The Breitbart Election

 Posted by at 11:30 pm
Nov 052012

I regret that I’ve been too busy to blog lately, particularly in this crucial election year.  However, despite my lack of time, I would like to put one point on the record prior to tomorrow’s historic presidential election: Regardless of which candidate wins, this election can be accurately described as “the Breitbart election.”  

Simply put, the ideas for which Andrew Breitbart advocated long before his premature death bore fruit in this election cycle.  Specifically, Andrew advocated for the citizen journalists, for  truth-tellers, for people to seize the narrative from what he justifiably called the “Democrat-Media Complex.”  He pointed out that the “dinosaur media” was not about reporting the truth, but about filtering it by controlling the information it chose to reveal.

Although the Democrat-Media Complex remains powerful, funded, and motivated to mislead in the service of its favored party and welfare statism, its facade of objectivity and reliability is shattered to bits.  The Democratic party – so used to controlling the narrative through its sycophantic media – fails to accept the reality of the counter-narrative.  This counter-narrative serves as a check and balance on the so-called “fourth estate.”  It consists of new media, which includes social networking sites, blogs, radio, and citizen journalists.  The size and scope of new media cannot be overestimated.  For example, in 2008, Twitter had 6 million users.  In the past two years, the number of Twitter users has quadrupled and, as of March 2012, the number of active twitter users in the United States was 140 million and climbing (500 million users worldwide).

Andrew understood that democratization of media and mass communication would rid of us of the mainstream media filter and present a truthful look at politicians and public events.

Where the dinosaur media ignores the fast & furious scandal, the new media reports it.

Where the dinosaur media attempts to carry the Obama Administration’s water and reports that the attack in Benghazi was merely a protest over a youtube video, the new media informs us correctly that Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack; that the Obama Administration received ample warning of the clear terrorist danger that lurked in Libya; that the Obama Administration ordered U.S. forces to stand down and not help our fellow citizens who were ultimately slaughtered.  Nearly one month after our fellow Americans were murdered in the Benghazi terrorist attack, the dinosaur media reluctantly began to report the story . . . because the new media had already done so.

Where the media refuses to vet Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012, the new media does.  Many stories about the president appeared on new media websites, cable news shows, and in documentaries about the president.

Tomorrow’s election is more than Romney vs. Obama.  It is liberty vs. statism, individual wealth creation vs. “you didn’t build that,” America vs. Occupy.

A while back, Andrew declared #WAR on the mainstream media.  One look at who is controlling the narrative suggests that, even in death, he is winning.  This the Breitbart election, the first of many.

Election day will be here and gone tomorrow.  Regardless of the outcome, the battle for liberty will continue.

. . . and Breitbart is here.



Aug 112012

In his recent piece, Charles Krauthammer set out two approaches that Mitt Romney can take in his campaign against the president. Stewardship or ideology.  Krauthammer asserted that Romney would win with an ideology approach.  In a previous post, I wrote that Romney needs to be an architect, not a handy man; he needs to have a vision for the country, not just a pragmatic fix for it.

By picking Paul Ryan, Romney chose the vision/ideological approach.  This election presents us with a stark choice between two very different ideologies: Liberty vs. statism; individual wealth creation vs. “you didn’t build that”; America vs. Occupy.

The Ryan pick also demonstrates something about Romney that many conservatives doubted: he’s bold.

With Ryan, Romney did not choose an attack dog, or someone who can deliver a particular state.  He chose someone much more dangerous to the president’s reelection chances.  Paul Ryan is a policy wonk who can crunch the numbers and he’s also an articulate spokesman for liberty.  He knows in vivid detail what he’s talking about and he has the ability to present such knowledge in broad themes.  For a good example and analysis of this point, check out Steven Hayward’s opinion of Paul Ryan, in which Hayward compares Ryan’s ability to communicate ideas to that of the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan.

Romney and Ryan make a great ticket.  I’ve previously written about my support for Romney, stating that he “has enjoyed great success as a businessman and investor in the private sector and he has experience as a successful executive in the public sector.”  Ryan makes a great addition because, aside from his above-mentioned abilities, he is everything the left wishes the president was, but is not: bright, wise, visionary, capable, inspiring, and uplifting.  The nice thing about setting the real thing next an imposter is that they both stand out.  The president’s suit never seemed so empty.

Again, this election is liberty vs. statism; individual wealth creation vs. “you didn’t build that”; America vs. Occupy.  It’s Romney/Ryan vs. Obama/Biden.  By choosing Ryan, Romney has put the president on notice.  The battle for the soul of our country has been joined.



Just Plain Wrong

 Posted by at 7:37 pm
Jun 302012

In my last post, on June 1, I predicted that the ironically-named Affordable Care Act would be struck down as unconstitutional.  I was just plain wrong.

I was correct that the law violated the commerce clause, which was the primary authority on which the government based its argument.  I also opined that at least one liberal justice would concur in the “violates the commerce clause” point, but would provide that the Act may pass constitutional muster under Congress’ taxing/spending power.  My exact words were:

The liberal justice(s) who joins the majority, will write his/her own opinion(s) in which they concur in the majority decision but reason that, while the United States may not nationalize health insurance/medical care under the commerce clause, it may do so pursuant to its taxing/spending power.  As a side note, while this may be a more legitimate constitutional argument then the commerce clause justification, it will require politicians selling it to the American people.  Remember “Hillarycare?”  Not bloody likely.

It never occurred to me that Chief Justice Roberts would agree with the taxing power justification because it never occurred to me that this justification could be found in the actual case before the court.  At oral argument – and I assume in its briefs to the court – the government did argue that the law was a tax; however, this argument was not made to justify the Act’s constitutionality but only to suggest that the case lacked ripeness.  Under the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, one must actually pay a tax before a tax may be challenged.  The government’s argument wasn’t that the Act is a constitutional use of Congress’ taxing authority, but that the Act couldn’t be challenged until the tax was paid – and the tax won’t be paid until 2014.

It was also unexpected that a law that lacks any language declaring it a tax, and in fact calls the “tax” a “penalty,” could be construed by the Court to be a tax.  Under the Act’s mandate (i.e.: “tax”), individuals are “taxed” when they don’t purchase something.


The Act is constitutional as currently construed by the Court.  Regarding the ultimate result, I was just plain wrong.  But, in my view, so was the Court.

I suppose I could go on and complain about the law’s attack on liberty and the road to serfdom, but that and $7.50 will only get me a ticket to a movie . . . for a matinee . . . on a senior discount.  Hmm, I wonder if I’ll be taxed for not buying that ticket . . .

I’m not whining, I’m moving on . . . to repeal.


Jun 012012
SCOTUS Justices

Time flies!  It’s been nearly two whole months since my last post.  Please forgive me, dear readers, but since my last post I wrapped up law school and I am currently studying for the bar exam . . . no rest for the weary.  However, while I have not been blogging much, I have been thinking about a few things . . .

The subtitle of Wake Up Winston! is “the echoes of the 1930′s are stirring.”  Current events support this idea, including, among other things, the massive expansion of the United States government evidenced by the extent of GDP that the government spends (the highest since WWII), and tyrants threatening war and genocide.  So, with that in mind, I plan to produce posts that touch on some of these events, beginning with this one.  Accordingly, here are some musings, predictions, and whatnot regarding the coming SCOTUS decision on “Obamacare” and the coming Iran-caused Middle East crisis.

“Obamacare” and the United States Supreme Court

Predicting Supreme Court decisions is difficult, despite what goes on at oral argument, however, I predict that Obamacare’s mandate will go down in flames (metaphorically speaking) and will probably take the whole law with it.  Ultimately, there is no limiting principle that renders health insurance so unique that it would prevent the federal government from whimsically mandating American citizens to purchase any product.  On this point, even President Obama apparently agrees.

The Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)), but never has the government forced individuals to purchase a product to create a market that it can then regulate.  If the feds can do this, they can tell you what to eat.  Ain’t gonna happen.

Prediction: The decision will be at least 6-3 to overturn the mandate (and probably the whole law, but certainly the mandate).  At least one of the four liberal justices will vote to overturn the mandate.

Further prediction: The liberal justice(s) who joins the majority, will write his/her own opinion(s) in which they concur in the majority decision but reason that, while the United States may not nationalize health insurance/medical care under the commerce clause, it may do so pursuant to its taxing/spending power.  As a side note, while this may be a more legitimate constitutional argument then the commerce clause justification, it will require politicians selling it to the American people.  Remember “Hillarycare?”  Not bloody likely.

Israel and the Iranian Threat to Its Existence

Israel will likely launch a preemptive attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities this summer.  Israel has no choice but to do so because a nuclear Iran presents an existential, genocidal threat to the Jewish nation.

Israels’ raison d’ état is to provide a safe haven and protection for the Jewish people.  Political Zionism arose in 1894 in the wake of the “Dreyfus Affair,” which involved an innocent French military officer falsely accused of treason merely because he was a Jew.  Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, understood the prevalence and intractability of anti-Semitism and accordingly endeavored to establish “a secure haven, under public law, for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.”  In his 1896 book, Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Herzl wrote:

We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. . .

Since its modern incarnation, Israel has always acted to protect her people.  A few examples: In 1976, Israel successfully executed a daring raid in Uganda – 2,500 miles from Israel – to free 85 Jewish hostages from Arab terrorists.  Many of the 85 hostages were Israeli Jews, some were non-Israeli Jews (the hostages also included the Air France flight crew that bravely refused to abandon their passengers that were taken hostage).  In 1981, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, an action which was as widely condemned as it was right.  It is also widely-believed that, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria.

The Islamo-Fascist Iranian regime has long-voiced its desire to annihilate Israel.  Within the last month,  the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, reiterate that Israel’s destruction is Iran’s goal.  Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program for decades.  Israel is obligated to protect its citizens from this Iranian threat.  It is prudent to take genocidal tyrants at their word in these matters; history is littered with the grave consequences of not taking such threats seriously.

The Obama administration’s stance toward Israel is the most hostile since Jimmy Carter’s administration.  His reelection would put a great deal of pressure on Israel not to act.  However, in the midst of a political campaign for the presidency of a clearly pro-Israel country, Obama will reluctantly support Israeli action against Iran and, in the event that he is reelected, the president will not be able to walk back that support.  The GOP convention is the last week of August of this year.  The Democratic Party convention is the first week of September.  Only two months will stand between the Democratic convention and the election of our next president.  Time is short for Israel to take action.  When Jewish lives are at stake, Israel acts . . . as it must.  And it will.

The Liberal in the Plastic Bubble

 Posted by at 10:24 am
Apr 032012

Both John Podhoretz and Dennis Prager recently offered variations on the same theme, namely that conservatives – and I’ll include libertarians – know liberal perspectives, but liberals are unaware of conservative ideas and arguments.

I commend both articles to anybody who cares about ideas.  Our society is not well served by monolithic thinking on any side.  Moreover, while everyone is certainly entitled to their own views, I submit that not understanding – or at least knowing - the opposing view is at minimum intellectually crippling and, at most, dangerous.

John Podhoretz’s commentary – pardon the pun – may be viewed here.  Dennis Prager’s piece may be viewed here.


About Breitbart . . .

 Posted by at 7:57 am
Mar 092012

Things change.  And they did so dramatically last week, when we lost Andrew Breitbart.

I met Andrew only twice. Before I attended law school, I enjoyed a moderately successful career as an actor and writer in Los Angeles.  Andrew and I hung out in, shall we say, the same circle of friends.

The first time Andrew and I met was no more than an introduction.  The second time was a reintroduction . . . and, at minimum, a two-hour conversation.  More accurately, Andrew engaged in a stream of consciousness on myriad topics and I threw in my two cents when I could. What I remember most is how nice he was.  To everybody.  Even to those with whom he disagreed.  As long as they were reasonable.  I also remember his passion for ideas.  And his irrepressible and contagious enthusiasm and energy.  But I only met him a couple of times.

And here’s the funny thing: his death hit me like a ton of bricks.  It’s bizarre.  A guy I met twice (and spoke with once) died a week ago and it really shook me up, and I’m still processing it a week later.  Bizarre.  But, judging by the tributes, remembrances, and tweets honoring Andrew, I’m not alone.  But how can this be?  Why do so many people who met Andrew once or twice – or never – feel his loss so greatly?  I think I have an answer.

Andrew was absolutely authentic.

To meet Andrew once, to have one brief conversation with him (although I don’t imagine Andrew engaged in brief conversations), was to know him.  Not as deeply as his life-long friends knew him.  Not as deeply as those who worked with him knew him.  Certainly not as intimately as his family knew him.  But to meet Andrew was to know him.

He was who he was.  All the time.  Regardless of  who he was with.  He also had the ability to empower people to stand up for their beliefs, to stop cowering in the face of leftist blacklists and the omnipresent threat of leftist ire.  More than his words, his actions inspired.  He was already doing what he encouraged others to do.

In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote:

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”

Andrew understood that America’s culture is one of ideas, and that ideas that support reason, individualism, and liberty are our weapons in the current culture clash.  Andrew also recognized that Hollywood, academia, and the news media were taken over and run by leftists and leftist sympathizers, that the news media wasn’t reporting news, but shaping it.  Andrew had the chutzpah to shout that the emperors of Hollywood, academia, and news media had no clothes.

Andrew stood up and, in his colorful way, said “No.”

He withdrew his moral sanction and called leftists what they are: hypocritical, unthinking, elitist know-nothings bent on replacing liberty with their brand of tyranny.  He held a mirror up to the left and revealed its impotence.  He questioned their false narrative.  The below video is just one example:

But Andrew’s magic was his ability to make anyone with a passion for liberty-supporting ideas feel like they could hold up that mirror too, feel like they could fight back in the name of something better: freedom.

I hear people say that Andrew is irreplaceable. In one respect he is: we will never see the likes of him again.  Only Andrew Breitbart could be Andrew Breitbart.

However, regarding the movement he led, I don’t subscribe to the idea that he was irreplaceable.  Instead, I agree with the “Obi-Wan Kenobi” meme that’s going around – that the people he inspired will take Andrew’s place and stand up for liberty; will call out leftist hypocrisy and leftist bullying whenever and wherever they can; and that this will have a greater affect on the country than Andrew could ever achieve on his own.  Like the fictional Obi-Wan (no offense Star Wars fans), Andrew’s death may make for a more effective and powerful pro-liberty movement.

At CPAC, a few weeks before his death, Andrew passionately pointed out the stark choice before us: America or Occupy.    We will  choose reason and individualism.  We will choose liberty.  We will choose America.

And this, I think, will be Andrew’s legacy.

Sandra Fluke and the Narrative

 Posted by at 11:28 pm
Mar 052012

One of the big things we hopefully learned from the late great Andrew Breitbart is the power of the narrative. The left and their PR firm, the Democrat Media Complex (as Andrew would called it), always try to control the narrative. The pathetic shame is that those of us on the right always seem to take the bait. It is as if we are perpetually Charlie Brown and the MSM/Democrats are Lucy Van Pelt, yanking the football away again and again.  And we never learn.

Here’s how it plays out: Democrats invent an issue that really isn’t one like, say . . . Republicans wanting to restrict birth control (Note: Republicans like myself are very much in favor of Democrats restricting their births).  They find one weird example that doesn’t represent 99.999% of the population like,  say . . .  a woman who spends more on birth control than many will spend on a car payment, and they will use that to justify a law that will affect the rest of us 99.999%.  So, many of us point out the absurdity of the example and some like Rush Limbaugh go too far and call her a “slut.” Now, we are forced to fight the issue on the defensive entirely on their court and using their terms of engagement.

The other recent example of this involved Warren Buffet’s secretary who apparently pays a higher marginal rate than her boss, one of the richest people on the planet. The next thing we know, the President proposes the Buffet Rule where, in case of ties, duplicate prizes are awarded.

I am sorry I didn’t pay enough attention to Obama’s explanation because I zone out the moment he says, “Let me make this perfectly clear.” Usually what follows is something that is so confusing and opaque that I wonder if Obama thinks that “Let me make this perfectly clear” is a magic phrase, like “hocus pocus,” that makes things clear.  But I digress . . .

Anyway, the Buffet Rule would soak the rich, a recurring theme by the President. Even if Buffet’s secretary pays a higher rate than Buffet, which is doubtful unless his secretary makes half a million a year, it is only because Buffet’s income is from capital gains and dividends. Capital gains tax rates are lower because we want to encourage investment and because capital gains taxes are a second taxation of the same money. For example, say you earn $1000 and pay $300 in taxes on that leaving you $700. You invest that $700 and it gains back the $300 when you sell it. That gain is from money that you were already taxed on and put at risk. You could have lost the entire $700 too. In that case, you are out of luck, unless your name is General Motors, a solar company or any other wealthy contributor to the President.

Bill Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates to encourage investment. Obama on the other hand, wants to raise the capital gains rate even though it would result in less revenue for the treasury.  He is primarily concerned about “fairness,” you see. The secretary story came up four years ago in a debate with Hillary Clinton.

This is their playbook. They change the narrative from the appropriate amount of taxation to a debate on “fairness;” from whether taxpayers should pay for a 3o-year-old woman’s birth control to Rush Limbaugh said “slut.”  They keep going back to it again and again and we keep getting derailed off our message and find ourselves defending ourselves from their attacks. The issue isn’t what language Rush should have used. The issue is whether the government has any business getting involved and subsidizing this area of it’s citizen’s lives. Rush shouldn’t have called Sandra Fluke a slut. I would have called her another f word: fluke.  She is a fluke and should be treated as such.

Andrew Breitbart (1969 – 2012)

 Posted by at 8:18 am
Mar 012012

Andrew Breitbart has died.  As Larry Solov posted on Andrew’s Big Goverment website:

Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.

Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.

Breitbart was an incredibly dynamic and joyful person who fought the good fight for truth and had a great time doing it.  He was also good, kind, decent, and genuinely sweet . . . unless you were a hypocritical douchebag – then he hated you.

As Iowahawk tweeted, Andrew was “A generous, kind, patriotic goofball who had excellent taste in the people he chose to drive insane.”

Let’s pray for his wife and four kids, let’s mourn his loss, and then . . . let’s rise up in his place and joyfully continue his fight.



Republicans and Black History

 Posted by at 10:22 pm
Feb 202012

February is Black History Month.  Toward that end, I’d like to share  Rep. Allen West’s speech on the floor of the House, in which he refreshingly presents . . . history.  I’m also posting a speech excerpt from the great Frederick Douglass.

Rep. West covers a lot of ground, discussing many victories on the road from slavery to freedom, the heroes that led, and the political party to which they belonged.

He also incidentally mentions a tremendously successful school voucher program – put into place by Pres. George W. Bush – that freed a number of  Washington D.C. children from failing schools.  Rep. West neglects to mention that Pres. Obama is determined to end this successful voucher program.

Rep. West’s theme is that, “The Republican Party has always been the party of freedom . . . . [t]he Republican Party is, always has been, and forever shall be, the party of equality of opportunity.”  He makes this point with historic example after historic example.

Any commemoration or acknowledgement of Black History Month is incomplete without reference to that great man, that great American, that great advocate of freedom and justice: Frederick Douglass.

In 1865, Frederick Douglass addressed the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston.  The meeting took place around the time of Lincoln’s assassination and the end of the Civil War.  In his speech entitled, “What the Black Man Wants,” Frederick Douglass spoke about the equality of all under the law.  Among other things, he said:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone – your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.

As the saying goes, “the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.”  If we are entitled to anything, we are entitled to untied hands and a chance.

The Parasitic Left

 Posted by at 7:05 am
Feb 132012

The Obama administration’s recent foray into ObamaCare rule-making and its  implications for the First Amendment’s free exercise clause are well-reported and appropriately criticized by people who respect religious freedom and our Constitution, which protects it.  For examples, see here, here, and here.

In a nutshell, the president’s administration required religious institutions to violate their theological doctrines when it mandated every employer – including churches and church affiliated employers – pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients (e.g.: “morning after” pills).  In the face of resistance to the rule,  President Obama backed off . . .  if by “backed off” one means not requiring adherents to the so-called culture of life to pay directly for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, but indirectly through inevitably higher insurance premiums which will necessarily follow the mandated “free” services.

As a side note, the Left – including our current president – does not seem to comprehend the fact that goods and services are produced and are therefore never free.

The Obama Administration’s position, however, is not unique to the president, but permeates the political Left.   This recent kerfuffle is merely a symptom of the Left’s raison d’etre: nihilism.  It also demonstrates that the upcoming election’s importance goes beyond merely defeating President Obama, but requires defeating the political Left.

Leftism neither builds nor creates anything of value; it seeks only to destroy what others build or create.  For example, recall the Left’s war on the Boy Scouts of America over the issue of openly homosexual scouts and scout leaders.  There, the issue wasn’t whether gays could participate in the Boy Scouts (they could), but whether openly gay scouts and leaders may participate.  Regardless of one’s views on that issue, the Left expressed no interest and took no action in developing its own version of the Boy Scouts.  The Left only sought to change (or, in its own parlance, “improve”) the Scouts, by throwing out the century-old Boy Scout oath.  As Dennis Prager put it at the time:

The left-wing position is that if the Boy Scouts do not change a policy that has been in place since the inception of the organization, they do not deserve to exist . . . . There is no left-wing Boy Scouts. The left knows best how to crush the non-left Boy Scouts, but it has never made a boys organization of its own.

Even as amended, the HHS rule imposes on institutions the same destruction that the Left sought against the Boy Scouts.  Catholic institutions, for one affected example, include universities and hospitals.  Apparently, such organizations do not include contraception, sterilization, or abortifacients in the health insurance provided its employees because such things violate Catholic Church doctrine.  Leftism’s adherent in the White House doesn’t merely disagree with the Church’s doctrine, his programs suggest that he wishes to end such doctrine.  Where the Left previously tried to destroy the Boy Scouts because it disagreed with certain tenets of the Boy Scouts’ policy, it now wishes to destroy religious institutions because it disagrees with certain tenets of various religious doctrine.

So-called reproductive rights are protected by the Constitution (see Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and its progeny).  Rights, however, do not come at others’ expense.  While Catholic and other religious institutions that do not subscribe to the use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion may not prevent others from availing themselves of such goods and services, they are also not required to provide them.  Nor should they be.  However, the controversial HHS rule imposes such a requirement.  The Obama Administration is essentially saying, “Hey, Catholic Church, thanks for building all those hospitals, charitable organizations, and educational institutions that contribute to our society.  Now we will tell you how to run them.”

The Left creates nothing of value, but it desires to dictate to the individuals who create everything of value.  Whether imposing its abortion views on religious organizations, or imposing a regulatory stranglehold on business, the Left knows how to destroy everything . . . once others create it.

There’s a name for something that invades, lives off of, and kills something of value: Parasite.

NOTE: Wake Up Winston! proudly reports that this post was also published at Western Free Press.

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera