When In Doubt, Confuse The Issue

It appears that Ward Churchill, America's previously best-known fake Indian, has finally gotten his comeuppance for being a viciously dishonest left-wing jerk:

You remember Ward Churchill — he’s the former University of Colorado ethnic studies professor who claimed that the United States deserved the September 11, 2001 attacks because of “ongoing genocidal American imperialism.”

Well, he’s been fighting a losing battle to get his job back ever since he was eventually fired for (unrelated) plagiarism and fabricated research.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court rejected Churchill’s appeal without comment.

Pretty good already! But for your beloved Offender, the best part comes a bit later in the article:

[Churchill's attorney David] Lane was substantially less effusive.

“It’s disappointing from the perspective that the First Amendment has suffered as a result of this,” the attorney told the Daily Camera. “I am sorry that the regents have been given the green light to violate the Constitution any time they feel a need.”

Fascinating! To fire an instructor / researcher for plagiarism and fabricated research somehow offends against the First Amendment? Is it a violation of the freedom of speech? Naah, can't be. How about freedom of the press? That doesn't hold water either. Must be about freedom of religion: "the right of the venom-filled leftist to worship himself as above all standards of moral or ethical conduct." If only Michael Bellesiles had known!

Churchill must be off his game. Or perhaps he didn't think to consult with our currently best-known fake Indian, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren, who's averted the nastier consequences from her, ah, ancestral fantasies, has mastered the art of lying out both sides of her mouth, though I'm not sure she's appropriated anyone else's words with which to do so.

Hey, Ward, have some homely advice: If you're going to steal another man's prose, make your victim an unknown already in the grave, preferably without any surviving relatives.

Geez, Maybe It Is A Conspiracy!

It's important that freedom lovers remember that those who oppose us aren't all motivated by the same things:

• You have your "low-information" voter, who thinks that by voting for tyrant wannabees Democrats he's doing the right thing for the country;
• You have your "special interest / single issue" voter, who votes for redistributionist thugs Democrats specifically to advance his pet cause or fatten his wallet;
• You have your really-and-for-true evil political genius, whose pole star is absolute power -- perhaps shared with a few like-minded friends -- and whose tactics are chosen for that reason and no other.

That third category sits at the pinnacle of the Democrat Party and utterly controls the special-interest groups that are the backbone of the Democrats' coalition. By way of Common Sense and Wonder, we have this reflection on the relentless consistency of that group over the decades:

If you are old enough, you can remember Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, in their rare candid moments, rhapsodizing that someday, when they could get 50% of the U.S. population plus one receiving a government check of some kind, they would never again lose a national election! The notorious but true 47% cited by Mitt Romney apparently is close enough.

Then, an especially vile tributary of this liberal Democrat cynicism is what they have done to destroy the U.S. underclass, especially the black underclass.

This tragedy can be exposed via one rhetorical question: What would happen to the Democrats if all the poor in this country suddenly became rich? They'd never win another election, would they?

So the Democrats have a vested need to keep the poor down. Our permanent welfare class is no accident. Government incentives for people to stay poor may be well-calculated.

But with a repressed minority manipulated into believing that Democrats are on its side, now to be joined via immigration by a large number of Hispanics that the Dems see as captive voters, the new U.S. demographics make the liberal Democrats' scheme to finesse a permanent one-party government a near certainty.

This is a keeper. Read it all! Perhaps the most striking of the author's observations is this one:

Another symptom is the Democrats' heavy-handed, even brutal, proclivity to criminalize any opposition to their agenda, i.e., a blood sport political orientation of "we will not only ruin you, we will prosecute you."... As Bill O'Reilly of FoxNews, has said, "People fear the left because the left is vicious."

Author John Gaski is an associate professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Bull's-Eye!

The mighty Ace of Spaces provides a perfect analysis of the self-concepts of American left-liberals:

Cognitive theorist Jonathan Haidt says that all humans think in terms of six basic moral goods, and that liberals differ from conservatives primarily in how they prioritize those moral goods. For example, he says liberals rate the "sanctity/purity" moral good quite low, as compared to conservatives.

I don't believe that for a red-hot second. I think liberals rate purity/sanctity extremely high, but they counterfeit this belief to themselves, because they've been taught that sanctity/purity is an indulgence of the weak-minded religious types. But while they deny that impulse, they actually act upon it, directing their sanctity/purity impulses not towards sexual restraint (as a religious person might) but towards health of the environment and health of the body.

This is why they are, in strictly anthropological terms, so fucking annoying about everything and always shrieking about this Moral Panic or that.

There's an old put-down when someone's going on about sex negatively (whether on the right or left): That person just needs to get laid so the rest of us can move on with our lives without being bothered by these sorts.

A similar put-down -- which is actually even more true than the "laid" one -- applies here. These people need to get religion, or, more accurately, find something outside of government and politics to give meaning to their empty lives so they can finally spare the rest of us from the folly and malice of their misdirected religious impulses.

The key to understanding what makes liberals so relentless (and so annoying) has always been their need to believe themselves superior to others. Thomas Sowell fingered this as the explanation for their political postures in his book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. But why they have such a need requires a separate explanation. It's simply this:

You Gotta Believe In Something.

The link between faith and the sense of personal significance is unbreakable. There is no way to consider oneself important without first identifying oneself as a crusader of some sort -- a campaigner in an inherently noble cause. A noble cause allows him to "rise out of himself," to say, if only to himself, that he's not just one more selfish mind-your-own-business type concerned solely with his bank account.

Seldom has a self-flattering lie been more transparent.

The typical liberal has decided that, to be chic and "with it," he must scorn religious faith. But that doesn't relieve him of his need to believe in something. What marks him as a liberal, as opposed to some other kind of arrogant asshole, is his choice of politics and government as his faith, and the improvement of others (whether they like it or not) as his crusade. That his contribution to his crusade amounts to a vote every two or four years, plus maybe a few dollars to a presidential candidate's campaign, is icing on the cake. Who wouldn't love a noble cause, a cause that allows him to believe himself morally superior to others, that doesn't put him to any great exertion?

Ergo, you can be a thoroughly good person, a devout Catholic, faithful to your spouse, participate willingly and generously in many different charitable efforts, have children who are models of good behavior and courtesy, and be in every way a pillar of your community, but if you're politically a conservative, drunken, adulterous liberals with a dozen abortions on their records will still consider themselves your moral superior.

Yes, they are despicable. Anyone who feels he has a charter to improve you willy-nilly is despicable. But apparently, they need to be. Laugh at them...and pity them.