Tolerance for dissent depends on the dissension

The Left loves to toss around their right to dissent. They dissent against defending the country. They dissent against the Second Amendment. They dissent against private property. They especially love to accuse political opponents of stifling dissent whenever their views are rejected.

However, for the Left to appreciate and defend dissent it must conform to their approved criteria. In short, they dissent against dissent. Let’s look at it.

Remember when protesting the war was the Leftist’s favorite pastime? Protesters dressed in black pajamas, just like Hamas or Hezbollah militants, and flew the flags of our enemies. Mock graveyards adorned with red crescents were erected. US flags were set ablaze and used to burn effigies of American soldiers, which were suspended with chains.

When conservatives countered their lunacy with rational arguments we were accused of abridging the protester’s free speech, of stifling their dissent. The charge was nonsensical. Free speech is simply that: the freedom to speak. It conveys no right of audience, agreement or acceptance.

Conservatives didn’t close anti-war protests, we just disagreed. As long as the protesters didn’t aid our enemies or deny other Americans their right to conduct their lives, they could have their say.

But the Left doesn’t view conservative dissension with like tolerance, or with tolerance at all. Conservatives must be silenced. It’s a lesson Loren Spivack has experienced firsthand.

Mr. Spivack operated the Free Market Warrior, a kiosk at Concord Mills Mall in Concord, NC. I use the past tense because his lease has been terminated and his small shop closed. No, his rent wasn’t in arrears and his kiosk structure didn’t violate mall policy. In fact, he was never given reasons for his eviction, only excuses. Each explanation mall management provided was fraught with inconsistency.

The Free Market Warrior’s great offense was selling material unfriendly to Barack Obama and baby bibs that read “Thanks Mom and Dad for choosing life.” Such items were deemed offensive. Yet other stores at Concord Mills sell items promoting drug use, disrespect for parents, oral sex, masturbation and other sexual innuendo. As for complaints about Loren’s “offensive” items, there were two.

This isn’t a First Amendment issue, which Loren readily recognizes. Government didn’t silence the Free Market Warrior just as government didn’t silence war protesters, regardless of what the Left claims. Concord Mills, owned by Simon Properties, is a private entity and can regulate what is sold on its property.

Conservatives recognize such property rights even when used to our detriment. Leftists don’t. And there’s no questioning Simon Properties’ left-wing bias. Just consider CEO Melvin Simon’s history.

Melvin Simon contributes heavily to left-wing causes and political candidates. He has given to Democrat candidates, Democrat PACs and organizations such as Emily’s List. Very few Republicans have received so much as a dime from Mr. Simon.

That’s fine, it’s his money and he can do with it what pleases him. But his history does lend credence to the argument that Loren Spivack was politically targeted, which wouldn’t be acceptable if the shoe were on the other foot.

Equally contradictory is Mr. Simon’s aforementioned wealth, produced through the capitalist entrepreneurialism that his preferred candidates vilify at every turn. Furthermore, Simon’s contributions went to many staunchly anti-Second Amendment politicians. Why, then, doesn’t Simon Properties find the large array of firearms sold at Bass Pro Shops--Concord Mills’ anchor tenant--offensive? That one is easy; Bass Pro Shops generates more revenue than did Loren’s kiosk.

As stated, Simon Properties can do as it will with its malls and its money. But you can bet the farm that if a conservative-minded property group evicted a liberal tenant for similar reasons all Hades would boil over. Yet again, “dissent” proves to be the Left’s playground while conservatives are silenced whenever possible.