According to Pollak, Breitbart embodies Biko’s “simple credo”: “I write what I like.”

Those are five inspiring words in the context of a protest against a tyrannical government, but when one likes to write false, manipulative things, as Breitbart does, I dare to suggest they are somewhat less noble.

Of course, Pollak thinks that Breitbart (and Pollak himself) are protesting against a tyrannical government: that of the Democrats in Washington. Says Pollak:

Last week, my opponent, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), called on me to denounce Andrew Breitbart and to end any further association with his website, BigGovernment.com.

Her attack was typical of a corrupt Washington elite that believes it is entitled to tell people what to say and where to say it.

So, you see, calling on a political opponent to renounce his association with a craven liar is tantamount to silencing the protests of an oppressed minority group.

One wonders how Pollak fared in Constitutional Law at Harvard. See how he cleverly interprets Schakowsky’s challenge (she is telling people “what to say and where to say it”) to suggest that she is threatening Pollak’s freedom of speech? Pollak then gets on his high horse: “The First Amendment is not a perk for members of Congress and their spouses.”

But it’s no violation of the First Amendment to criticize a person’s writings and associations. Schakowsky wasn’t suggesting that, if Pollak continued to contribute to Breitbart’s website, she’d move to have the website shut down. She was simply suggesting that the voters would punish him. And, judging from the make-up of the Illinois 9th, she’s probably right.

I guess when you’re running against an incumbent who won her last election with 75% of the vote, you need to do anything you can to stand out. Apparently, for Pollak, this includes throwing out everything he learned (or didn’t) in law school.

In quoting Biko’s admirable maxim, Pollak isn’t being a freedom fighter. He’s being a child.

Photo credit: Wikipedia