P. C. law v. the Constitution

By Frank Maguire

(Originally published June 15, 2010)

"Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left." Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse

"Utopians, once they attempt to convert their visions into practical proposals, come up with the most malignant project ever devised; they want to institutionalize fraternité, which is the surest way to totalitarian despotism." The Death of Utopia Reconsidered, Leszek Kolakowski (1984)

For 50 years, I've been in the midst of the political/cultural/religious war being waged in the United States, and for many of those years, I have written about it. The following out-take from a column by David Limbaugh is an accurate description of where America has come in a very short time.

THE LEFT: "As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, 'We cannot tolerate the intolerable.' This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets...Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise 'fair elections' and pooh-pooh ACORNs serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. ... It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. ... If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening." – columnist David Limbaugh

There is no possible way that a historically astute person can deny Limbaugh's valid depiction. Anyone who wishes to deny that which Limbaugh has written, and to defend the positions of the Left, is welcome to try. I would love to see how it is rationalized by our current Marcuse-ians. Their efforts are quintessentially "argumentum ad invidiam" – argument from hatred, greed, resentment, covetousness, and "argumentum baculinum" – argument from force, threat, and intimidation. Their claims of "tolerance" are meretricious. A sham!

Two discussions I had, recently, are worthy of your consideration. The first was with a Pinal County Deputy Sheriff. He agreed that things were in a real mess and concluded that "I'll just do my job and enforce the law." He is a young fellow, so he is, it would seem, not fully cognizant of the ambiguity of his comment.

I responded, "Deputy, you just cited the Nuremburg defense of the NAZIs, i.e., 'We were just doing our duty, under the law....'" I added that the law upon which American jurisprudence is supposed to be grounded is the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Laws, I said, that supersede and over-ride the Constitution are laws produced by those who have gained power and authority and who, then, ignoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights, create laws that serve their own peremptory purposes.

The Deputy was silent, and looked as though he had never heard that distinction made.

My second encounter was in a sporting goods store in Casa Grande. The manager is, I knew, a former United States Marine. I greeted him with "Semper Fi!" He smiled and said, "You got that right." Now, Semper Fi(delis) means, "always faithful. And, that to which the Marine makes an oath to be faithful is the Constitution of the United States. Not to any extra-Constitutional regime that comes along. Some apparently are so educated as to not know this.

Anyway, I asked him if he heard that one Marine who still worked for the Department of Defense, at USMC Camp Lejeune, N.C., had been reprimanded and punished (he can no longer park his car on any DoD facility) because he has a decal on his car (which he refused to remove) that says "We died, and they rejoiced." It displays the star and crescent used on the banners flown by al Qaeda, et al, and references the murder of innocent American civilians by terrorists who claim to be fundamentalist Muslims.

The Lejeune base commander declared that the decal was intolerant and not politically correct. The Marine has challenged the commander's ruling, and will fight it, on Constitutional, 1st Amendment grounds. (NOTE: June 2010 the Marine Corps. has reversed the base commander's ruling.) The Marine said "Why is it that Christians have to be confronted with every type of insult, including the desecration of the historical ICTHUS (an acronym for Jesus Christ, Son of G-d) symbol (the fish) by those who deny G-d and pay homage to Darwin?" The Marine cited other such insults that are tolerated on base, and the fact that persons who display them are not hassled at all.

The store manager, who thought that the base commander's decision was perfectly correct, didn't want to deal with my implied question. He turned his back and walked away while making the circular comment, "I guess whoever is in authority is in charge." I had no need to respond, because if he didn't see the dangerous irony in such a concept, I'm sure I could not enlighten him. I did exit with one additional thought; "I thought that a USMC officer considered the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights to be in charge."

And so it goes in the New World of Change and Progress. I am now re-reading a marvelous book by scholar/professor Pierre Ayçoberry entitled The Social History of the Third Reich. It is eerie because it is undeniably pertinent, necessary changes being made, to America as we now are. You also might want to read Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg and The Long March, by Roger Kimball.

© Frank Maguire