Beacon Street Journal

The recent public and embarrassing disclosure of the private rantings of the JournoList members gave us a clue into what response to expect from the left once a public furor ensued after Obama endorsed construction of the Ground Zero Mosque. But the extent of the rancor levelled against opponents of the mosque (70% of Americans) was overt, unrestrained and truly astonishing.

“America has disgraced itself”, railed left-wing blogger Peter Beinart. Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post characterized opposition to the mosque as hysterical — the product of ignorance and right-wing fear mongering. Not to be outdone, in an article entitled, “Going Mad in Herds”, Maureen Dowd wrote that, “The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy. The unbottled anger and suspicion concerning ground zero show that many Americans haven’t flushed the trauma of 9/11 out of their systems . . . .

In the eyes of the left, all Democratic presidential candidates, including the new Messiah, are endowed with gravitas. But since Obama’s supposed intellectual heft has been harnessed in support of a radical makeover of the nation — a policy agenda the electorate has thoroughly rejected — with each passing day, he becomes more and more politically neutered. It is Obama’s precipitous decline and diminished standing that explains in part the increasing vitriol emanating from the professional left. Their contempt and sneering condescension towards ordinary Americans has increased directly in proportion to the revulsion the voters have expressed to the radical agenda of our first post-modern president.

Since the time of Karl Marx, the left has always felt an antipathy towards the middle class. In addition, liberals suffer the conceit that they are morally and intellectually superior to the unwashed masses, or the common man on whose behalf they purportedly toil. This helps explain why those who disagree with liberals are not perceived as honorable people who have legitimate and reasonable differences of opinion, but rather are viewed as either evil and/or moronic, standing athwart the left’s desire to make a better and more just world. This is why the left revels in ad hominem, scurrilous attacks against their ideological opponents. Since few Americans outside of academia subscribe to their radical and alien world view, they cannot win the battle of ideas.

If the left has become disillusioned and disenchanted, it is solely because they themselves were delusional in their belief that Obama’s election heralded a new era of unbridled liberalism, a political realignment that would last for fifty years. Yet, instead of embracing the Obama agenda, the country has revolted. In short, the left can’t handle the truth. The Democratic Party has lurched inexorably leftward, but most Americans with their center-right sensibilities have stubbornly refused to follow.

Left wing politicians can never reveal their true intentions, for they would be repudiated at the polls. Obama campaigned fraudulently as a centrist, yet since his inauguration, has governed as a hard leftist. Is it any wonder his approval ratings continue to accelerate downwards?

With its open contempt for the views of the majority of Americans, the left has reduced itself to a fringe movement appealing to a fringe audience which consists largely of mainstream media journalists, left-wing bloggers and academics. As the Democrats brace themselves for an electoral thrashing of historic proportions in November, the devolution of the left will be complete.

President Obama’s decision to wade into the Ground Zero Mosque controversy represents the apex of his growing disengagement from the American public. For when the history of the period is written, it will be construed as the turning point of his presidency. As I noted previously, given his temperament, his narcissism and his delusional belief that he is a world-historical, transcendent figure, Obama had every inclination to insert himself into the controversy.

Yet for most Americans, Obama’s posture on the controversy is indicative of his growing and dangerous detachment from the public he purportedly leads. The schism began almost immediately after his inauguration. Despite the fact that almost 80% of Americans said they were satisfied with their health insurance, Obama and his fellow Democrats blithely ignored their clearly stated Continue reading ‘Americans are tired of Professor Obama’s pious lectures’ »

In a remarkable display of political ineptness, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has waded into the Ground Zero Mosque controversy by calling for an investigation of those opposed to the construction of the Mosque at the designated site. This exercise in liberal intolerance should provide enormous comic relief in light of the fact that the targets of the investigation would include approximately 70% of the American public as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

By needlessly upping the ante after President Obama’s Inspector Clouseau moment, Pelosi has poured gasoline on the Ground Zero conflagration, and by her characteristic obliviousness, has helped insure that Continue reading ‘Nancy Pelosi wants Ground Zero Mosque opponents investigated’ »

President Obama ended his silence on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy last Friday, ostensibly arguing for its construction in the name of “religious tolerance.” After a public furor ensued, the White House attempted, in an exercise of Clintonian parsing, to walk back his initial comments in order to mitigate the political damage that will be visited upon fellow Democrats this fall.

Obama claimed he was only endorsing the legal right of Muslims to build a mosque, and not the wisdom of doing so at the location chosen. Yet this is an unremarkable contention, as it is entirely consistent with the position of those who oppose construction of the Ground Zero mosque. The political impact cause by Obama’s willful disregard of the sentiments of his countrymen may prove to be irreversible. 70% of Americans oppose constructing the mosque near the site of the twin towers. Obama’s initial endorsement is just another example of the wide gulf between his views and those of the electorate. For those who understand that Obama’s political agenda is a reflection of the fact that he is wholly a creature of the Academic Left , both his endorsement of the mosque Continue reading ‘Obama succeeds in nationalizing Ground Zero Mosque controversy’ »

New York Rep. Charles Rangel took to the House floor on Tuesday and during a rambling, combative, and at times incoherent, thirty-minute diatribe suffused with self-pity and taunts directed at the House leadership, told his colleagues that he is not going anywhere. Many of his fellow Democrats winced during the speech as it became apparent that they are going to have to suffer the indignity of an odious public ethics trial Continue reading ‘Fellow Democrats wince during Charlie Rangel’s self-pitying rant on the House Floor’ »

At a recent fundraiser in Texas, President Obama returned to a familiar theme that Democrats now have officially adopted as their best mid-term election strategy: blame former President Bush for the country’s current economic woes. Although this narrative will ultimately prove ineffectual, consider the plight of the Democrats. Since the now-tarnished New Messiah has become toxic, Democrats can no longer speak of him with reverence nor can they extol the virtues of his wildly unpopular legislative agenda. Thus, of necessity, the blame Bush strategy has become the Democrats default — and only viable — electoral strategy.

As they face a hostile electorate come November, the leader of their own party, who once enjoyed unrivalled popularity and a reservoir of public good will, won’t be helpful to Congressional Democrats up for reelection. The man whose stirring oratory once captivated crowds has evolved into a tarnished New Messiah. As evidenced by the continuing downward trajectory Continue reading ‘Democrats’ desperate mid-term political strategy: blame Bush’ »

The looming ethics trials of two prominent black members of Congress could  pose problems for House Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel, two long serving members, both have rejected settling ethical charges brought against them, opting instead to have the allegations aired in public in what promises to be a source of embarrassment for their party, whose prospects of retaining control of the House increasingly appear to be in jeopardy.

How nervous are Democrats? Given the severity of the charges, consider the wrist slap recently recommended by the House Ethics Committee to induce Rangel to spare his colleagues the embarrassment of a trial. Also, consider the recent plea of President Obama for Rangel to “end his career with dignity.” In response to the Democrats’ entreaties to both Rangel and Waters to take one for the team by either resigning or accepting a meaningless reprimand, their response has been unequivocal: Not a chance.

And who can blame them? Democrats can’t condemn Rangel or Waters for putting their own self-interest ahead of that of the party, for, by their actions, they are simply espousing the political philosophy of the Democratic Party. For decades, Democrats have supported policies whether related to college admissions, employment, or the doling out of federal contracts, that have used the attribution of group representation to define Continue reading ‘Public ethics trials of Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel pose mid-term election problems for Congressional Democrats’ »

Senator John Kerry, yachtsman extraordinaire, will shortly be making a charitable donation to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the amount of $500,000. That sum represents the amount of sales tax that would be due had Kerry decided to berth his $7 million yacht in his home state of Massachusetts instead of in neighboring Rhode Island. When it was disclosed recently that Kerry docks his boat in Rhode Island to escape paying the Massachusetts sales tax, he became engulfed in a public relations firestorm that could have irreparably harmed his political career.

Since Kerry has a summer home in Nantucket and most likely would have used the yacht in the waters off Nantucket Sound, his decision to dock the yacht in Rhode Island nonetheless, would have likely prompted an investigation by the Massachusetts’ Department of Revenue Continue reading ‘Senator John Kerry: the quintessential limousine liberal’ »

One of the most defining characteristics of the left has been liberals’ belief in their intellectual and moral superiority. The recent email disclosures by the Daily Caller of discussions among left wing intellectuals at the online list-server JournoList, should forever put an end to this false pretense. What the emails reveal among members of JournoList community is a political movement that is as intellectually bankrupt as it is morally dissolute.

Some of the comments are spiteful, laced with antipathy, and deranged. In the marketplace of ideas, if you can’t refute your ideological opponents arguments, the only arrow left in your quiver is reliance on scurrilous ad hominem attacks. Consider this rant from Sarah Spitz, a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center, commenting on how she would be positively gleeful watching Rush Limbaugh die of a heart attack:

Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Charming.

How about the assertion of Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News, who compared the tea partiers to the rise of the Brownshirts in pre-war Nazi Germany:

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

By his comments, Donmoyer not only demonstrates an appalling ignorance of history, but raises a question as to how Bloomberg News can employ him as an “objective” political reporter.

Or consider the comments of Eric Alterman, who in the midst of exulting over the 2008 victory of Obama had this to say about the electorally vanquished: “F****ng nascar retards…” For Alterman and his fellow travellers, the great unwashed masses, on whose behalf they tirelessly toil, are nothing more than backwater Neanderthals, bereft of liberals’ erudition and superior intellectual prowess.

The emails are also instructive, for they reveal the nascent streak of authoritarianism present in all left wing ideology coming to the fore.  For the modern American left, it has now become an article of faith that If you can’t defeat the intellectual arguments of your political opponents through rational discourse and refutation, the best response is to silence them by curtailing their freedom of speech. Consider the comment of UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff, who advocates suppressing Fox News:

“I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

One can only hope that Professor Zasloff has not yet been granted tenure. In the meantime, in light of his apparent belief that freedom of speech can be so cavalierly quashed, the Dean of the UCLA law school might want to start auditing his classes.

As evidenced by the JournList emails, liberalism is no longer about ideas, rather, it is all about obtaining power. As surveys and polls have consistently shown over the years, and as support for their anointed Messiah continues to inexorably erode, Americans have consistently repudiated the agenda of liberalism. The only way liberals can implement their policy agenda is through force (suppress Fox News), through guile (Obama fraudulently campaigning as a “centrist”, “post partisan”, “post-racial”candidate), or through character assassination of its political opponents and, when all else fails, by playing the execrable race card for partisan advantage.

Truth, as they say, is stranger than fiction. The president of the country whose assiduity of national purpose and engineering prowess put a man on the moon, has told Charles Bolden, the new head of NASA, that one of the foremost, if not the defining, mission of the space agency in the Age of Obama will be to act as a vehicle for enhancing the self-esteem of Muslims. What does this have to do with space exploration or examining the boundaries of the final frontier? Nothing, of course. This latest inanity emanating from the White House provides further evidence that Obama has evolved into what I would characterize as the master of governing by the non sequitur.

For example, from the outset, Obama justified his trillion dollar radical alteration of our  health care delivery system by offering for public consumption the rather bizarre and fallacious proposition that it was the only way out of the economic distress caused by the financial meltdown of 2008. That his reform scheme would ultimately bankrupt the nation seemed to escape his attention. Next, we were told repeatedly that the only way to thwart Islamic terrorism was to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. This preposterous sociological thesis was wholly inconsistent with the fact that acts of Islamic terrorism against America predate the opening of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The disjointed, elaboration of the NASA mission statement from the head of an agency charged with exploring space illustrates that the Obama Administration is staffed, by and large, with those whose highest calling is to implement a world view founded upon the principles of faculty-lounge liberalism, whose precepts include a virulent multiculturalism, political correctness and a rejection of American exceptionalism. The entire NASA episode prompts the question: is there a single member of the Obama Administration that has ever seen a business plan or written a mission statement?

The idea of being on our guard never to offend the tender sensibilities of Muslims was on full display in all its multicultural, politically correct glory during the tragic, and as the evidence makes abundantly clear, wholly avoidable, massacre at Fort Hood by by the virulently anti-American, Islamic soldier of God, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. When questioned about the obvious motive for Hasan’s murderous spree, Army chief of staff, General George Casey, Jr. urged restraint and cautioned us not to jump to conclusions for,  ”This terrible event,” Gen. Casey noted, “would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.”

The NASA mission statement is merely the latest manifestation of this politically correct pious nonsense that permeates the White House and demonstrates, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, that history will record that among the defining characteristics of the Obama Administration will be not only its incompetence, but also, its downright silliness.

In addition, NASA’s deliberate policy of enhancing the self-esteem solely for members of an established religion raises interesting questions about the separation of church and state. Where is that famous liberal antipathy concerning keeping religion out of the public square?

The fatuous nonsense espoused by Boland  should have roused the inquisitiveness of members of the Fourth Estate, but to date, as Byron York notes, the comments of the head of NASA have induced a collective yawn on the part of the old legacy media. What do you suppose the reaction would have been among journalists had President Bush decreed that one of the principal missions of NASA would be the celebration of the influence of the principles of Christian Theology on the scientific and mathematical discoveries of Newton and Descartes?