Have you ever noticed that
- Progressives hate Conservatives who want to defend and protect the US Constitution, but support Islamists who want to impose Sharia law.
- Progressives hate Christian Conservatives for maintaining that real marriage is between a man and a woman; but they acquiesce in the face of Islamists who throw gays from rooftops.
- Progressives support a candidate who insists that Islam has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terorrism, but who is proud to name Republicans as her enemies.
- Progressives claim that to oppose Government subsidies for birth control amounts to a literal “War on Women” and “Rape Culture,” but they support Islamists who punish women who’ve been raped by stoning them to death.
It’s not a coincidence that Progressives and Islamists are an awful lot alike. The fundamentals of both ideologies are the same:
Neither believes in free speech, as progressives put clamps on expression wherever they can, especially in higher education, by forbidding outside speakers to lecture and by doubling down on trigger warnings, microaggressions, miniscule free speech zones, and “safe places” for suffering souls overcome with a case of the vapors after being exposed to a dissident thought. Meanwhile, Islamist punishments for blasphemy are unforgiving, brutal, and nefarious.
I remind you that Progressives have suggested that people should be sent to prison for questioning Global Warming, and that those who have opposed gay marriage have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
Further, secular progressives and radical Islamists hold America in contempt, and they favor rule by an unaccountable elite – an administrative-bureaucratic class of experts, in the progressive case, a vision that has lurked in the progressive imagination since Teddy Roosevelt’s days, while Muslims insist on obeisance to sharia enforced by religious overseers. Both aspire to totalitarian rule under dictatorships of those who are self-selected by political or religious criteria. These presiding masters are radically anti-modern and yearn to establish or recreate primeval societies based on apocalyptic rants of environmental cultists on the one hand and atavistic seventh-century radicals on the other. Both movements lie habitually, with the assurance that deception is justified by the needs of their religious-political movements, and with the assurance of never having to face the consequences of their words and actions. Finally, both are supported by very large segments of their societies.