the stifling of dissent.
Making a clear distinction between liberals and progressives will help break down a Manichaean view of politics that afflicts the nation. Too many of us see those on the other side as not just misguided but evil. The solution is not a generalized “Can’t we all just get along” non-judgmentalism. Some political differences are too great for that.
But liberalism as I want to use the term encompasses a set of views that can be held by people who care as much about America’s exceptional heritage as I do. Conservatives’ philosophical separation from that kind of liberalism is not much wider than the philosophical separation among the various elements of the right. If people from different political planes on the right can talk to each other, as they do all the time, so should they be able to talk to people on the liberal left, if we start making a distinction between liberalism and progressivism. To make that distinction is not semantic, but a way of realistically segmenting the alterations to the political landscape that the past half-century has brought us.
Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady BRC +2.04% Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


At least 68 people were wounded and 14 were killed during dozens of shootings in Chicago over the holiday weekend. The victims’ ages ranged from a 14-year-old boy who was killed by police to a 66-year-old woman whose head was grazed by a bullet as she walked onto her porch.

The Chicago Tribune reports that 30 people were shot, four of them fatally, during one 13-hour stretch from Sunday afternoon to early Monday morning. Another 13 were shot, three fatally, Thursday night and early Friday morning, and twenty people were wounded and one killed Friday night and Saturday morning. Four people were killed, and 10 more were wounded, Saturday night and Sunday morning.

Of those wounded, five were shot by police, including a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old who were killed after reportedly refused drop their guns.

We do not have to count the Democrat Voters – they will shoot them all.

Actress Slams Schools for ‘Brainwashing’ Kids With ‘Progressive’ Agenda


Actress Sam Sorbo, the wife of “Hercules” actor Kevin Sorbo, slammed the American education system during an interview with Dana Loesch that aired Friday.


By Jay Ambrose

This year is the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s War on Poverty, and there has been lots of discussion of whether it worked or didn’t. It didn’t, at least as regards its advertised purpose of reducing poverty. But it didn’t do anything to worsen it, either. That’s President Obama’s record.
The pain has been terrible, as you can find by asking about black teens and discovering that their unemployment rate is up to a horrifying 38 percent. That’s one fact mentioned by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, in something he wrote for National Review Online. Other facts: Food stamp use has increased 50 percent to 48 million people and Social Security disability has been rising by a million a year.
It’s the worst recovery since World War II and, yes, I know, Obama has an explanation for all evil in the universe — George W. Bush—and some of his defenders add that, geez, this was a really bad recession, Obama was up against a recalcitrant Congress, recoveries are complicated and give the guy a break.
I’d say along with other critics to take some of that list into consideration and then agree that Obama has been a major factor through his fiscal recklessness, his total incompetence as a negotiator and a constantly divisive rhetoric that has rendered trust and compromise feathers in a hurricane. Even now he continues to miss the point, as in conveying in press leaks about the 2015 budget that he’s giving up on the idea of restructuring Social Security. Fixing that program and other entitlements is crucial for dealing with a bloated debt. The Washington Post reports, however, that Obama figures the era of austerity is over, and I’d say listen to Charles Blahous about this so-called austerity.

A trustee for Social Security and Medicare, Blahous observes that the four biggest deficits in close to seven decades, along with three years of record spending in that stretch, occurred during Obama’s first term. He notes that projections are that we will get more excess like that in the 2020s, thanks in part to what Obamacare is going to cost us.
Because the deficits have come down lately, many have joined Obama in yawning about the debt. Don’t, says the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has noted it will be a towering threat during the next decade, lowering wages, vastly complicating budget management and maybe going “boom” in a new fiscal crisis that would leave darned few of us alone.
Part of Obama’s answer is to take away an additional half-million jobs. That would be the possible cost of the minimum wage hike he wants, according to the CBO, which also points out that a third of the increased wages would go to families with total incomes three times higher than the poverty level. Yes, many of the worst off would be helped, but not a ton. They would go from poor to not quite as poor.
We also get this income inequality talk that is little more than gouging some who made it big for the sake of applause and more taxes. To be sure, the administration is up to some decent things, such as trying to fix a malfunctioning Head Start pre-K program launched as part of the War on Poverty, though further expansion of such programs should likely be left to states and localities that have often done a much better job.
The main thing in fixing poverty is a tough thing, say experts at both conservative and liberal think tanks. It is prompting cultural change that keeps fathers around to help mothers and keeps teens from dropping out of school. I think dramatic White House leadership on such fronts could help a lot more than beating up one group in order to make another group grin.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for MvCIatchy-Tritune. Readers may send him email at speaktojay@aol.ctn.

Historical Parallels between Progressivism, Nazism, Fascism and Marxism are Not Accidental

Progressives, I suggest, have three main characteristics. They see themselves as morally superior and feel it is their duty [read opportunity] to tell others what they should do. They are experts at lying. And finally, they use the government to force their views on others. All of these characteristics are readily apparent in the Obamacare spectacular.comrade-obama

At the root of progressivism is the belief that they alone know the best path for mankind, and they see themselves as morally superior and intellectually gifted. They believe ordinary people are not capable of running their own lives and that the progressive’s job is similar to the “white man’s burden” of the nineteenth century, the responsibility of the anointed to tell the rest of us what to do
Progressives are dangerous because they will do anything and follow anyone in order to achieve their morally superior and intellectually advanced view of the world. They will even follow a Pied Piper like Obama if he parrots their views. Look at who Obama is. Jack Wheeler, a Reagan advisor, describes Obama as the racist neophyte who appears from nowhere and absolves his followers for their sin of being white. Jack Wheeler, To the Point, 5 June, 2008. Obama is a religious figure who conceals his own Marxist views and poses as the friend of progressives, overwhelming them with his potential for promoting their causes. They worship him no matter what his faults may be. Demagogues like Obama often turn to the left, for it is easy to co-opt true believers.

In addition to being morally superior, progressives are always willing to lie. No one can forget “You can keep your doctor. Period. You can keep your present health insurance. Period,” repeatedly stated by Obama and dozens of Democratic lawmakers over a period of months, even when they knew that millions would be separated from their doctors and removed from their existing insurance policies. Lying is permissible, even favored, because it works and because otherwise the “greater good” might not be realized.

Obamacare, when push comes to shove, is a plan to provide health insurance for the poor by loading an impossible cost in premiums and taxes on the population as a whole. But if progressives were to say that, Obamacare would never have been enacted. So they never admitted what Obamacare is, and even now that Obamacare is revealed as a Marxist wealth redistribution plan for the poor, when progressives attempt to justify it, they leave out the costs, which is another form of lying. They don’t mention that Obamacare will change the way doctors practice medicine, patients receive treatment, and the impact on thousands of businesses related to the delivery of health care. That Obamacare may not work and leave major wreckage in its path is a matter of little concern for progressives. That Obama and Congress exempt themselves from Obamacare is an unimportant detail.
Progressives correctly perceive that the vehicle for their morally superior outlook is government. How else but through the coercive power of government could they force the entire population to do something it does not want to do? Angelo Codevilla puts it this way:
“[O]ur Ruling Class’ first priority in any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of government – meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves. Secondly it is to recompense political supporters with public money, privileged job, contracts, etc.”

As Codevilla points out, progressives always pay off those who cooperate. In the case of Obamacare, deals were made with hospitals, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers. Hospitals would make more money by being able to consolidate and control massive delivery systems run by their bureaucrats. Doctors would be employees of the hospitals (not in private practice) taking direction from some guy with an MBA. The insurance companies got a massive influx of new business – 30 million new customers – paid for by covert taxes and increases in everyone’s health care premiums. Drug companies simply got the agreement that Obamacare would not utilize cheap drugs from Canada. How’s that for paying off your supporters?
However, it’s not just businesses who are paid off. Progressive hangers-on who are given power and government jobs, dumb-down their own ranks at the same time they are corrupting the federal bureaucracy. Think, for example, of Obama’s friend Eric Holder, who is now the subject of impeachment legislation and who has been held in contempt by the Congress. He has been described as the most incompetent Attorney General in the history of the country. Think of one of Obama’s closest advisors, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago politico whose experience in national government is zero and whose most noteworthy contribution to date is to explain that Obama seems distant because he is bored. Remember that Obama has had five years to fill the federal bureaucracy with tens of thousands of people just like Holder and Jarrett.
Many progressives are well-meaning people. Others are not. However, all progressives share the conviction that they will do whatever it takes – they will trample on any rights, destroy any traditions, confiscate any property, redistribute any wealth – in the service of their quasi-religious vision, whatever it may be at the time. Even if they came to believe that Obama is the racist Marxist that he is, determined to undermine the white establishment and transform the country into a Marxist Mecca, progressives would not care, for whatever he is, whatever his secret reasons or goals, he supports their morally superior ideas. For them, the good outweighs the bad. You can’t make an omelet or reshape a society, without breaking eggs, but progressives always turn away from the eggs they have broken.
The historical parallels between progressivism, Nazism, fascism, and Marxism, as practiced by Stalin, are not accidental.

Read more:

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !