Obama and his ideological son, New York mayor Bill de Blasio, constantly use the word "progressive."  It seems that "progressive" among the radical left has become synonymous with "good."  

Obama and de Blasio use "progressive" to mean change, progress or reform.  The connotation is improvement.

It's ironic that "improvement" is not a necessary adjunct to progress.  Wholesale abortions are part of modern progress, but are they good?  Are they an improvement?  Certainly not to the dead fetus.  Definitely not to the mother, who loses her empathy and becomes a self-centered, conscienceless, careless disposer of incipient human life.  She replaces her bassinet with the hedonistic liberal philosophy that convenience is its own morality and abortion is a self-justifying avoidance of responsibility.

Obama and de Blasio want to be associated with change.  Obama's first poster, which was hung everywhere, had his face in Soviet red with the word "change." 

Was Obama hinting that he wanted America to change from capitalism to Communism, a system of government that has failed everywhere it's been tried?  Did he want to transform the greatest country in the world, the United States, and replace us with some other super power?  He did suggest that. 

Obama openly said that he wanted to put daylight among us, England, Israel, and our other allies, as well as our philosophy of traditional self-reliance.

Obama and de Blasio both want to be associated with progress. However, they don't understand that progress is often regress, and you can go forward while the rug is being pulled out from under you. 

De Blasio wants to weaken the police.  To him, that's progress for the liberals.  He forgets that it is regress for the victims who will be killed by criminals who are not stopped and frisked. 

The main victims of loose policing will be black, and the perpetrators will be black, too.  I guess even though de Blasio uses his son, Dante, for election purposes, it does not occur to him that his son might be shot because a cop failed to frisk a criminal and take his gun.

Both of these two progressives think that reducing global warming is necessary.  They don't care that there has been no global warming in the last fifteen years and that the ice in the Arctic grew 60% in the last year.  They are ruining jobs in the coal industry and raising the price of electricity.  Progress?  I think not.

Our progressive boys love "reform."  They feel that their new simplistic ideas will be for the betterment of mankind and reform our old evil ways.  Neither of them has studied criminology, climatology, sociology, or psychology.  From their economic results, they haven't studied that, either.

Obama was a community organizer, which is equivalent to a social worker.  Some credentials for president.  De Blasio was a student-activist with a penchant for communist countries and a public advocate who concentrated on helping the poor through food stamps rather than through improving the economy.  The two of them would have done fine taking over the Columbia administration building during the Vietnam War.

They would have done well as tribal leaders in Africa, working with a local population of less than one hundred.  Their simplistic ideas are useless for an urban population.  It is a tragedy that Obama is the leader of the United States and a farce that de Blasio has just taken over the mayoralty of New York.

Immanuel Kant identified progress as moving from barbarism towards civilization.  Obama has weakened our economy, our military, our cohesiveness, our racial cooperation, and our reputation in the world.  It seems that his version of progressivism has moved us backwards from civilization to barbarism.  And de Blasio...well, he's headed in the same direction. 

Obama ran under the banner "Yes we can."  Now we see that his results are the reversal of Kant's.  His intentions are to improve civilization, but his results are the spreading of barbarism.  Obama's and de Blasio's motto should be "Yes.  We can't."