What the Left Did Last Week

censorship-10-5-25In his column last week, Charles Krauthammer crossed a line. He declared the American left totalitarian. He is correct. Totalitarianism is written into the left’s DNA.

Krauthammer wrote about a left-wing petition “bearing more than 110,000 signatures delivered to the [Washington] Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming.”

He concluded:

“I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition. The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian.”

America is engaged in a civil war — thank God, a non-violent one, but a civil war nonetheless. It is as divided as it was during the Civil War in the 19th century. The issue then was slavery — a huge moral divide, of course. But today, the country is divided by opposite views about much more than one major issue. The left and right are divided by their views of morality, politics, society, religion, the individual and the very nature of America.

The left seeks to, as candidate Barack Obama promised five days before his first election, “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

That is what the left is doing. There is almost no area of American life in which the left’s influence is not transformative, and ultimately destructive.

Beginning with this column I will periodically, perhaps regularly, devote this space to that transformation and destruction. My reason for doing so is that most Americans, including more than a few Republicans and more than a few Democrats, simply do not know what the left is doing to their country.

So, here is some of what the left has done in the last week or two.

—The left-wing directors of Mozilla, the parent company of the browser Firefox, compelled their CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign after he refused to recant his support for maintaining the man-woman definition of marriage. Even though his gay employees acknowledged how fairly he treated them individually and as couples, the mere fact that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman rendered him unacceptable as an employee of Mozilla/Firefox. (For more details, see my column of last week, “Uninstall Firefox.”)

The Wall Street Journal condemned Mozilla. The New York Times has not taken a position.

—Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, perhaps the world’s foremost activist on behalf of women in the Islamic world.

Hirsi Ali, an African woman born into a Muslim family and raised Muslim, who now teaches at Harvard, was scheduled to receive an honorary degree at the forthcoming Brandeis graduation ceremony. Brandeis rescinded its invitation after protests led by a Muslim student and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamist organization, erupted over Hirsi Ali’s criticism of the way women are treated in many parts of the Muslim world.

The Wall Street Journal condemned Brandeis. The New York Times has not taken a position.

—The University of Michigan canceled a showing of the documentary “Honor Diaries.” The film features nine women who are either Muslim or come from a Muslim country. They speak about honor killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriages at young ages, and the denial of education to women in Muslim communities. They praise moderate Muslims. But the University of Michigan cancelled the film lest a non-moderate Muslim organization, CAIR again, label the university “Islamophobic.”

—Six weeks ago, a University of Wisconsin student released a video he had made of a guest lecturer in the freshman general education course “Education 130: Individual and Society.” The lecturer, the political and organizing director for Service Employees International Union Local 150, delivered a diatribe, with obscenities, against conservatives, whites and Republicans. Last week. When confronted with the evidence that classrooms at their university were being politicized, the faculty of the University of Wisconsin reacted with indignation — at the student who made the video. And then the faculty passed a resolution demanding that the university ban recording any of its classes.

It’s hard to blame the faculty. Given the intellectual shallowness and the left-wing politics that pervade so many liberal arts classes, the University of Wisconsin faculty has every reason to fear allowing the public to know what professors say in class.

—Today is the cutoff date for public reactions to the California Supreme Court’s ethics advisory committee’s proposal to forbid California judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts, which the left deems anti-gay. Given the Left’s animosity to traditional value-based institutions, it is not surprising that it loathes the Boy Scouts. What is remarkable — actually, frightening — is how easy it has been for the left to make it illegal for a judge to be a leader in the Boy Scouts. This is the now case in 22 states. It will soon be the case in California as well.

This was just one week — and only selected examples — in the left’s ongoing transformation of America.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Consider

    Iran, or at least the actual regime there, is anti gay. That’s bad. Of course it is.
    It’s often criticized on this site.
    But it seems OK to Prager for the Mozilla CEO and the American Boy Scouts to be anti gay
    The later are also pro religion and atheists cannot be members. No discussion about god’s existence. Period.
    Tell me more about totalitarianism.
    And traditional-value based institutions.
    Hypocrisy seems to be a very traditional value.

    • Steeloak

      You are the totalitarian sir! You are the one confused about what freedom is.
      If you object to the values of an organization like the Boy Scouts, you are perfectly free to form a youth organization that reflects your values. Stop insisting that organizations change their values to reflect yours.

      • Consider

        So you don’t need to question global warning (or lack of it) in the Washington Post, you can do it on FOX TV or similar outlets.
        That organization and other simillar, obviously share your values.

        • tagalog

          You mean we can’t complain about the Washington Post’s editorial policy? Why not?

          • Consider

            Why not complain about the Boy Scouts’ fundamental principles? Why not?

          • Gee

            The leftists do complain all the time. What happens is that leftists wants anybody that doesn’t support their view points from having any say.
            I am not anti-gay, nor ever been a Boy Scout. I do support the right of people to decide if they want to associate with them. Do you?

          • Consider

            You probably have in mind the blasphemy laws that the “Right” when in absolute power, imposed on society.
            Albeit no one takes them seriously these days, they are nevertheless the parcel of “traditional values”.
            (Upheld like the istitutions as the Boy Scouts).

          • Gee

            No I do not. My people have been on the receiving end every one of those blasphemy laws.
            As a liberal and an anti-leftist I believe in human rights. The right of free speech, the right of free associate and the right to my own beliefs.
            I do not believe that anybody has the right to impose their view points on anybody else.
            Do you?

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Sure you do. You said it was a good thing for California to prevent judges from being part of the Boy Scouts.

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Sorry, I meant to reply to Consider.

          • UCSPanther

            Blasphemy laws?

            You lefties already have those. They are called “Political correctness”.

            All you need is your own Lubyanka to punish those who disagree with your party line.

          • tagalog

            How old are those blasphemy laws you’re citing? Can you give an example of a “blasphemy law?”

            When has the right been in “absolute power” in the United States?

          • Consider

            Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy.[1] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a provision based on a similar colonial era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 — states:
            Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Whereas today, Democratic Party office holders lock people up for making You Tube teasers for a video criticizing Islam (which may or may not exist), even without any law against it.

          • tagalog

            You’re going back to 1697 in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts in colonial times for an example of blasphemy law? Well, that’s reassuring for the present times. I bet that section of Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws is most notable these days for its being thoroughly ignored by everyone.

          • Consider

            That’s the point with traditional values.
            The older the better.
            Ultimately their age becomes the sole reason why they are respected.

          • tagalog

            Well, that’s not exactly the conservative point of view about traditional values. Conservatives want proponents of something new to be able to show a good reason why a workable tradition should be overturned. They are OK with change for well-founded reasons. They’re less trusting of untried and unproven changes that have no articulable rationale.

          • Consider

            Yes, for instance circumcision.
            Spare me of arguing that this is good for health.

          • tagalog

            The primary purpose of circumcision was originally to manifest the covenant between God and the Jews. Most people were not circumcised before the 20th Century except Jews. Taking a man’s pants down and looking was a way to check for his being Jewish even in the Second World War. I don’t know why doctors continue to do it; perhaps it’s tradition as you say, but I doubt it. I’ll spare you the argument you don’t like.

          • Consider

            So you don’t count Moslems among peoples.

          • tagalog

            How do you get to that?

          • Consider

            “Most people were not circumcised before the 20th Century except Jews.”
            Well almost all (if not literally all) Moslems were.

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            You mean Hillary’s and Obama’s expressing sympathy with demands for laws against criticising Islam?

          • Drakken

            I can’t wait until the muslims give you useful idiots their take on what the deal is, won’t you be surprised.

          • MrDrT

            Why are we discussing whether or not the Boy Scouts is OK with children being sexually active?

          • CowboyUp

            Who ever said anybody couldn’t? You can’t tell the difference between criticism and complaint of their fundamental principles, and compelling them to change those principles?

          • tagalog

            Complaining about the Boy Scouts for any reason about anything they do is OK with me.

          • Consider

            Some professions have rules that demand different behavior compared to other people.
            As a military you cannot be a member of a political party.
            So you can chose: be a military officer or a politician.
            Be a Catholic priest, or a family man.
            Be a judge or a Boy Scout.

          • tagalog

            There’s no prohibition in the military against belonging to a political party. Among officers it was once a custom to refrain from voting because of the tradition that the armed forces are not political, but obey orders of the politicians regardless of party; Eisenhower was the prime example of that, many years ago. Today, people on active duty service, officers or enlisted, vote all the time. In primaries.

            No one expects judges to be Boy Scouts. They’re uniformly too old for that. To keep a qualified person from becoming a judge because of support for the Boy Scouts is a bit questionable, though.

          • Consider

            To vote and to belong to a political party are two different things.

            Just quotation.from, well, the NYT:

            “While retired officers have full rights to political activism, their colleagues still in uniform fear its effect on those trying to carry out the mission, especially more junior officers and enlisted personnel. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics.”

          • tagalog

            I strongly suspect that when the NYT referred to “political activism” they weren’t referring to voting, which isn’t political activism. The part of the quote about “partisan politics” is a giveaway that I have interpreted the quotation correctly.

            Voting can’t can’t help being partisan, of course, but voting isn’t prohibited to members of the armed forces, hence, the flaps over the absentee ballots of military people in the last two or three presidential elections.

          • Consider

            “Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics”
            Period.
            If voting means being a polirtician, than all people of age, and taking the trouble to vote, are politicians.

          • tagalog

            Welll, not quite “period.” Just so you know:

            Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code, Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly specify a military active duty person’s participation in partisan political activities.

            DOD defines “partisan political activity” as “activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.”

            A “Nonpartisan political activity is defined as “activity supporting or relating to candidates not representing, or issues not specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations. Issues relating to constitutional amendments, referendums, approval of municipal ordinances, and others of similar character are not considered as specifically being identified with national or State political parties.”

            The military wants its personnel to participate in our democratic process — within limits. DOD encourages active duty military members to vote, and has established several programs to help active duty personnel to register and cast absentee ballots. What career military officer or senior NCO has never had to pull a stint as unit “voting officer,” or “voting NCO?”

          • Consider

            To vote is to vote, and to engage in politics means more than merely to vote. It means being active in party politics, taking part in conventions and meeting, delivering speeches, collecting contribution etc, etc.

            Therefore the statement that “Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics” stands.
            And the “period”, too.

        • CowboyUp

          Who is compelling the WaPo to allow questioning of the AGW hoax in their paper?

        • ahad_ha_amoratsim

          Good grief. Anytime you see someone use “Fox News” as a retoret, you know you are dealing with someone who cannot and will not think.

        • MLCBLOG

          Do you not see, or get, your confusion here? We should only speak among ourselves. Is that what you are proposing? Sounds vaguely totalitarian to me.

          • Consider

            FOX, somehow, reaches only conservatives?

    • tagalog

      Iran being anti-gay (or pro-gay as far as that goes) is fine with me. That’s not the issue for me that makes Iran an enemy of America.

      • Consider

        It has to do with the consistency of this web site.

        • tagalog

          So, not hypocrisy.

          • Consider

            And hipocrisy too. We define hypocrisy as professing ideas and feelings that in fact one doesn’t really have. We find that this website in general ( I am not sure for this particualr author, I don’t keep records of his literary production) condems the prosecution of gays in Iran, and (rightly) praises the tolerance in, say, Israel.
            Then suddenly we find, that in fact that praise is a disposable commodity used just to denigrate Iran, and that the true feelings of a honest American conservative (or traditional-value based institutions, wich by definition, he wholehartedlly supports) are exactly the same as those of Iran’s mullahs.

    • Gislef

      The issue isn’t merely being anti-gay. It’s making homosexuality illegal and punishable.

      The former is protected by the First Amendment. The latter is not.

    • Harry_the_Horrible

      What is wrong with being against a repulsive and self-destructive behavior? What is next? Equal rights for pedophiles?
      Oh. Wait. They’re already working on that…

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      The Boy Scouts have said that being gay is incompatible with the morality they subscribe to. After great pressure, they revoked that policy but still question the wisdom of putting gay men into seclusion with young men. After further pressure, they decided to decentralize the decision and give each local group autonomy. At no time have they advocated violence, loss of employment, or insults aimed at gay people. You brand them anti-gay.
      Mozilla promoted someone to CEO who treated his gay workers with dignity and compassion, and treated them like he treated anyone else. But he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and gave a relatively small sum to support a referendum to that effect, which was approved by a majority of voters in his state. You brand this as anti-gay.
      Not quite the same as hanging gays from cranes like they do in Iran, is it?
      Hypocrisy seems to be a very progressive value. So does hypersensitivity, suppression of speech and thought, conformity, and the unwillingness to think clearly.

      • Consider

        Non admittance of Blacks to certain gentelmen’s clubs, forcing them to sit in the back compartments of buses, restaurants etc. was not as hanging them from cranes, but it was nevertheless anti Black.

        • ahad_ha_amoratsim

          So the CEO of Mozilla was not admitting Gays to his clubs, forced them to sit in back compartments, etc? Sorry, that’s a lie. All evidence is that he treated his gay co-workers the same as he treated his straight co-workers.

          • Consider

            He was promoting a veiw that ultimately shall make their life harder.
            Like treating your Jewish neighbors politely, but trumpeting that Jews should not be admited to universities, to certain professions, that they have divided loyalty, etc.

        • ahad_ha_amoratsim

          It seems that when people want to justify the immoral, truth is the next casualty, followed by logic.

    • iluvisrael

      I’m not anti-homosexual – I’m for traditional marriage

    • laura r

      any organization or club can set their own rules. boyscouts want straight leaders. thats their right.

    • Drakken

      The difference between Iran and Prager and the mean righties is so simple and easy a dumbazz libtard like you can understand it, Prager and the right won’t kill you, the mad mullahs of Iran will, see the difference now dumbazz? So consider that.

      • Consider

        Sorry I overlooked this.

        Well, the difference is in degree, not in kind.

        Verstehen Sie?

  • Davros11

    And why is being anti-gay bad? I have to jump up and down and clap my hands saying “YEA” every time a gay person walks by, sorry don’t think so! Unlike islam where you have to kill gay people, traditional Christians here just don’t want to have to kiss the feet of gays, that’s not being totalitarian, that’s having the right to associate with who you want, and who you want around your children!

    • Consider

      Why is being anti-Black, bad?
      KKK want to associate with whom they want, as it happens, white people, (preferablly well armed with automatic weapons and inflamable compounds at hand).
      Or anti Jewish?
      You may not want to associate with God killers, you may rather want to see around your children Brown Shirts, New Dawn, Jobbik types and other traditional values defenders.
      Why jump, clap hands and kiss the feet of Blacks and Jews?

      • Harry_the_Horrible

        No comparison there, moron.
        Black is a race. Homosexuality is a behavior.

        • Consider

          It’s a characteristic of an individual, as being short or tall, left handed or right handed, blue eyed or black eyed, Black or White etc.
          Being fair haired is a behaviour?
          Idiot!

          • kumbaya

            Feelings of inadequacy, Consider?

          • tagalog

            Some characteristics are inborn, some are not. There is no genetic evidence for homosexuality being inborn despite the claims of a couple of genetic researchers a decade or two ago.

            So being fair-haired is a genetic characteristic; being homosexual appears to be non-genetically determined, hence the understandable conclusion reached by many that it is a chosen characteristic.

          • MarilynA

            If Homosexuality is I an inborn characteristic then that makes homosexuals freaks of nature like two headed toads and three legged calves.

          • tagalog

            It’s not what homosexuality makes a person. Whether inborn or not inborn, we among the straight world are expected to celebrate them as within normal limits no matter how many heads or legs (figuratively speaking, of course) they are born with, or choose to say they have.
            It has struck me as an Emperor’s New Clothes kind of thing for a very long time.

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Being fair haired is unrelated to immoral behavior.

          • laura r

            you can hate anyone for any given reason. why not? everyone has phobias. some are real some are imagined.

          • Consider

            Phobia is fear, not hate.
            Educate yourself.

          • laura r

            fear can create hate as a reaction. some people get aggressive when they are fearful, like animals do.

          • Consider

            They can also flee.

          • tagalog

            Phobias or rational, you can hate anyone you like for any reason you like. You just can’t ACT against them on those reasons unless the reasons are not invidious.

          • Drakken

            Would you please point out to the rest of us Neanderthal knuckle draggers where multiculturalism and diversity has ever worked? And where it never has not devolved into a Balkans type scenario? So please tell us we have to be more tolerant for the intolerant and accept everything under the sun just because a leftist said so? Frankly speaking, I can’t wait until this PC/MC/Diversity insanity blows up in your faces, let it rain.

          • Consider

            Balkan peoples as culturaly much more similar to each other than various factions of the American people.

          • tagalog

            Really? The Eastern Orthodox Serbs are culturally similar to the Roman Catholic Croats? And both are culturally similar to the Bosnian Muslims?

            I’d characterize the culture of the Balkans as more like Northern Ireland in the 1970s cubed.

          • Consider

            You would characterize it so, because you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • tagalog

            So there’s no need for U.S. or U.N. troops in Kosovo, even to the present day, right?

            Would you please write a letter to President Obama, clueing him in?

          • Consider

            No need for US troops in S. Korea, too.
            All Koreans belong to the same culture.
            Write a letter to Presiden Obama.

          • tagalog

            Actually, there IS a need for U.S. troops in South Korea. Besides, I’m having a little trouble equating the homogeneity of the South Korean culture vs. the North Korean culture with the various cultures in the Balkans, which is what you were talking about.

            But feel free to change the subject whenever it gets to the point where your argument begins to lose its power.

          • Consider

            This is really funny.I don’t believe that you are that stupid. But then, I am not so sure. Since, when your argument fails you prefer to play a role of a moron, rather than admit that you were wrong. UN troops in Kosovo are no argument for a cultural gap between Balkan peoples, as US troops in Korea are a no proof that North and South Korea belong to different cultures.
            For your information, you can tell a Croat from a Serb only if you ask him how he feels.
            Even names are of no help. There was a minister named Milošević in the previous Croatian right wing nationalistic government. The difference in language is of the order of difference between American English and British English and both variants are spoken by both, depending on the region.
            So the remark that you don’t know what you are talking about remains valid.

          • tagalog

            An Afghan clothed in Western clothes would be indistinguishable from Westerners.

            That doesn’t mean that the Afghan and the Westerners share indistinguishable cultures, which was your point about people in the Balkans.

          • Consider

            No that was not my point.

            You wrote that “the culture of the Balkans as more like Northern Ireland in the 1970s cubed.”

            My point was that this assertion is bullshit.

          • Consider

            American troops in S.Korea?

            No need, since all Koreans belong to the same culture, right?

            Would you please write a letter to President Obama, clueing him in?

          • laura r

            melting pot worked for years in NYC when #s were restricted. then……ammesty #1 lates ’80s, problems. then illegal ammesty through the 90s & beyound. its 20yrs later, the melting pot has boiled over. diversity & melt pot are different animals.

      • tagalog

        Bad or not, anyone can be as anti-black in their views as they want to be. It’s ACTING against blacks on the basis of race or color that is prohibited.

        • laura r

          wrong. you can NOT say anything. itscalled hate speech hate crime. if you dont bake a cake you are sued. sit back & watch the show.

          • tagalog

            That’s why I said there’s sometimes a social price to be paid for what you say.

            Terming some speech “hate speech” is meaningless except in the social sense, unless there’s some law written somewhere that makes some kinds of speech a crime. When such laws exist, they are constitutionally VERY questionable.

            Whatever is true about baking a cake or not baking a cake, baking a cake is clearly NOT speech, but action.

          • laura r

            there is a difference between hate speech & threat speech. as for the cake, they consider this “hate action” (or “non violent hate action”, see i just invented a new word)!

          • MLCBLOG

            phrase

          • tagalog

            Yes, that’s true. No rational person believes that threats cannot be prohibited without any serious violation of the right to free speech, while hate speech is viewed quite differently, as often very questionable vis-à-vis free speech.

      • laura r

        as long as youre not killing. insuring or threatening, who cares what you think. free association all the way. im jewish, you can hate me all you want. you can spread rumors & ignornant facts, i expect that. have a party! its america. i can hate people from flyover, thats my party. you play your music ill play mine.

        • MarilynA

          right on!

      • MLCBLOG

        Your contribution seems strangely out of order on this site….but thank you for trying. I hope you go somewhere else.

        • Consider

          I am already somewhere else.

          • tagalog

            Yes, that is obvious from your posts here.

          • Consider

            I offer no apologies for that.

    • laura r

      someone like me (who has had gay men in her life for yrs) agrees w/ypou 100%. my gay friends do as well. people w/self esteem do not need validation all day.

      • MLCBLOG

        me, too

    • MarilynA

      Hey, I don’t want to know who is gay and who isn’t, or what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, because if I know who they are and what they do, I don’t even want to eat out of the same dishes they have used.

  • tagalog

    On that last issue of California barring judges from associating with Boy Scouts, isn’t there a First Amendment freedom of association issue in there somewhere?

    I guess it doesn’t matter when the conventional opinion is that such association is anti-gay.

    I’ve come to expect university-level collaboration with the enemies of the United States to the extent that they deny freedom of speech (even when they receive taxpayer money), but it’s always dismaying to see how far the left has infiltrated into our fundamentally valuable institutions.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    I am not happy with the word “totalitarian” and would prefer that authoritarian societies be described each with its own methods of controlling dissidents, including false promises made to ordinary people, for instance emancipation, but from whom and what? If you dig deep enough, “Totalitarianism” refers to the rule of money aka “the Jews.” See http://clarespark.com/2012/10/15/orwell-power-and-the-totalitarian-state/. “Orwell, power, and the totalitarian state.”

    • tagalog

      According to such persons as Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg, totalitarianism is one form of authoritarianism. Oligarchy is another.

    • Davros11

      who cares what words you are happy with!

  • WeroInNM

    New EPA Land Grab, Complete Control Over All Private Land in America! (Part 2)
    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/new-epa-land-grab-complete-control-over-all-private-land-in-1
    “Food For Thought”
    Hello: When Are Americans Going To Wake Up?-God Bless America!
    Semper Fi!
    Jake

  • fistdeyuma

    When I meet a Liberal who has no idea what he or she is talking about, but insists on taking anyway, I try to educate them on the facts. The Liberal response is always to attack yell and have a fit, (Didn’t you ever hear it is a Living Constitution!!!) and insure my ideas are not expressed. I can count on one had people who even understands the issues and is a Liberal. We disagree on many things but respect each others view, and both learn. Sadly that is very rare and if Liberals ever get their way, illegal.

  • antioli

    Why they get away with it: When Republicans are in power they fritter it away.
    If the Republicans do get in power (which is unlikely ) we expect them act strongly in the interests of all the people with out hold back.
    Right now they do not seem to know what the people want and need. It is as the Republicans consider all America to be fly over country.

    • Erudite Mavin

      The commentary by Krauthammer who supports Republicans attacked the Democrats so you have to make this about Republicans to keep the light off the Democrats.
      Republicans are the ones who take on these issues, they are shot down by not only the Democrat majority but especially the MSM who either don’t broadcast the Republican facts or twist their words to make them the problem, not the IRS, Benghazi, etc.

      • MLCBLOG

        Lots of truth in what you are saying. However, the rest of his friends are strongly anti-Tea Party or anything that reminds them of our true conservative values that the founders put into our laws.

    • MLCBLOG

      The old guard (GOP) is still very strongly entrenched. They made mincemeat out of the otherwise formidable Sarah Palin. I guess I can close that chapter. Mincemeat, and they are proceeding to try to do it again, as if we conservative thinkers do not even exist. They are horrid in my book and very threatening because all they do, in effect, is to bring a split in the Repub party and give the election to the Dems.

      As a child of 10-11 I remember my mother and her commie friend talking about the recent commie decision to begin to work within the Dem party, where they had the best chance of “getting in.”

      Wish the Repubs would learn the same lesson. I recall back in the day of Black Power a general understanding that we support each other and never talk bad about each other, Black Power folks and leftists of all persuasions understood the need for UNITY.

      There is great power in Unity and I believe we need to learn it. Work with Repubs who will actually support truly free speech, etc.

      Gotta go…One of the few who is still working.

  • A Z
  • SamZebra

    8,000.000 on health care?

  • ahad_ha_amoratsim

    How long until the left wants to make it illegal for a judge to be Catholic, conservative Christian, Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew?

    • Donald J DaCosta

      They’ll not likely have a problem with a Muslim but you’re right about the rest.

  • nimbii

    I did not know about this proposal that Boy Scout membership is forbidden for the California Supreme Court judges And this is already legal in 22 states?

    This has to cause some constitutional free speech issues.

    This also begs the question: Who protects us from them?

    • TallTexan2

      The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judges from belonging to groups
      that discriminate against minorities, women and gays, but exempts
      nonprofit youth organizations. California is considering including the Scouts, too.

  • laura r

    wonderful artical. if there is an email feature, i would like to send this around.

  • laura r

    i saw signs of this in my daily life, starting in late 90s. (actually there was en editorial in the boston globe which was scarey in the mid 80s, but i thought it was just a radical). little by little, interactions, incidents. @ first i thought it was just some recent college grads. then i figured it was what public institutions do. then an incident @ my gym in lates 90s. (we won a court case, which would be a milestone today). i had zero info about universities. finding david horowitz (by accident), jamie glasov (same way), i was able to connect the dots. prior to that i knew something was changing & it felt so wrong. this is just the beginning. early stalin?

    • tagalog

      More like the rise of Big Brother and Newspeak than Stalin.

      • MLCBLOG

        Yeah, it seems Stalin was brutal from the get-go. Here, we are being boiled gently, like so many happy frogs.

  • wally

    Bye bye usa, thnx 4 all the fish…

  • WhiteHunter

    Guess the Scouts’ decision to admit adolescent gays wasn’t good enough to satisfy them. What’s their next demand? That the BSA recruit adult Scoutmasters from the NAMBLA membership list?

    That wouldn’t be completely surprising; so much that was repulsive, sick, perverse, and utterly unimaginable just a decade ago is now mandatory–or else.

  • James Keir Baughman

    As an intense Civil War researcher, writer, and publisher, I can share this. Yes, slavery was a Civil War issue. But, the reason the South seceded from the Union was over the same huge divide we have today. That is, and was, what kind of government we are going to live under. Southerners preferred, and tried to keep, our original Constitutional freedoms. Lincoln, and much, but not all, of the North wanted the big, overwhelming, dictatorial government we have now as a result of the Civil War outcome. By far, most Southerners (95 per cent or more) did not like or want slavery. Most were farmers who worked in their own fields exactly like slaves did on the huge plantations. Slavery was begun under British Colonial rule and practice, not our United States, long before our American Revolution. It is dangerous that so many of us do not study history or know all the facts. One major difference today is that “Rebels” who do not want this big dictatorial government are not just in the South, but from all over America, including many of our black friends and neighbors.

    • Consider

      So if “most Southerners (95 per cent or more) did not like or want slavery”, how comes that it existed almost a century into the free and democratic US, and was abolished only after a bloody war (by a dictatorial government)?

  • Brucew56

    The left has only seized control if they are allowed to. If conservatives keep quiet and do nothing, the game is over. It must be stopped and people are going to start taking action and speaking up against the socialist garbage, and soon. We have a real chance in November to get control of Congress and start dismantling the Liar in Chief’s house of cards.

    • MLCBLOG

      Exactly!! sound the alarm. Take up our “arms.” Let’s go!!! By arms, I of course mean the press, the pulpit, the dining room — wherever people will listen to us explain and remind them about the principles that have made this country great!

  • MLCBLOG

    Couldn’t have said it better, just differently, as in my own style. Thanks.

  • Sally

    where’s that U of W video?

  • Maynard

    Definitely an eye opener on what the left is doing (and what the rest of us put up with). Keep it up. I look forward to your weekly report. We (Americans) need to get our heads out of the sand and understand what is going on in our great country,. We also need our leaders to LEAD us in stopping this trend toward a totalitrian state.

  • Debbie G

    According to your theory, I would have to assume that, in the beginning, most people were homosexual. And after thousands of years, most people are now heterosexual due to the rate of regress. (Do I have that right, 95?)

  • tagalog

    No; calling for legislation of any kind is merely advocacy, speech, not action. It’s the passing of the legislation that would be action.

    • Consider

      Advocacy is action.

  • Consider

    “That’s called tolerance.”
    Tolerance is when you tolerate that people freely and agreeably do things that concerns only them and no one else.
    And if you are a champion of the institution of marriage “as such”, then the demand that they (the homosexuals) be allowed to marry, only increases the glory of that institution.

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Homosexuals are already allowed to marry. What they are demanding is the power to redefine marriage for everyone else so as to include unions between people of the same sex. And now they are also demanding the destruction of anyone who dares dissent from that redefinition.