Pity the Left and Its Offspring

2014 may well be remembered (by those who recall beyond the 24-hour news cycle) as The Year The Left Showed its True Colors. Of course, people who study the Left are not surprised. Leftism is a religion, and its devotees, fanatical. Unlike devotees of true religion, however, Leftists are not content to simply believe their creeds and coexist peacefully with those who differ. Leftists, at their core, are at war with those who differ from them. 

I looked up the word jihad, and the definition seems apropos. In the context of Islam, it means "a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty." But the broader meaning, "a crusade for a principle of belief," sums up what the Left is engaged in. 

A few recent examples:

• Calling those who believe the jury's still out regarding man-caused climate change deniers (word association: Holocaust deniers).  

• Calling those who adhere to the the time-honored, Judeo-Christian, Biblical definition of one man/one woman marriage bigots and pressure them to resign unless they recant (you heard that correctly, recant). 

• Denying someone an honorary doctorate and refusing to let her speak at college commencement because she has the temerity to tell the truth about radical Islam. 

This is the strategy of the Left. Don't merely disagree with those who hold different views or challenge them to a debate. No, you must shun them. Debate is not an option since to debate is to concede that maybe a middle ground exists.

And so the Left traipses merrily along. 

I pity its followers, in a way, especially the young people, so proud of their progressive views, blissfully ignorant of what they're missing out on when, for instance, in the case I mentioned above, Brandeis decreed that they should not be exposed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's views. The students, knowingly or not, are the poorer for the exclusion. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: What I Would Have Said at Brandeis

* Note: updated for clarity July 2018

Said the Pot to the Kettle

An article in the Los Angeles Times this week about the despicable Harry Reid calling David and Charles Koch "un-American" because they choose to donate their millions to conservative politics got my dander up so I wrote a letter to the editor which did not get published so I'm publishing it here. 

Linked at the bottom of this post is the original article in the LAT as well as a 53-second video clip of Reid's speech on the Senate floor on February 27th of this year. No mention by the dishonorable Senator Reid of the mega-millions George Soros and others of his ilk donate to Democrats, so I'll include a short write-up about Soros, as well.  

Dear Letters Editor, 

Re. “In Campaign, Democrats Target Kochs” (Friday, April 4, 2014).

Senator Harry Reid calling David and Charles Koch “un-American” brings to mind this nursery rhyme: 

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle; "You are dirty and ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, Except when you're given a crack."  

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot; "'Tis your own dirty image you see; For I am so clean – without blemish or blot – That your blackness is mirrored in me."

Which is more un-American: to donate money to political causes or to vilify those who do? I believe it’s the latter, especially when you’re an elected official, ostensibly representing all constituents, not just those with a “D” after their name.

So in this little drama, which apparently passes for Democratic political strategy, here’s the scenario: the “pot” (smarmy Senator Reid and his lackeys) calling the “kettle” (decent, reputable Koch brothers) un-American.

Not so. ‘Tis their own dirty image they see.

Sincerely, etc.  

LINKS

"Democrats Target Republican Ties to Koch Brothers," by Michael A. Memoli (Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2014) 

"Koch Brothers and George Soros Bankroll 2014 Midterms," by Christopher Spencer (Liberty Voice, March 24, 2014)

On Teaching

Read this morning:  

Sir Thomas More: Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one. 

Richard Rich: If I was, who would know it? 

Sir Thomas More: You; your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public, that. 

Just about sums it up!

Jonathan Turley on Obama's Power Grab

Every now and again, a "gentleman of the Left" gets it right. 

Here's Jonathan Turley in today's Los Angeles Times Opinion pages, commenting on Barack Obama's imperialist presidency (my words, not his, but the implication is clear). Pointing out that the American system of balanced powers, as established by James Madison and the founders, was designed to protect individuals, i.e., "we, the people" (yes, that includes you and me and Bobby McGee), from "any one branch," he takes Obama to task for his "recent unilateral moves" that have "accelerated at an alarming rate under Obama." 

I like how Turley put it:

James Madison fashioned a government of three bodies locked in a synchronous orbit by their countervailing powers. The system of separation of powers was not created to protect the authority of each branch for its own sake. Rather, it is the primary protection of individual rights because it prevents the concentration of power in any one branch. In this sense, Obama is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he has become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid.

You'd almost think this critique came from the Racist Right. It did not. Turley admits he "happens to agree" with most of Obama's policies. My understanding is that he leans leftward, though apparently he's taken positions over the years that have angered the far left.

Unfortunately, this kind of scrutiny may be "too little, too late" from a left-leaning media that has turned a blind eye to this president's flaws. One can only hope that the tsunami of Obama Adulation that has flooded the dominant media's newsrooms is beginning to recede, leaving in its wake a few good men and women who are willing to sift through the mess and begin the long, hard, sloggy job of cleaning up after Obama once he leaves office. 

Our system is changing in a fundamental way without even a whimper of regret. No one branch in the Madisonian system can go it alone — not Congress, not the courts, and not the president. The branches are stuck with each other in a system of shared powers, for better or worse. They may deadlock or even despise one another. The founders clearly foresaw such periods. They lived in such a period.

Whatever problems we face today in politics, they are of our own making. They should not be used to take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for more than 200 years.

 "The President's Power Grab," by Jonathan Turley (Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2014).

Breitbart: Gone but not Forgotten

He was one of a kind, sui generis.

Oxymorons define him: Beautiful freak. Happy warrior. Fearless conservative.*

Though many of his enemies celebrated Andrew Breitbart's death (go here to read the hateful things people wrote after he died), a few of his adversaries grudgingly admired him.  

Piers Morgan, for example, could be heard admitting on his program after Breitbart's death that he "really began to like Breitbart" and that their "chemistry" bad been "getting better." 

And Matt Taibbi, in his Rolling Stone obituary "Death of a Douche" (March 1, 2012) wrote:

I say this in the nicest possible way. I actually kind of liked Andrew Breitbart. Not in the sense that I would ever have wanted to hang out with him, or even be caught within a hundred yards of him without a Haz-Mat suit on, but I respected the shamelessness. Breitbart didn’t do anything by halves, and even his most ardent detractors had to admit that he had a highly developed, if not always funny, sense of humor.

Referring to the sordid Andrew Wiener saga (which the media tried to dismiss as a Breitbart-fabricated smear), Taibbi wrote, "For that one brief, shining moment--still one of the most painful-to-watch YouTube spectacles of all time--... Breitbart could legitimately claim to have the biggest, hairiest balls on earth." A bit crude, but you get the point. 

But yes, Breitbart crashing Weiner's press conference was a thing of beauty. 

That, along with images of Breitbart rollerblading in the midst of hostile protesters, getting right up in their faces, not backing down. He was fearless. 

That's what I admired most about Breitbart, what I personally found so attractive. 

Breitbart's admirers were devastated when he died unexpectedly two years ago today. He was one of the few, if not the only, conservative who seemed to understand the key principle of warfare: know your enemy.  

Breitbart not only knew and understood the Left, he also understood and employed the power of social media. As one of the founders of The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report, he was in the vanguard of a new wave of journalism. The launching of Breitbart.com seemed to be a partial fulfillment of his vision of speaking truth to power. He hated bullies, which is one reason he defended the Tea Party with such passion (oh how I wish he'd been around when the IRS story came to light).

Andrew Breitbart left a gaping hole when he died, and I'm pretty sure he's irreplaceable. Nevertheless, his vision of an empowered "citizen journalist" lives on at the website he founded which continues to expand (recently added: Breitbart London and Breitbart Texas).

And yes, some are trying to pick up his mantle, so to speak. I particularly like Ben Shapiro, seen here pulling a Breitbart and crashing a UCLA Student Association Council Meeting to speak out against the attempt to boycott Israel.

I'm guessing Andrew would have approved. 

 * "fearless conservative" is the phrase Matt Romney used to describe Breitbart. I include it here as an oxymoron as an indictment on most conservatives, including myself, who tend to cower and slink away rather than confront.