Never Thought I'd Agree With This

Liberal Virtue Signalling

Whose Kids?

There's a definite leftward slant in this story, which isn't surprising since it comes from Oakland:

State Superintendent of Schools Tony Thurmond was told to leave a school district meeting in Southern California after expressing his opposition to a policy that requires administrators to inform parents if their child identifies as transgender.

Thurmond was escorted out of the meeting held by the Chino Valley Unified School District when he exceeded his allotted one-minute speaking time by a second or two. 

He used his time to voice concerns about the policy, stating that it would violate the privacy rights of students. 

The policy requires schools to notify parents in writing within three days after their child identifies as transgender, is involved in violence or talks about suicide. Schools must also now notify parents if their child seeks to change their name or pronouns or asks for access to gender-based sports, bathrooms or changing rooms that do not match their assigned gender at birth.

Despite Thurmond's objections, the Chino School Board ultimately voted to approve the policy, which mandates schools to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender, seeks a name or pronoun change, or requests access to gender-based facilities that do not correspond with their assigned gender at birth.

Thurmond's dramatic exit and the controversial vote come at a time when liberals and conservatives are vying for power – and how to shape young minds – at school districts throughout the state of California. 

That's the rub right there.  Conservatives aren't trying to use schools "to shape young minds", we expect parents to do that.  Conservatives want to provide an education, not an indoctrination.

They're their parents' children, they're only our students.

Now I Understand The Appeal

I've seen lots of articles about "Such and such a study proves conservatives are horrible people" or whatever nutjob belief the study or article's author wants to spread about conservatives, as if we're all something besides mostly correct.  So imagine my surprise when I read about a study showing lefties are horrible people...not that you need a study for that, of course, just look at the results of their policies.  But I digress:

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology reports that liberals are as nutty as a porta potty on the last day of a peanut convention...

Leftists aren’t frothing from the mouth crazy, but when you put it all together, leftists are self-absorbed liars who direct and move opinions to match their own. They are also heartless, without a conscience. They make knee-jerk opinions and never look at the long-term effects of the policies they support and are misanthropic.

I've long said that "We conservatives think lefties are wrong, lefties think we conservatives are evil."  What if I've been wrong all along, and lefties are more than just wrong, but are in fact evil?  This study seems to support that!

I never bought into the "conservatives are evil" so-called studies, and I'm not going to buy into this "lefties are evil" study, either (although their policies are patently evil).  But I can see the draw of such studies for people incapable of thinking for themselves:  they have the imprimatur of science! behind them, and they can give people a brief sense of superiority over "the other".  Fun times.

A Re-Declaration of Independence

This piece by Jeff Goldstein is so awesome, so absolutely correct, that I'm going to post it here in its entirety:

Tyranny is already upon us. To defeat it, we must first learn to reject its premises. And to say so aloud.

Be it so understood:

I refuse to “unpack white violence.” I reject the idea that my existence “perpetuates white power structures.” I will not — and in fact cannot — “examine my implicit biases.” I’m an individual. I refuse to grant determined interpretive communities authority over my being. My meaning is mine. It is what makes me me.

I’m not taking any “journey” to “discover” the impact of my “privilege” on “black and brown peoples.” I will not become “anti-racist” or “anti-fascist” to satisfy your demands. I reject Cultural Marxism. I am an individual. I’m not defined by my color, my religion, my sex. I’m Jeff.

I will not “respect your pronouns” or “celebrate” your “queerness.” I am hostile to your sexualizing of children. I reject your neologisms, your “triggers,” and your desire to control my speech. I know who and what you are: you are my presumptive master, or else the Useful Idiot who empowers him. But I will grant you and your ideology no power over me.

I reject “equity” because it is collectivism disguised as virtue. I reject “inclusivity” because it is inorganic, superficial, and contrived. I reject mandated “diversity”: I will not surrender to the Crayon Box Mafia, nor to the gender changelings who pretend I am a construct answerable to their whims.

“Cultural appropriation” is merely culture: it expands to include, and it makes up the very fabric of a pluralist society. There’s no such thing as “digital blackface.” My whiteness is not “violent”; my sex is not “oppressive”; my religion doesn’t concern you; and my children are not yours to mold. Your beliefs will not be imposed on me. The State will not parent my sons.

“Queer theory” is “critical race theory” is “critical consciousness” is the Marxist rejection of the individual as individual. Cultural Marxism is determined to raze norms, sow chaos, tear families asunder, and reduce being to collective conformity. I reject its premises as fully as I reject its adherents. I will not comply. 

I will not mouth your slogans. I will not denounce on command. I am not your tool, and you are not my minder. I reject your social hectoring. I find abhorrent your authoritarian urges. I laugh at your disingenuous outrage. From me you will receive no apologies. I reject your premises entirely, and I hereby reclaim my time.

My speech is my own. I reject each of your excuses to silence me. I don’t ask for your protections. I can filter information without your interference, and I despise your presumption to protect me from myself.

I am your sworn enemy, as you are mine. I will not perform for you. I will not read from your script or dance in your follies. I utterly reject your revisionism, your ahistorical impertinence, your presentism, your self-appointed expertise. I will not bow before your theorists, nor admire your social prophets.

I am not a disease. My existence doesn’t “warm the planet.” I’m not interested in your “sustainability” concerns. I am not yours to manage.

I won’t eat your bugs, live in your pods, surrender my cars, or without consent be packed into your cities. I reject your charity. I unmask your intentions. I know what a woman is; I know that any member of any racial group can practice racism; I know that 2+2=4, regardless of how contingent you wish to make reality. I despise your ideology. I refuse your relativism. You are not the Elect, and I am not answerable to the various neuroses you wear as badges of honor.

I know you better than you know yourselves. You are conditioned. Programmed. Automotons who believe themselves sentient beings. Your intolerance of “hate” is not a virtue. It’s a ruse. An excuse to practice your own intolerance and luxuriate in your own hatreds. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are that which you claim to despise, and I am that which you claim to be.

I see you. Clearly. And I aim to misbehave.

I strive to be self-sufficient. I honor the founding ideals of my country, and I work to live up to their measure. I recognize the great fortune of my birth. History does not frighten me. I reject your blood libels: I am not responsible for that which I didn’t do, nor are you victims of what was never done to you. I will not proclaim your goodness while knowing your evil.

I am a free man. You wish to take me from me. You will fail. I will win. And God willing, I will live to spit on your graves.

Outlaw.

Hear hear.

Yet Another Example of Media Bias

Do they know they're lying, or can they just not tolerate a view different from their own?

Usually I would only quote excerpts from a news article under the "fair use" policy.  In this instance, though, I have to quote the entire article to demonstrate that it doesn't support the headline given.

Republicans Rage Over Sam Smith’s Grammy Performance: ‘This Is Evil’ 

 By Ewan Palmer Newsweek Culture

Updated February 06, 2023 8:18 AM

Singer Sam Smith sparked outrage among conservative figures over their performance at the Grammy Awards on Sunday, with many declaring it to be "satanic." 

Smith, who along with Kim Petras won the award for best pop duo/group performance on the night, sang their hit single "Unholy" at the ceremony. 

During the performance, Smith sang while dressed head to toe in red, including a devil horn hat, while being surrounded by dancers who resembled Samara from the horror film The Ring.

Petras performed in a cage surrounded by flames while flanked by famed drag stars Violet Chachki and Gottmik, who were dressed as dominatrixes also sporting devil horns. 

Smith and Petras also made history on Sunday by becoming the first non-binary person and openly transgender woman, respectively, to win a Grammy in the best pop duo/group performance category.

In response to their performance, a number of Republicans expressed their horror and anger at the apparent "satanism" being evoked by Smith and Petras. 

Conservative podcaster Liz Wheeler tweeted: "Don't fight the culture wars, they say. Meanwhile demons are teaching your kids to worship Satan. I could throw up." 

In response to Wheeler's tweet, Texas Senator Ted Cruz added: "This...is...evil."

 Ben Kew, editor-at-large for political news website Human Events, tweeted: "I know we on the right probably use the word satanic too often but this performance from Sam Smith is literally a tribute to Satan." 

Charlie Kirk, political commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, also noted that an advert for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine, appeared at the end of Smith and Petras' performance. 

"The Devil. Brought to you by Pfizer...," Kirk tweeted.

Robby Starbuck, a former GOP congressional candidate for Tennessee's 5th district, tweeted: "People like Sam Smith who love to mock Christianity and use Satanic themes always think they're super edgy artists by doing it. In reality it's not edgy. It's boring, vile, rehashed shock tactics that Hollywood seals clap for because they're evil & stupid." 

When asked about the supposedly devilish performance backstage at the Grammys, Petras said it was inspired by not feeling accepted by religion. 

"I think a lot of people, honestly, have kind of labeled what I stand for and what Sam stands for as religiously not cool, and I personally grew up wondering about religion and wanting to be a part of it but slowly realizing it didn't want me to be a part of it," she said. 

"So it's a take on not being able to choose religion. And not being able to live the way that people might want you to live because as a trans person, I'm already not kind of wanted in religion. So we were doing a take on that and I was kind of hell keeper Kim."

Words mean something.  When I think of "rage" as a verb, as it's used in the article's title, I think of an out-of-control physical, verbal, or emotional outburst.  Nowhere in that entire article do I see anything close to "rage".  I see strong disagreement, much of it voiced on Twitter--but entirely in control.  In fact, the only place I see "rage" at all in that article is in the title itself.

So I'm calling you out, Ewan Palmer.  Are you a liar, inserting a loaded word where it clearly doesn't belong, or an idiot, not even knowing what a simple word means?  I'm at a loss to find any other explanation.

The Proper Role of Government

A friend sent me a tweet today.  That tweet generated a lot of commentary on Twitter, and two of those comments sum up for me why I'm a conservative.  The first:

You can't comply your way out of tyranny.

Don't give in to a government that wants you to give in, especially if their reasoning is that "it's for the greater good", "it's for the children", or some other such silliness.  Don't give up your rights.  Government, and the people who go into government, are about controlling you and everyone around you; forget that, and you'll spend a lot of time clawing back what you gave up so easily.

The other comment I read:

Either you limit government, or government will limit you.

See my last full paragraph above.

So what should a government do?  What is the proper role of government?  Some smart guys told us back in 1776:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Government doesn't exist to be our nanny or our oppressor; rather, it exists to secure our God-given rights against those who would take them from us.  That is the proper role of government.

Can You Imagine The Hue and Cry If White People Intentionally Excluded Hispanics?

Racismracismracism, that's all you'd hear.  When other Hispanics intentionally exclude Hispanics, well, that's somehow good:

A few months after she was elected in 2020, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, the first Republican Latina senator in state history, considered joining the California Latino Legislative Caucus. 

It seemed only natural, she said. 

Ochoa Bogh had spent half her youth in Mexico. Her first language was Spanish. And she was raised by parents who immigrated to the United States to achieve the “American Dream.” 

But Ochoa Bogh soon learned that Republican legislators, regardless of Latino ethnicity, are barred from joining the caucus. 

“It came with an irony because traditionally Democrats speak of equality and opportunity and they’re not allowing all Latinos,” she said.

Democratic lawmakers created the caucus 50 years ago and excluded Republicans from the beginning. It is one of two ethnic caucuses in the California Legislature that prevent GOP members from joining, and the policy has been a point of contention from time to time when multiple Hispanic Republicans win state office.

The one-party dynamic works, Democratic members say.

I'm sure it does.

He Worked For President Trump So He Must Be Cancelled

Talking about Dr. Ben Carson here:

Dr. Carson grew up in a Detroit housing project before going on to become a ground-breaking neurosurgeon. He became the youngest chief of pediatric neurosurgery in the nation at the age of 33. In 1987 he led the surgical team that performed the first successful separation of conjoined twins. Carson is famed in his field for developing new surgery techniques and successfully managing some of the most difficult pediatric neurosurgery cases in the nation.

Dr. Carson was also the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Trump administration.

It is astounding that a Black man who is the epitome of the American dream – grew up in the projects and went on to become one of the most famed surgeons in the world and then work in one of the highest positions in American government – and have all his accomplishments nullified because he holds the same political beliefs as half of the country.

They didn’t like his boss so they cancel him.   Is it that, or is it because he left the Democratic plantation?  Whichever is the reason--and it's one of those two--Detroit is renaming a school they'd named for him. 

Not sure if it’s sad or sickening, but it’s one of those two.

Criminalizing Dissent

We're fast becoming a banana republic, if we aren't there already:

In a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued on Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced portentously that “the United States remains in a heightened threat environment.” It seems that “lone offenders and small groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances continue to pose a persistent and lethal threat to the Homeland.” Yet while the DHS claims to be tracking terror threats from people with a “range of ideological beliefs,” it is especially concerned “threat actors could exploit several upcoming events to justify or commit acts of violence, including certifications related to the midterm elections” and “the marking of two years since the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.” The message is clear: DHS is going to devote its resources to the alleged terror threat coming from those who dissent from the Leftist establishment line. Meanwhile, the agency plans to release Afghan Muslim criminals into the United States. The priorities of Biden’s handlers’ “counterterror” apparatus are all too clear...

Clearly, DHS is playing political games with the safety and security of the American people. Instead of focusing on actual threats, such as the continuing one of jihad terrorism and the completely ignored 800-pound gorilla in the room, violence from Antifa and Black Lives Matter, DHS is devoting the lion’s share of its time and attention to fabricating a right-wing terror threat and using it to silence opponents of the regime. The ultimate goal is to criminalize political dissent. That’s the real message of the latest National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin. What we need now is a counterterror apparatus to protect us from the counterterror “experts.”

Berkeley-lite and the Heckler's Veto

They make all the 1st Amendment noises but still cancel the event:

The University of California Davis canceled a student-led event with Turning Point USA, featuring Stephen "MAGA Hulk" Davis, on Tuesday after fights broke out between protesters and counter-protesters.

In a statement issued Tuesday evening, the university said the event was canceled before Davis began speaking after about 100 people outside the conference center started fighting, using pepper spray, knocking over barricades, removing traffic cones and banging barricades on the glass of the venue. UC Davis claims some people fighting were wearing "Proud Boys" clothing.

Approximately 30 people were inside the venue waiting for the event to start when the fights took place, the university said.

Event canceled.  The lefties got exactly what they wanted.

They Should Be Applauded

If more lefties knew that Che was a racist and a homophobe, maybe they wouldn't be so enraptured with him:

A University of llinois Chicago official was seen on video demanding an anti-Marxist display set-up by conservative students be removed from a sidewalk at the public university. 

"There’s a difference between public property and state property," an official at the college, identified by the Young America’s Foundation as associate director of UIC’s Center for Student involvement, Vance Pierce, said in the video. "Public property is anybody can set up outside on the sidewalk, there’s no issue. But inside, we do have some policies that we’re trying to share with you."

Chapter members of the Young Americans for Freedom had established a table on a sidewalk on Oct. 10 for a YAF-sponsored event called "No More Che Day," YAF reported. The Young America’s Foundation has sponsored "No More Che Day" on the anniversary of Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara’s death at college campuses across the country for years to educate students about his "vicious campaigns to impose Communism on countries throughout Latin America."

YAF said the students were handing out literature regarding Guevara’s history at a table set up outside. 

The college students are heard pushing back on the school official’s claims, saying a sidewalk is public property. Pierce told the students that they could set up "across the street" and "do whatever," arguing that where they were located is "indoor of the circle of buildings" and "not just opened to anybody."

"Indoor of the circle of buildings."  What a tool.

This Man Is Disgusting

 If you want to know what Democrats are doing, see what they accuse Republicans of doing.

The American left are anti-American, fascist thugs.  And they're hypocrites.  There's no way around it.

And Dementia Joe is among the worst.

Biden's Thursday Speech

It was supposed to be bad, and it apparently met and exceeded expectations.  This struck home with me:

“Dark Brandon,” flanked by Marines and backed by Hellish lighting, mumbled, shouted, and emoted his way through a Hitleresque scapegoating of large swaths of the population. And his call to arms has energized all the woke and virtuous defenders of democracy, who are now demanding a one-party system and the shunning of Republicans as lesser humans. Because, in the same way you sometimes have to destroy villages to save them, sometimes you have to become an unelected Administrative dictatorship to save democracy from the benighted and filthy MAGAts who so frustratingly vote incorrectly. 

President Turnip’s speech — presented with the full backing of the Executive branch and its law enforcement and justice arms — was perhaps the most egregious speech ever given by a US president. It was more than simply divisive. It was tacit permission to treat those who don’t favor progressive governance as enemies of the State. It’s the summer of 2020 with presidential approval. It’s dangerous. It’s unconscionable.

As for what Biden said:

 

Update, 9/5/22:  Hard to disagree with any of this:

Joe Biden gave a speech last week in which he gave lip service to things that Democrats don’t actually believe in, e.g., the Constitution and the rule of law, as a pretext to accuse Republicans — all 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump — of being a “threat to our democracy.”

Biden spoke in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, a gesture by which he attempted to identify himself as defending the founding principles of America when, in fact, he and his party are against those principles and are doing everything in their power to destroy America.

Biden does not deceive us. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who spent the summer of 2020 tearing down statues of our nation’s Founding Fathers. It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have denounced the Electoral College as undemocratic, just as it is Democrats, not Republicans, who endanger Supreme Court justices whose rulings they don’t like. Everything good about America, Democrats seek to destroy, and everything bad in America (e.g., drug dealers, cop killers, perverts in public libraries and junkies defecating on city streets) Democrats defend.

The symbolism of choosing Philadelphia as the site of last week’s speech was perhaps more fitting than Biden realized, because Philadelphia is a city that Democrats have absolutely ruined.

If you want to know what the Democrats are doing, just listen to what they accuse the Republicans of doing and you won't be far off. 

Yes, I believe there was rampant cheating in the 2020 election, and the mail-in voting from overwrought 'rona reaction made it easy.  I don't just say it, I have some evidence for my belief.  There were four areas that were going to be close--Georgia, Wisconsin, and I believe Michigan and Pennsylvania.  When I went to bed at 10pm, President Trump was leading in all four of those areas.  When I woke up at 2am, he was still leading comfortably in those areas.  By the time I woke up at 6am, he had "lost".  It's not such a leap to think that shenanigans occurred overnight.

At least I have some reason to believe what I believe.  Bush/Gore 2000?  Stacey Abrams?  Granny Boxwine?  There's no evidence in those, just carping at a loss--but only we Trump supporters are dangers to the country by suggesting one side cheated.  In fact, here is a video showing 10 minutes of Democrats' saying outright that President Trump cheated to win in 2016, that he was in league with Putin of Russia, etc, all without a shred of evidence (or decency).  They're disgusting.

If you want to know what the Democrats are doing, just listen to what they accuse the Republicans of doing.  I don't know about any threat to "our democracy", but I do know about threats to the Republic and what side of the aisle they're coming from.

Update #2, 9/14/22:  Via Instapundit:

Democrats Are Quite Comfortable Being Violent Extremists. “The Democrats’ ongoing fairy tale about the nonexistent right-wing domestic threat is on my last nerve now, especially since we all know that the real dark evil in this country is lurking on the left. It’s not even on the fringes.”

These Results Don't Surprise Me At All

I’ve often found that those on the right are much more open-minded than those on the left:

Almost half of second-year college students say they wouldn’t choose to be roommates with someone who supported a different presidential candidate than they did in 2020...

Democratic respondents are much more opposed to rooming with someone who voted differently in 2020 (62% of them say they would “probably not” or “definitely not” room with such a person) than Republican respondents are (28%).

Some of us truly support diversity, others just say they do.

I Never Thought This Day Would Come In My Lifetime

 

A screenshot from CNN today:

The horror, the horror.

Update, 6/27/22:  It's hard to disagree with this, despite the in-your-face attitude:

You don’t like the decisions yesterday and today (Bruen and Dobbs)?

You’re really not going to like the next part.

I mean, it’s your fault, but you’re not going to like it. 

 

See, we were cool with the status quo.

Yeah, we wanted abortion to go back to the states. Yeah, we wanted gun rights expanded. Yeah, we wanted our kids safe from LGBTQ indoctrination.

But it wasn’t enough to fight about. 

 

We thought you were like us, that we could argue and make small gains and lose some ground but everything staying fairly level and levelheaded.

But boy, were we wrong.

Because while we were copacetic and just going along to get along, you were pushing. 

 

You pushed abortion. From “legal, safe, and rare in these specific instances”, you pushed now to the point of post birth abortion on demand for any reason. 

 

You pushed gun control. From “background checks and gun free zones” to now “red flag laws” which deny due process. 

 

You pushed “the rights of gay marriage” to now the “right of LGBTQ teachers telling kindergarteners about their sex life.” 

 

And during all of this, you pushed disagreeing politically to calling us Nazis and justifying violence against us, justifying harming our families and our jobs. 

 

So now, we push back.

Today's Big Rumor

If it's truly a leak, it's one of the most malicious ever to happen to the Supreme Court.  Politico is reporting that the Court is preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade:

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives"...

The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.

Bet you weren't expecting news like that when you woke up this morning, were you? 

Anyway, I would agree with this ruling.  Roe is bad law, was a product of its time, and needs to be overturned.  I see no protection for abortion in the Constitution, and the states are the appropriate place for this debate to be held.  To me that's a conservative view.

Update:  A friend texted, "You're about to see how truly evil the modern Left is at every level."  Yep.

Update #2:  From Instapundit:  

A friend comments: “Whatever position you may have on the issue, leaking a draft SCOTUS opinion to try to change the outcome of a case is a new level of brinksmanship that speaks to the hyperpoliticization of law schools and an accompanying valorization of ‘activism’ in higher ed.”

Assuming this was leaked by a clerk, the leaker should never work in law again. It’s a betrayal of the highest order. But, of course, professionalism has proven to be weak sauce indeed when it comes to restraining activism.

Ben Shapiro Talks To Bill Maher

I've mentioned before how much I used to enjoy Phil Donahue, a rabid leftie talk-show host who had a great show because he and his guests, rather than yelling at each other, would discuss their differences rationally.  I really enjoyed Phil Donahue and Milton Friedman:

In the following video, Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher have a similar type of mature conversation:

One Professor Speaks Up

We used to expect Ivy League students to be "a cut above"; nowadays, we expect them to be left-wing whiners:

Yale Law School students were upset that an accomplished conservative attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom came to campus recently.

But Professor Kate Stith gave them some advice according to the Yale Daily News: “Grow up.”

The March 10 protest, which included walking out of a speech by ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, also included a question from a student who asked about “the price of a dead trans kid.”

Waggoner successfully represented Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker targeted by homosexual activists, in front of the Supreme Court. She is general counsel to ADF, which regularly wins in front of the Supreme Court.

Professor Stith demonstrated a view of free speech that was common during my formative years but is sorely lacking in academia today.

What Is The Proper Role of Government?

I go with the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

That's it.  The role of government is to secure your natural rights.

Lefties don't quite see it that way, according to the former US Attorney General:

“Under liberal democracy,” he writes, “it is not the role of the state to use its coercive power to remake man and society according to some abstract conception of perfection.” 

The modern left, the former attorney general concludes, has an “incipient totalitarian style” that is “poisoning America’s political life.” The left has adopted “the same kind of revolutionary and totalitarian ideas that propelled the French Revolution, the Communists of the Russian Revolution, and the Fascists of twentieth-century Europe.”

He's right on both points.