Over time, I’ve noticed that liberals have four common tactics they use again and again and again. I’ve labeled these tactics as Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll. They don’t have to be tried in any particular order, but they do seem to pop up regularly. So let’s look at each one.

Demonstrate. This is the liberal cry of “I (don’t) want” as expressed by the masses of sign-holders or Occupy Wall Street squatters. In the first case, the union didn’t want non-union workers at the port, and in the second case the Occupy crowd wanted other people’s money. The tactic is pretty simple: browbeat verbally (or physically beat) your opposition into doing whatever you want.

Legislate. Liberals love democracy — as long as the vote goes their way. When the vote doesn’t go their way, they will bring the issue up again and again, but once it passes, however narrowly, the liberals will declare that the people have spoken and there should never be another vote on the matter ever again. To be fair, conservatives will bring an issue up for a vote multiple times, too. But conservatives usually understand that an issue voted on and passed one year can be voted on and repealed another. Once passed, laws are not set in stone for conservatives the way they are for liberals. Well, assuming that the liberal was pushing for the law in the first place.

Adjudicate. A common next step for liberals, after failing to get an issue passed by the people or representatives, is to go to the courts and force it through there. Since proponents of gay marriage were having problems getting the majority of voters to agree with them, their alternative tactic was to make it legal through judicial fiat. That’s how it worked in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. So if you can’t get 50% + 1 vote from the people or the legislature to pass what you want, then there’s always the option of having someone in black robes do the heavy lifting for you.

Steamroll. If all else fails, Liberals simply try doing what they want anyway, ignoring both votes and courts to proceed in their desired direction. Recently, Pres. Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), doing so by exercising his ability to appoint people to positions that require Senate ratification when the Senate isn’t in session. But the Senate considered itself to still be meeting in “pro forma” meetings. Senator Harry Reid started the process in 2007 of holding “pro forma” sessions to prevent then-President Bush from making these recess appointments. In January 2012, Pres. Obama used the “steamroll” tactic to recess-appoint four nominees, as the New York Times put it, “effectively calling the pro forma Senate session illegitimate.” A year later, the D.C. court of appeals ruled that Pres. Obama was wrong to do so. In response to this ruling, the NLRB chairman, Mark Pearce said that the NLRB “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” That’s a classic “steamroll” response. “Courts? Pfft. I’m gonna roll on. After all, who’s gonna stop me?”

Liberals seem to believe they should use any tactic necessary to get what they want. As Nancy Pelosi put it, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in, but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” And if they can’t get it to work with Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll, liberals will just pick one of the four tactics and try again.

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.

The Democrats are getting their collective panties in a bunch now that the Health Care Reform Act has passed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn’t have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.

Just an estimate, huh? Sounds like a guess to me, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Hoyer is just making things up. The news article continues with Hoyer getting on the moral hobby horse and riding it for all it’s worth: “Hoyer hinted that Republicans should do more to condemn these threats of violence.” There are three problem with Hoyer admonishing the Republicans to speak out against violence:

First, after 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, the left told America that we need to reach out to the terrorists and understand why they resorted to violence. Apparently that only applies if the violence comes from terrorists and not conservatives.

Second, conservatives aren’t the violent thugs the left would have you believe. Quick, name for me a riot by conservatives. . . . Yeah, I couldn’t think of one, either. But the left is easy to stir up in anger. Just witness the left as it shut down Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of Ottawa. Can you name any time when conservatives shouted down or prevented a liberal from speaking? Again, you won’t be able to cite an incident. Besides, Republican Representative Eric Cantor’s campaign office was shot at and has received threatening emails, so anger is not just conservatives against liberals, as Hoyer would have you believe.

And third, the Republican minority leader has already spoken out about violence, and it’s in the same article at the Politico.com I quoted before:

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”

Don’t get sucked into the idea that violence is only on the right. History shows us that most violence comes from the left.

There is an inherent problem with the concept of passing a bill because it is popular. The problem was brought to my attention again when I was doing some research about how many Americans are dependent on the government and its handouts. (Answer: too damn many – 54% in 2000 and growing since then.) In my searching, I stumbled across a post on ThinkProgress.org about the high support for Obamacare in August, 2009:

New poll finds that 77 percent of Americans still support the public option.

In recent weeks, the fate of the public option in new health care legislation has been uncertain. Yet, while the issue continues to be hotly debated in the halls of Congress, a new poll by Survey USA finds that the idea is as popular as ever amongst the American public:

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a “choice” between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

The SurveyUSA poll finds similar results to several other polls that also show that the public option is very popular, a fact that some members of Congress consider to be a detriment.

Quick, pass Obamacare! 77% of Americans support it! Well, not so fast. If you live by the poll, what do you do when the polling goes against you? The answer, as evidenced by the way liberals act, is to ignore the polls when they turn unfavorable and press on with the legislation anyway.

I’ve not heard of SurveyUSA before, but I have to discount this poll. Looking at Rasmussen polling from Jun 27, 2009 to Mar 14, 2010, I see only two times when the polling has been favorable for Obamacare: Jun 27-28, 2009 has it 50% for and 45% against Obamacare, and Sep 12-13, 2009 when it was 51% for and 46% against. Of the remaining 37 polling times, one was tied (Sep 11-12, 2009) and the rest opposed to Obamacare. If I compare this to a sport team’s win-loss-tie score, it comes out as 2-36-1. That’s 2 wins, 36 losses, and 1 tie. Pitiful. A coach with that sort of record would get fired. Heck, coaches get fired for performances that rate significantly better than Obamacare. But liberals in power are charging ahead with this legislation.

Why the rush? The people certainly aren’t clamoring for it. Industry isn’t begging for it. Health care in American hasn’t collapsed in the many months since President Obama and fellow Democrats first started claiming it was broken. And history has shown again and again that socializing medicine results in greater expenses and reduced services, so informed Democrats can’t possibly believe this bill will create an improved health care system. So why are they pushing so hard for it that Speaker Pelosi says it is worth losing elections for?

The answer is power. Democrats want to take the business of medicine and bring it under their political control. And when you have no option other than government for your health care, then government can tell you what to do and how to live your life. It’s happened in the UK, and in numerous other countries where medicine has been socialized. Do you really believe that some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. knows better than you how to live your life? And even if you believe he could, do you really think some bureaucrat has the right to make your life choices at all?

Contrary to what the SurveyUSA poll said in August of last year, most Americans are and have been against Obamacare. But if the American people were asked if they would be in favor of government taking more control over their lives, I believe the number supporting government takeover would drop to single digits. If Democrats continue to push for an unpopular health care takeover, then they will pay the price at the poll that matters most: the November 2, 2010 elections.

We went to the local farmer’s market on Saturday, and bought some yummy cherries at $3.33 a pound. That’s a steal for Rainier cherries–yum! While we were there we noticed an older gentleman with a satchel over his shoulder. A placard attached to the satchel read: “PENTAGON IS EVIL.” My wife said, in a voice deliberately loud enough to be heard, “Jeez, some people don’t have anything better to do.” I was more discreet as I whispered to my wife, “He doesn’t like five-sided shapes!” I don’t think he would have gotten it if I had stood there with placards reading “SQUARE IS GOOD” or “TRIANGLE IS AMBIVALENT.”

I find it strange to use the locale of a farmer’s market to peddle one’s political point. Perhaps he was prepared to pass out pamphlets pulled from his pouch. OK, enough alliteration, but why would someone think that a public gathering like a market is the proper venue to vent one’s spleen on divisive issues? I love a good debate; however, people who stand around with large placards are not generally willing to discuss the issue in a rational manner. Their vehicle of expression is usually to shout, rant and automatically disagree with anything that is said. And as Monty Python pointed out:

Argument Clinic

M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!

Unfortunately, the level of political debate these days is too often more along the lines of simple contradiction, veering dangerously close to getting-hit-on-the-head lessons. Did that man at the market really want a serious discussion of the issue? Is there anything I could have explained or pointed out that would have changed his mind about the Pentagon being evil? I don’t think so. I suspect he had already made up his mind and nothing could shift him. Now I don’t have trouble with people who have a firm conviction of their beliefs, but I do have trouble with people who, once they’ve made up their minds on a political subject, refuse to acknowledge any evidence that they could be wrong.

Incidentally, whenever there is a public gathering, why is it that the most common placards and opinions to be seen express leftist sentiment? Other than people at ball games with “Go Team” and “John 3:16″ quotes, when you see people holding up signs or plastering bumper stickers to their cars, they’re almost always leftist slogans. Maybe it’s just that I live in a very blue state, but I don’t think so. Back when I lived in a very red state, the right-wing political bumper stickers I saw were almost always limited to two per car: one for a specific political candidate, one for a pro-life sentiment. And they were discreet. Even in this red state, when I came across a car sporting leftist political bumper stickers, they were usually in-your-face and all-over-the-place–cars held together with multiple slogans like “Somewhere in Texas there’s a village missing an idiot,” “Where are the WMDs?”, “Frodo has failed! Bush has the ring!”, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. In any case, what I sense from the plethora of bumper stickers is not a willingness for rational debate, but a shouting match. You don’t get rational thought or reasoned argument from a bumper sticker; it’s the printed equivalent of a shouted slogan. I don’t see there being much opportunity for discussion; all you get is the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

I find very little debate on issues and ideas coming from the American left. If you watch the talking-head shows on TV where there are two pundits discussing a liberal vs. conservative theme, notice how often the liberal interrupts, talks over or shouts down the conservative whenever he or she is speaking. It’s an easy tactic to deny one’s opponent the ability to express a thought by shouting that person down. I’ve suggested elsewhere that the political left doesn’t really believe in freedom of speech for everyone. Based on their actions, I believe that they want freedom of speech for themselves and the force of law to shut up everyone else who takes a contrary position. How much longer will it be before leftist “discourse” becomes outright getting-hit-on-the-head lessons for conservatives?

Argument Clinic

The other day my niece asked me if I were planning on voting for Sen. Obama for President. I answered that I would not. She asked me why I didn’t plan on voting for Obama, so I explained that I couldn’t vote for him for two reasons. First, he doesn’t have the experience as an executive that I believe is necessary for a President. I told her that I wouldn’t choose someone to lead a large company who had no experience leading other companies first. Likewise, I couldn’t support Obama for President when he has no executive experience and when he has yet to serve out his first term as a Senator. The position of President is too important to experiment on people whom we can only hope have the skills and temperament necessary to handle the job. Then I explained that Obama’s political philosophy is the second reason why I couldn’t vote for him.

Which brought me to the question I was faced with — how to explain the difference between liberal and conservative political philosophies in a way that would make sense to an 11-year-old?

I explained to her that the two political philosophies differ fundamentally in how they view people. To liberals, Americans are children who need to be taken care of by the government; to conservatives, Americans are adults who are able to take care of themselves. And I prefer to be treated as an adult.

A day later a caller asked Glenn Beck what it means to be a conservative. Here was his response:

To be a conservative is, in my definition, is somebody that believes in the power of the individual, somebody that believes, please let me make my decisions, that I have a right to succeed and not be penalized for it. I have a right to fail and have no one run to me if I don’t want them to run to me. A conservative believes I have a right to manage my family, I have a right to discipline my family in the way I see fit, as long as it is not criminal. A conservative believes I have the right to worship God, I have a right to worship the God of my understanding, and I do not have the right to jam my version of God down anybody else’s throat or my version of no God down anybody’s throat. A conservative believes live and let live. That’s what a conservative believes. A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy. That’s what a conservative believes.

While I agree with that, I think it gets a little wordy. I prefer the way Jim Quinn, another talk show host, defines liberals and conservatives:

For a conservative, freedom is the solution to the human condition, and government’s job is to ensure the people’s liberty. And every new life is a potential source of creativity and wealth. For a liberal, government is the solution of the human condition, and government should force everyone to behave as it sees fit. And every new life is a potential problem and burden to be taken care of.

And that’s simple enough for an 11-year-old to understand.

The next time you talk to a liberal who is complaining about the war in Iraq, try this — ask him to define the Democrat party’s plan for victory. I guarantee you that the responses you hear will boil down to one common theme: pulling out of Iraq. Cox and Forkum nail this “victory” strategy well:

Losing Strategy

Pulling out of Iraq is not a strategy for victory. It is what is generally known as “running away,” which is a synonym for “losing.” When you point this fact out to your liberal friend, be prepared to hear all manner of reasons why “advancing to the rear” is not the same as “running away.” But liberals don’t have to feel alone in running away from a fight. President Reagan did it when he ordered the troops out of Lebanon after the 1983 Beirut bombing, and President Clinton did it when he pulled the U.S. forces from Somalia after the battle of Mogadishu. These “retrograde motions” confirmed in the mind of a certain Saudi the idea that the United States military was a paper tiger. He said, “After a few blows, [America] forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.”

Do you really want to encourage the people who want to see you dead? I don’t, but the Democrats in Congress do, as Cox and Forkum again make clear:

War Power

The Democrats in Congress don’t have a strategy for winning in Iraq. Heaven help us if they muster the numbers needed to pull the plug and show to our enemies that we are indeed a paper tiger.

You’ve seen the cars — the ones so plastered with bumper stickers that you can barely see the color of the paint job. And while one occasionally sees conservative bumper stickers like “My son is a Marine” or “These colors don’t run,” it is far more typical to see bumper stickers expressing support for left-wing or ultra-left-wing causes.

(More often than not, the combination of liberal bumper stickers seems to express a profound sense of cognitive dissonance. For instance, I was once passed by a beaten-up rice-rocket whose liberal owner had slapped both a PETA “I am not a nugget” sticker and a “Keep abortion safe and legal” sticker on his back bumper. Apparently–at least to this particular liberal–it’s acceptable to kill a child in the name of convenience, but it’s not OK to kill a chicken in the name of supper. I have no idea what tortured intellectual path one must take to arrive at this twisted conclusion. –TPK)

It seems to me, as I watch what liberals do and listen to what they say, that they are more impressed with the message, and less with actually doing anything. If you ever hear someone say that their purpose is to “raise awareness,” then you know you are in the presence of a liberal.

I’ve previously written about the way liberals will “raise awareness” through some stunt or other, specifically raising awareness of homelessness by sleeping on a bridge in a cardboard box and sleeping bag for one night. The write-up of the event did not indicate any actions by the students to improve the lot of the homeless, other than spending a single night with them. All fluff, no substance.

You can also see this in the recent Democrat loss in California’s District 50. It was the district for convicted former Rep. Duke Cunningham, but his jail sentence threw the district open to a new Representative. Democrat candidate Francine Busby failed to get elected, but she made sure she “sent a message.”

Despite her defeat, Busby claimed a moral victory in a Republican stronghold which lost its congressman in a bribery scandal.

“We’re sending a message for all of us that we need a government that works for us, not for special interests,” Busby said.

The two will face off again in November for the full two-year term. I hope Ms. Busby is again successful in sending a message and failing to get elected.

In Disneyland I saw two women wearing green T-shirts that read “Support our Schools / Support our Students / (and it won’t raise taxes either)”, but there was no indication about any school measure or proposed action. It sent a message to support schools and students, but it completely failed to specify any action. That is a useless message.

Speaking of Disneyland, I saw another two people wearing “AIDS Awareness” T-shirts. It had dates and city names on the T-shirts, but no real information on it other than the big bolded title. I’m sure they were nice people, but I don’t think we need a massive push for AIDS awareness. If you don’t know about AIDS by now, you have either lived an incredibly sheltered life or you are rather dim. And contrary to what liberals and the education elites might think, a slogan on a T-shirt won’t stop the spread of AIDS. Not that we need to have massive government programs to teach about AIDS. Teaching kids about how not to get AIDS is rather easy. As Jim Quinn likes to describe, AIDS prevention lessons can be rather simple:

“See this?”

“Yes.”

“See that?”

“Uh-huh.”

“Don’t put this in that, and you won’t get AIDS.”

“Oh.”

The book of Judges in the Bible has an interesting story of how the Gileadites were able to discern their friends from their enemies. The Gileadites asked anyone who denied being an Ephraimite to pronounce the word Shibboleth. The people of Gilead could pronounce the “sh” sound, but the people of Ephraim couldn’t; they could only pronounce the “s” sound. When they replied Sibboleth, the Gileadites recognized their enemies and killed them. Since then, a shibboleth is a word or phrase used to single out a person or group from the others around them.

It occurred to me, as I drove home today, that we use shibboleths in our everyday lives and we might not even notice it. I decided to make a quick list of words or phrases that can indicate the political leanings of the speakers. In each case, it is assumed that these words or phrases are said in earnest.

Liberal – military-industrial complex
– Bush lied, people died
– pro-choice
– “Bushies”
– wingnut
– neo-cons
– Arab insurgents
Conservative – pro-life
– moonbat
– Arab terrorists
Communist – “people’s republic”
– Arab freedom fighters

Since I am a conservative, I have a harder time recognizing my own accepted shibboleths, and it’s much easier to spot liberal ones. So I’m asking that you email me any conservative or other shibboleths you can spot, and the category you think they fall into.

Just posting a short rant this week because of the Christmas holiday. Merry Christmas, everyone!

America’s Christmas present arived early this year. With the capture of the mass-murdering Saddam Hussein, the United States struck a formidable blow in the war against terrorism. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld summed it up this way:

Here was a man who was photographed hundreds of times shooting off rifles and showing how tough he was, and in fact, he wasn’t very tough, he was cowering in a hole in the ground, and had a pistol and didn’t use it and certainly did not put up any fight at all.

In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave.

While some of the Democrats have praised this capture, most notably Senator Lieberman, the response from the liberal Left has been, uh, interesting, to say the least. Peter Jennings, the news anchor for ABC, claimed “There’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment” because life for the Iraqis today is “not as stable for them as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power.” Well, Benito Mussolini was a murderous thug, too, but at least he made sure the trains ran on time. Life sure was terrible for the Italians after Il Duce toppled from power.

One evening as I was driving around, I heard Peter Weissbach guest-hosting for the Michael Savage radio show. He was asking to hear from people who felt sorry for Saddam, and the calls started coming in. One caller’s comments really stood out for me. This caller said that we could not blame Saddam since the man might have suffered a bad childhood. His comments were full of wishy-washy words like “might,” “possibly,” “could,” “maybe,” and “I don’t know.” Notwithstanding his uncertainty, he was steadfast in his desire not to blame Saddam. In this caller’s eyes, Saddam was an innocent victim. Precisely what he was a victim of, the caller wasn’t sure, but he certainly could not blame Saddam for the mass graves!

This idea of refusing to blame people because of possible childhood trauma does not make sense to me. Did Saddam’s hypothetical abuse as a child force him to abuse others? Either Saddam has free will and chose to abuse young children, or he is nothing but a rabid dog, snapping at others. If he is a free agent, then Saddam chose his fate; if he is merely a dog foaming at the mouth, then he deserves to be put down. We do not discuss the formative puppy years of dangerous animals.

The radio-show caller is not alone. There are plenty of other people who feel sorry for Saddam, or pity him. An interesting site to observe Saddamites of many different stripes is Democratic Underground. These folk are vitriolic in their hatred for President Bush, Republicans and their ilk. As much as I dislike Bill Clinton, it is mostly an intellectual dislike for his ideas and actions, but from what I’ve heard and read, the Bush-hating leftists have an almost visceral hatred for our current president. His mere continued existence is sufficient to drive them livid. This hate extends to others in the Bush administration. After the news of Secretary Colin Powell’s prostate surgury, one Democratic Underground regular posted, “I will dance on Powell’s grave as I would on all of the regime’s henchmen.” I find it interesting that this poster’s avatar icon is a picture of Karl Marx.

My favorite quote comes from Democrat Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott of Washington State. On a radio interview, he claimed that our forces could have snagged Saddam earlier if they had wanted. When the radio host asked if this capture was timed to help President Bush, Baghdad Jim said, “Yeah. Oh, yeah. There’s too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing.” He also said, “It’s funny, when they’re having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something.” Trouble? Before Saddam was captured, the economy was roaring back, Iraq was steadily improving (despite what certain members of the press would have you believe), and President Bush’s approval ratings were going up. So what was the trouble?

In case you have forgotten, this is the same Jim McDermott who visited Saddam shortly before the invasion of Iraq and told the now-captured dictator that President Bush would lie to the United States to support the war in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution defines treason, in part, as giving “aid and comfort” to America’s enemies. If bad-mouthing the President in the home of the enemy on the very eve of armed hostilities is not treason, then it is treason’s blood brother. Feel free to argue against the Administration’s policies, you liberal Leftists, but don’t do so while overseas or visiting our nation’s enemies. This common-sense lesson seems to have gone unlearned by so many people, the Dixie Chicks included.

Let’s spend a little time talking about some real-life happenings on American college campuses. All of the following stories happened this year, and are documented at www.tonguetied.us. Let me take a moment to plug Tongue Tied as a great site for, in its own words, “carping about the excesses of clueless crybabies since the turn of the century.”

Christians Need not Apply

A Christian student group at Rutgers University in New Jersey has been banned from campus and stripped of its funding because it selected leaders based on their adherence to the Christian faith, reports the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The Rutgers chapter of the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship was informed by Director of Student Involvement Lawanda D. Irving that it was being “derecognized” for its impermissible discrimination.

The group, as part of its leadership selection process, uses its ‘Basis of Faith’ as one of the criterion for selecting leaders. “Only those persons committed to the Basis of Faith and the Purpose of this organization are eligible for leadership positions,” the group’s bylaws say. [1]

Liberals are very tolerant of any religion, as long as it is not some form of Christianity. The ACLU will spend huge sums of money and time to fight to keep Christianity out of schools based on the misinterpretation of “separation of Church and State,” but liberals have no objections to California schools spending several weeks studying the Muslim faith.

My Free Speech is More Important than Your Free Speech

The same officials at the University of Houston who quashed an anti-abortion rally on campus last year welcomed a gay rights rally because it was a ‘university sponsored’ event while the former was a “student-sponsored” event, reports the Houston Chronicle.

Administrators likened the gay rights rally to a cheerleading or band practice and therefore permissible outside designated free speech zones, while the anti-abortion rally was student-sponsored and allowed only within the confines of the zones.

Benjamin Bull, a lawyer who represented the UH student organization that fought the university over the anti-abortion rally, called the latest decision a classic example of political correctness on campus.

“The university is almost Stalinistic in permitting government-favored speech, while banning government disfavored and politically incorrect speech,” he said. [2]

This is a great example of how school administrators use their power to promote their favorite expressions of speech, while doing whatever they can to repress others. And here is another example of liberals wanting to restrict the right of free speech against those with whom they disagree.

A Latino group at Glendale Community College in Arizona wants the administration to forbid a professor there from ever expressing his opinions on university web pages because he sent out an email saying the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, is racist, reports the Arizona Republic.

MEChA also wants Walter Kehowski to apologize publicly for stating in an email that the group fosters racism by praising racial separatism. He was alluding to a recent Dia de la Raza event on campus.

“We believe in the First Amendment . . . in this case, the e-mails and Web page are clearly against the district mission of diversity and has disrupted our campus with the hostility that it promotes,” the group said in a letter to the Maricopa County Community College District. [3]

“And if thy right eye offend thee…”

Liberals are so very concerned about offending others. This can be taken to ludicrous extremes. Diane Ravitch’s book The Language Police shows this desire not to offend reflected in the way schoolbooks and tests have been rewritten. Here are six examples taken just from the first chapter.

An inspirational story of a blind man who climbed Mt. Everest was rejected by a bias review committee because it implies that blind people have a disability and are somehow limited by that disability.

A story from an anthology edited by William Bennett was rejected simply because the politics of the editor might distress fourth-graders.

A biography of the man who designed Mt. Rushmore was rejected because mention of the monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota might offend Native Americans.

An essay about the plethora of life in a rotting stump in a forest was rejected because it compared the stump to an apartment building and that might make people who live in apartments or public housing feel bad.

A story about a dolphin that guides ships through a treacherous channel was rejected because it shows bias toward people who live by the sea. Those who don’t live by the sea might be at a disadvantage, you see.

A passage about owls was rejected because owls are considered taboo by Navajos. A publisher decreed that owls should disappear from all texts and tests, so American schoolkids are now unlikely to ever read about them. [4]

But schoolbook contents are not the only place where people may be offended. An ad (http://campustruth.org/content/left_main.html) produced by a pro-Israel group shows the difference between the reactions of Israelis and Palestinians on the news of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th.

Mohammed Esam, president of the Islamic Society of Stanford University, said the ads were offensive and racist. “They’re trying to demonize a whole population,” he said. [5]

Never mind that the Palestinian people demonized themselves by publicly rejoicing at the news of the terrorists’ actions.

Yet another “offensive” action is the growing number of “Affirmative Action Bake Sales” taking place on many college campuses. During these sales, white males are charged more than white females, and blacks and other minorities benefit from even lower prices. These sales are being staged as a demonstration (and an effective one, I might add) of how affirmative action policies are blatantly unfair. Schools like Southern Methodist University, Northwestern University, Indiana University, University of California-Berkeley, University of Texas, Texas A&M University, and the University of Washington-Seattle, among others, have hosted these bake sales. Almost universally, they are quickly shut down by college administrators. Damon Sims of Indiana University has the right idea.

“It is a freedom-of-speech issue. I know some schools have approached these events differently, but prior restraint is not something we would normally engage in,” said Damon Sims, associate dean of students. “This is one of the more significant social and political issues of our time. . . . It is exactly the kind of dialogue that should be encouraged on college campuses.” [6]

Diversity Uber Alles

A survey of political diversity at Ithaca College in New York found that of 125 professors who registered to vote at the college 93.6 percent did so as Democrats or Greens, reports the Ithacan.

According to the study, sponsored by student Republicans and the local Republican Party, only eight of the 125 professors on campus who registered with a political affiliation in the county describe themselves as Republican or Conservative.

Asma Barlas, an associate professor of politics, says she is a firm believer in diversity, but not the sort of diversity the Republicans have in mind.

“I do believe Ithaca College can do a better job of diversifying its faculty, most of whom are white males,” she said. “Not having a Republican on our faculty is not the only yardstick by which we can measure diversity.” [7]

No, Ms. Barlas, but it certainly is not the yardstick you care to use. But Ithaca College is not alone in its leftist leanings, so it is unsurprising that college campuses across the United States tend to be heavily liberal and Democrat.

Next time you get ready to write the check for your child’s college tuition, ask yourself if the money is going to a school that teaches your beliefs, or is stuck in the liberal rut of political correctness.