The “Criminalizing” of Conservatism

Here is a conservative article about the criminalizing of conservative views.  The author, Paul Mirengoff, argues that this trend targets mostly conservative and/or Republican views.  (Powerline is written by three conservative lawyers who attended Dartmouth together.)

In a very similar article, Slate magazine (a heavily left-leaning outlet) argues nearly the same thing here , but claims that the trend is both against left and right wing groups.  I don’t think the numbers favor this view, but it does argue against the notion that this observation is merely a fantasy of those of us on the right.

Between the legal cases that the left has filed against Scott Walker, those against Rick Perry, the IRS scandal(s), the Chris Christie “Bridgegate” affair, the criminal charges against Scooter Libby, and even the nuisance cases filed against Sarah Palin, there is not a lot of room for doubt that the left is using the legal system in a manner that a) specifically targets their political opponents and b) is not appropriate in either the political context or in a legal manner, nor is it a “civic good” in the way that the founders intended our political and legal systems to work.  While it is true that there are some examples of Republicans or conservatives retaliating in similar ways, there are significant differences both of substance and in terms of the number of cases that can be cited.

When you add to that trend the related trends of the purge of senior military officers, attacks upon military personnel who support conservative views (here is just one of many examples), and a number of other cases, I don’t think that there can be much room for doubt that this is a systematic and deliberate phenomenon.

This trend is pernicious in several ways:

  1. While it is not unusual for totalitarians (like virtually all of the modern left) to try to silence any dissent, it is unusual in the sense that  they are using the U.S. legal system for the exact opposite purpose for which it was intended.  The U.S. system of justice is intended to ensure liberty for all Americans, not to try to limit their ability to think and express their political views–even if they differ from orthodoxy.
  2. Like the IRS scandal, the use of the mechanisms of government to target political views is damaging not only to our system of government, but to the polity itself.   We risk turning our own country into a banana republic–where political leaders (of any stripe) are likely to be jailed, persecuted, or worse after leaving office–or even while still in it.  (The trend toward impeaching every president may be a harbinger of this problem.)

Most of all, as the Slate article concluded, the U.S. political system is intended to be a safe alternative to violent action.  The criminalization of politics is, by its very nature, violent–in that it can (and does) result in incarceration.  The alternative is for voters to dispose of politicians using the ballot box, not the court system.

 

Advertisements

Adopting the Tactics of the Left

 

For some time now, I have been considering whether we of the right should consider adopting some of the tactics of the left.  While it might be more difficult to get conservatives to “take to the streets” because more of us have jobs and families and so on, (Unlike the Occupy Movement, some of us even have decent personal hygiene, which might be a challenge…) I’m starting to think it might be a good idea.

Consider a few of the following scenarios:

  • Next time Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. makes one of his trademark obnoxious statements, like suggesting that the lefties “take us out,” maybe we should consider picketing his home, just like the lefties do to selected people whom they dislike.  We don’t need to go as far as his thugs do and frighten his sons half to death.  (David and Geoffrey are graduates of Michigan State University, so I doubt that’s much of a factor.)
  • How about some picketing?  It doesn’t take more than a few dozen people to set up a picket line outside the offices of one of the more objectionable leftist groups or one of the unions.  One wonders how, say, the SEIU thugs would take to being picketed.
  • Best of all, how about we try some of the less disgraceful things that the Occupy nuts did?  (We certainly don’t need to stop bathing or start raping women, as they did.)While I would oppose defecating on their automobiles, it might be fun to do a “mike check” at the next big NEA or SEIU meeting.  Or to set up drum lines outside the hotel at the next big function, whatever it might be.  Or even a sit-in or two in some place where leftists gather.

If we were to do some of these things, I think we need to recognize, in advance, the likely reaction.  First of all, the media are likely to ignore or downplay whatever we do.  It will take a major effort to get any media attention at all.  Secondly, even if we do manage to get some “ink,” we will be attacked and disparaged.

But it might even be worth the attacks, because I suspect that it would drive great fear into the hearts and souls of the leftists.  It is, after all, taking them on their “home turf”.  And I can’t imagine that the Hoffa types would like having their homes picketed.  (Not to make this too much of a point, but a few minutes of internet research suggests that 2593 Hounds Chase Drive, Troy, MI 48096 might be an interesting place to try to find him.  It looks like a nice place.  I bet he’s not one of the 99%…)

Nor am I suggesting that we should limit ourselves to Mr. Hoffa.  George Soros home on Cantitoe St. in Katonah, NY might also be a fun place to visit.  Or why should we ignore some of the Hollywood types that lend their support to the left?  Barbra Streisand is famous for her fondness for privacy—so demonstrating at 6838 Zumirez Drive in Malibu might be amusing.

Occupy Union Halls is the last initiative that I’d like to float.  Practically every town in America of more than modest size has a union hall.  All some people might need to do is pick the most thuggish of the lot—which might be a difficult choice—and start the sit-ins.  (Warning:  Union thugs are known to be a violent bunch.  It might be prudent to take steps to ensure the safety of our sympathizers.)

I really would like some feedback on whether this would be a good idea or not.  I like the fact that we manage to keep it classy most of the time—unlike our opponents on the left.  The Tea Party proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I don’t want us to lose our manners.  But I think we need to stop ceding ground and go on the offensive a bit—and this would certainly get their attention.

More Turnabout – Barry’s Donor List

Snopes published a bit recently about Urban Outfitters CEO Richard Hayne.  He is alleged (correctly, according to Snopes) to have…gasp…wait for it…donated money to Rick Santorum.   The presumably viral e-mail that Snopes discusses also states that Mr. Hayne is against gay marriage and abortion.  (Snopes cannot confirm that part.)

The e-mail does not suggest that readers do anything specific, but the letter does note that Mr. Hayne also owns Anthropologie and Free People.  My interpretation is that this is a slightly veiled suggestion that sympathetic readers should boycott Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People.

This seems to be part of a trend where the left goes after people whose viewpoints differ from their own as demonstrated by their donations—let’s use the Koch brothers as just one example.

So let’s do another “Turnabout is Fair Play”.  This time with major donors to Barack Obama…  The charts and data are from OpenSecrets.org.

The first chart is Obama donors by corporation.  Now it’s important to note that generally the corporations themselves do not make the donation, their PACs and employees do.

Microsoft Corp $289,088
DLA Piper $217,582
Google Inc $167,565
University of California $157,092
Harvard University $155,808
Morgan & Morgan $130,145
Comcast Corp $127,700
Skadden, Arps et al $119,074
Sidley Austin LLP $116,227
Time Warner $109,442
US Dept of State $106,040
Debevoise & Plimpton $92,026
National Amusements Inc $88,014
Stanford University $87,858
Kaiser Permanente $87,502
University of Chicago $87,100
US Government $86,589
Columbia University $84,722
Latham & Watkins $82,783
Wilmerhale Llp $81,455

The second chart is the top ten bundlers for Obama.  Personally, I find it amusing that Jon Corzine is on the list.  If that doesn’t reflect the President’s ethical and moral challenges, I don’t know what does.

Name Employer Contributions*
Katzenberg, Jeffrey DreamWorks SKG

$2,059,292

Eychaner, Fred Newsweb Corp

$1,179,750

Cohen, David Comcast Corp

$1,076,631

Stetson, Jane Democratic National Cmte

$1,043,282

Effron, Blair Centerview Partners

$963,537

Corzine, Jon MF Global

$897,232

Rosen, Jack Rosen Partners

$871,680

Connors, Eileen and Jack Hill Holliday

$811,942

Barzun, Matthew Brickpath LLC

$789,642

Now, unlike the lefties, I’m not really suggesting that we should do anything about these individuals or corporations.  I do think, however, that there are a couple of points that will confound the leftists:  First, anyone who claims that big business favors Republicans really needs to take a serious look at the numbers—because they’re WRONG.  Second, it certainly shows that many of the demographic claims that the right has been making are right on the money.  Nearly all of the companies are from the coasts (excepting a few Chicago outfits, which is understandable).  Government agencies, health care, and law firms are well represented, and of course Big Education.

Now tell me again, who is the 1%?

 

Turnabout is Fair Play

Slate.com has crossed the line.  They held a “Caption Contest” featuring Rick Santorum and his two daughters, one of whom is still in middle school.  Some of the entries, which can be seen here, are nothing short of heinous.  

So I propose some turnabout.  If it’s OK for Slate to do this with Mr. Santorum’s children, it must be OK for us to do the exact same thing–only we’ll use the editor of Slate, Mr. David Plotz, and his wife Hanna Rosin, of the Washington Post, and their two children Noa and Jacob.

Let’s not go too far, though, folks.  Let’s show more class than the leftist dolts over at Slate.Image

Howard Dean is the Only Adult in the Democrat Party

Here is our talking point for the next few months; I would like all of my Conservative friends to begin spreading the word: Howard Dean is the only viable candidate the Democrats have. Only he can challenge President Obama from the left; only he can possibly win the general election by uniting the unions, OWS supporters, and green party folks, and only he has the stature to pull enough independents.

Besides, Obama can’t possibly win: his negatives are far too high, what passes for his foreign policy is a mess, unemployment is too high, there is too much of a taint of corruption around Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and other scandals. The Democrats clearly need someone with unimpeachable credentials like Mr. Dean. Ralph Nader might be another alternative, but we think that Howard Dean is more electable and appeals much more to moderates.

If Conservatives begin to use this talking point in every interview, every column, and every newscast, I’m sure that we can influence the Democrats to nominate the best person for their party. After all, we have their best interests at heart, right?

If you have managed to read this far without gagging several times, I’ll make my sarcasm plain: the man who can’t win a presidential campaign, Bob Shrum, recently wrote an article for The Week entitled “Mitt Romney is the only adult in the room.” As much as I can not help but admire Mr. Shrum’s chutzpah, I thought it might be fun to turn his idea around. After all, if he’s going to try to pick the Republican nominee, why should we not pick the Democrat nominee?

To be honest, this is just an extension of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos,” where he tried—with considerable success—to persuade the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. (It’s odd that I find myself wishing that Rush had succeeded. After all, could Hillary possibly have been as bad as Obama?)

Back to Mr. Shrum. It is possible that Mr. Shrum senses that the other Democrat favorite, Jon Huntsman, is not likely to succeed. But it is more likely that he is simply trying to get Republicans to nominate a candidate that he thinks can be easily beaten.

He might even be right. In the last election, we saw clearly that Democrat trumps Democrat-lite, especially with a big assist from their toadies in the press. (“I felt this thrill go up my leg” and so on.)

The left hates being ridiculed—even though they spend much of their time ridiculing their opponents. So I see this as an excellent opportunity to mock them. So let’s get out there and trumpet loudly and clearly: “HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT!”