Left­ists at­tack­ing tra­di­tional Amer­i­can in­sti­tu­tions

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - David Lim­baugh

If you want to gain greater in­sight into the mind­set of much of Hil­lary Clin­ton’s base — the type of peo­ple she caters to, and will con­tinue to cater to if she is elected — you should fa­mil­iar­ize your­selves with a cou­ple of re­cent news sto­ries in­volv­ing the Boy Scouts and our troops.

In Philadel­phia, the glo­ri­ous city where our unique ex­per­i­ment in con­sti­tu­tional gov­er­nance be­gan, the city so­lic­i­tor is­sued the Cra­dle of Lib­erty Boy Scouts Coun­cil a dire ul­ti­ma­tum. Un­less it re­nounces its pol­icy ex­clud­ing ho­mo­sex­u­als by Dec. 3, it will for­feit the right to rent from the city a build­ing it has rented for $1 a year since 1928.

So­lic­i­tor Ro­mulo Diaz said, “While we re­spect the right of the Boy Scouts to pro­hibit par­tic­i­pa­tion in its ac­tiv­i­ties by ho­mo­sex­u­als, we will not sub­si­dize that dis­crim­i­na­tion by pass­ing on the costs to the peo­ple of Philadel­phia.”

The so­lic­i­tor ap­par­ently doesn’t care that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scouts have a right to ex­clude ho­mo­sex­u­als or that Congress passed a law two years ago — the Sup­port Our Scouts Act — to re­strict the right of cities to deny Scouts ac­cess to pub­lic fa­cil­i­ties be­cause of their pol­icy.

Gay-rights ad­vo­cates of­ten in­sist on rights go­ing one way: their way. They de­mand that ho­mo­sex­u­als be per­mit­ted “the right” to join the Scouts, though it would deny this private or­ga­ni­za­tion its con­sti­tu­tional right of free as­so­ci­a­tion and what val­ues it chooses to up­hold.

Mean­while, Cam­bridge, Mass., the proud home of Har­vard Univer­sity, fired a shot at both the Boy Scouts and the United States armed forces. The city put the ki­bosh on Cam­bridge Troop 45’s in­nocu­ous Elec­tion Day drive to col­lect care pack­ages for Amer­i­can sol­diers in Iraq be­cause it was “po­lit­i­cal.”

The Scouts had placed do­na­tion boxes at the city’s 33 polling sta­tions, hop­ing to re­ceive dona- tions of toi­letries, mag­a­zines, candy and other good­ies to send to our troops in Iraq. Scout Pa­trick O’Con­nor, whose rel­a­tive was in­jured in an IED ex­plo­sion in Iraq, de­vised the plan to “make a lot of troops happy.”

But some ob­vi­ously not so happy or com­pas­sion­ate lib­eral com­plained that the do­na­tion boxes were a “po­lit­i­cal state­ment,” which re­sulted in their re­moval.

Mr. O’Con­nor said he “was dev­as­tated that some­one would” re­move the boxes. Troop com­mit­tee chair­man Jamisean Pat­ter­son said, “This was not sup­port­ing the war or any politi­cian or po­lit­i­cal view. This was sup­port­ing the brave men and women who are sta­tioned over­seas.”

For years, we have lis­tened to the left’s pre­pos­ter­ous and coun­ter­in­tu­itive ar­gu­ment that they sup­port the troops while op­pos­ing their mis­sion in Iraq and laud­ing Demo­cratic politi­cians who brand them as losers, tor­tur­ers and rapists, and mur­der­ers of “hun­dreds of thou­sands” of in­no­cent Iraqi civil­ians.

We’ve watched with in­credulity and dis­gust as cer­tain cel­e­brated con­gres­sional rep­re­sen­ta­tives ma- li­ciously and wrongly pro­nounced Marines guilty of mur­der­ing Iraqis be­fore any ev­i­dence was pre­sented. We’ve en­dured the left’s ven­er­ated sen­a­tors reck­lessly com­par­ing Guan­tanamo prison to the Soviet Gu­lags and in­dict­ing our en­tire mil­i­tary for the rene­gade acts of few in hu­mil­i­at­ing en­emy pris­on­ers at Abu Ghraib, say­ing Sad­dam’s prison was open un­der new man­age­ment.

Lib­er­als are al­ways com­plain­ing about Pres­i­dent Bush and other Repub­li­cans “politi­ciz­ing the war.” But only lib­er­als could think that send­ing care pack­ages to sol­diers putting their lives on the lives for our free­dom is a po­lit­i­cal state­ment.

Only left­ist jour­nal­ists could think that wear­ing a flag lapel pin is an un­ac­cept­able state­ment of bias. Only they could think that out­ward ex­pres­sions of love of coun­try dur­ing time of war has po­lit­i­cal con­no­ta­tions and com­pro­mises their pro­fes­sion­al­ism.

They can only view it in po­lit­i­cal terms, through their per­verse an­ti­war lenses. I dare say the over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans would think that such demon­stra­tions of sup­port for Amer­ica should be in­stinc­tive, un­con­tro­ver­sial and un­ques­tion­able.

Sadly, many of th­ese an­ti­war left­ists can’t sep­a­rate their ra­bid po­lit­i­cal op­po­si­tion to the war from the hu­mane and de­cent pro­vi­sion of com­fort and sup­plies to our troops. Trust me: Many of them have con­tempt for the troops be­cause they are the agents who are im­ple­ment­ing the tasks and mis­sions they hate.

De­pend­ing on what au­di­ences they’re in front of, Democrats will doubtlessly tell you that the ac­tions against the Boy Scouts and troops de­tailed here are only sup­ported by fringe el­e­ments in their party, but you know bet­ter. Th­ese are just a few ex­am­ples that il­lus­trate the kind of con­stituen­cies to which Hil­lary Clin­ton and her fel­low Democrats pan­der and the kind of Amer­ica they would try to achieve if they re­gain power of the ex­ec­u­tive branch.

If they’re not afraid to tar­get the Boy Scouts and our brave sol­diers, ap­ple pie bet­ter be keep­ing a sharp eye.

David Lim­baugh, the brother of talk ra­dio host Rush Lim­baugh, is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.