Recently in American Values Category

The Wall Street Journal reported on a new poll on what voters think of Republicans. Steve Moore for the WSJ reports with our italicized comments interspersed:

The first comprehensive poll on why voters voted the way they did in November has just been released by the communications firm Target Point Consulting. I received a full briefing from the pollster Alex Lundry on what these 1,000 voters think of Republicans. The short answer is: not much.

The GOP is "in great disfavor with the electorate right now. Republicans are blamed for fiscal mismanagement, overspending, and the bad economy," says Mr. Lundry.

Fiscal mismanagement when in office. Absolutely. Overspending. Absolutely. The bad economy. The burden of the party with executive power, the prior "good" economic times forgotten -- and the media never even acknowledged those good times when they were happening. As for the worldwide financial crisis we are experiencing, this was triggered by Democrats and Democratic policies on housing that Republicans unsuccessfully tried to change, but the media didn't report it that way and the fast-talking Democrats were quicker and better at pointing the finger than the Republicans -- a key Republican failing.

"Democrats are seen as a center-right party, while Republicans are seen as dominated by the right." That's a big problem because even though 84% of voters say they are center or right on the ideological spectrum, the 48% in the middle, i.e., independents, are tilting heavily toward Democrats.

This view is so hilariously wrong but nonetheless extremely disturbing. That voters think Democrats are "center-right" seems impossible, considering they nominated the most far-left senator in the party who advocates a "spread the wealth around" policy is astounding and fast-talking liberals like Barney Frank are praising expanded welfare. It shows the skill of Democratic PR aided by the left wing mainstream media. For example, the myth that man is responsible for climate change, a concept embraced by the Democratic Party, and will require actions that will thrust millions into poverty, is deemed reasonable and mainstream by the media. The Republican position that growth of the world economy is paramount and man's impact on climate is either minimal or altogether unproven is deemed by the media as extreme far-right thinking. That such false impressions have developed is proof of Republican ineptness in the age of instant media.

The fairly narrow victory by Barack Obama in the popular vote disguises an "enthusiasm gap" among Democratic and Republican voters. Some 65% of Obama voters "strongly supported" him, whereas only 33% of John McCain voters "strongly supported" the Arizona Republican. This helps explain the river of money for Mr. Obama and the massive grassroots advantage for the Democrats.

This isn't such a big problem for the long run. Voters "wanted" the first black president to show they weren't racist and Obama fanned that feeling skillfully if despicably by unfounded but effective charges of racism against Clinton and McCain. Also, McCain wasn't much of a conservative and left too many in the base sitting on their hands.

Issue by issue, when the issues are clearly understood, the Republican positions are held by a substantial majority. Telling the story well with credible spokesmen is what's needed. The handicap of the left-wing media -- and what Sam Huntington called the "de-nationalized elites" in academia and elsewhere -- is a fact that has to be addressed in all communication plans. For example, when Democrats and the elites belittle traditional American ethics and morality, patriotism and military service, and Republicans allow them to get away with it, they are missing huge opportunities. Republicans have not been forceful enough in standing up for positions that a majority of Americans agree with, fearing the backlash from the leftwing media. For example, the left wing attacks aggressively on the extreme position on gay marriage, crying "bigotry" and "denial of civil rights," and conservative spokesmen cringe instead of issuing forceful rejoinders, even though the majority of people vote for the traditional concept of marriage. But if conservaties allow the one-sided debate to continue as it is, conservative positions will be eroded, to the vast injury of American society. "Anything goes" is not an American value.

But the biggest problem revealed by the poll for Republicans is that "voters no longer believe that the party cares about the middle class in a meaningful or credible way," Mr. Lundry explains. "Democrats cleverly frame every issue as for the middle class."

Most everybody thinks they belong to the middle class. Democrats though are aiming to solidify their voting support among Americans who will be delighted with handouts from the government. The more they can make people dependent on government, the larger their support base. This is the age-old struggle between Marxist equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity that this nation was built on. Rob Peter to pay Paul. The nation is very close to having more Pauls than Peters, since so many now pay no income tax. Consequently, they have no regard for Peter, who is the middle class person footing the government bills. This is a huge problem and Obama with his pledge to "spread the wealth" will make it worse. He would transform our society into a European-style one, which is already staggering under its unsustainable socialist burdens.

What issues have Republicans hurt themselves most on? Three that jump out are immigration, where Republicans are seen as too strident; the War in Iraq, where voters are eager for closure; and bailouts, where voters have become angry and resentful at throwing money at failing giant corporations. Furthermore, as economic anxieties have escalated, independent voters are now more favorably inclined toward protectionist trade policies. Free marketeers need to make a better case for the positive benefits of international trade or more restrictions are certainly on the way.

The statements here are questionable. Overwhelmingly, Americans disapproved of all the proposed immigration plans, including McCain's and the President's. No sensible conservative proposal entered the debate; conservatives only operated at the margins or, with Tom Tancredo, at the extreme. The borders must be made secure, first and foremost. Any path to citizenship must include English and thorough Americanization and assimilation, so that the kinds of separatism and hostility shown by La Raza and the pro-Mexico rallies in Los Angeles would be disqualifying for citizenship and permanent residency. Legal immigration should be based on what America needs by way of skills rather than on family relations.

As for the economic problems and the bailouts, again it is Republican failure to characterize the situation accurately that allowed the Democrats and the media to blame the Republicans, especially the Bush Administration. Democrats instantly blamed Bush and Wall Street, when it was Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and, yes, Barack Obama, who brought on the subprime loan failure fiasco that triggered the world financial panic. To this day how many average voters knew of Bush and Senate Republican efforts to reverse Clinton subprime loan policies and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were blocked by Democrats led by Frank and Dodd and supported by Senator Obama? As for pinning Wall Street on the Republicans, that's a joke: Obama raised several times more money from Wall Street than McCain did. Republicans are for small business and entrepreneurship, not "Wall Street greed," greed that feeds Democratic coffers very generously. President Bush has often been faulted for not responding forcefully to criticism, fair and unfair, and in that respect he did serve the country and conservatism well. Unfortunately, Congress at this time doesn't have impressive Republican spokesmen to make the case, either.

Democrats and the leftwing media did a disservice to the country by politicizing the Iraq war. However, it will fade as any kind of positive issue for the Democrats and should emerge as a success that Republicans can take credit for - a tyrant and his threat to his neighbors and America removed, a democratic country functioning in the Middle East assisting in the war against violent Islam and, soon, substantially more oil in the world supply. A more aggressive response by the White House to the avalanche of Democratic criticism would have helped.

The good news is that voters are very fearful that Democrats will go too far with their liberal agenda. When voters are asked what they "like least about the Democrats," the most common answers volunteered were: "taxes going up," "big government," "liberal," "raise spending," and even "socialism." These broad economic and fiscal principles appear to present the GOP with its biggest opening.

Again, these Democratic positions will not become the albatrosses they should be unless Republicans are forceful and aggressive. They must find their voices and their spokesmen. Also, the damage that the global warning myth and the economically disastrous Democratic plans to counter it will do to the average citizen must be aggressivley exposed and discredited. This is a major issue to get on the side of the middle class against the environmental elites who own the Democratic Party.

The poll also reveals that Republicans can win back voters by opposing Democrats on several specific policies coming down the pike in 2009: card-check labor union elections, bailouts for banks and auto makers, welfare expansions and affirmative action.

Denying workers the vote in union elections is outrageous. Bailing out the auto unions, which is what will happen, is outrageous. Explaining why getting a hand up instead of a handout is better for the individual, the family and America is a challenge but must be done. As for affirmative action, the voters have just elected the first affirmative action president, so, who knows how big an issue that will be.

The key for the months ahead is for Republicans to posture themselves, advises Mr. Lundry, "not as obstructionists, but as a check on the Obama agenda."

Too many are being lulled by Obama's excellent appointment for defense and economics into thinking he will go mainstream. He will show his extremist side very soon: His pro-abortion agenda is breathtaking in its scope. He intends to expand abortion far beyond Roe v. Wade. Even some of his backers are arguing that infanticide is just an extension of abortion. His "spread the wealth" plan has the potential to expand the handout class into a majority for the Democratic Party. There are many, including minorities, particularly Hispanics, who may rebel against his cultural policies who can be captured for the conservative cause. Obama says he wants to transform America and what he is proposing, based on his Marxist socialist background and associations and his support for abortion without limits, is an ugly America.

Professor Sam Huntington of Harvard has died at 81 on Martha's Vineyard.

He was a brilliant observer of developing trends and was the first to identify the 21st Century's great challenge: the spread of Islam. He coined the phrase "the bloody borders of Islam." Wherever he looked, where Muslim lands butted up against other lands, there was violence and conflict. Now, with the enormous flood of Muslim immigrants into Europe, the bloody borders are around Muslim self-ghettoized enclaves. His original essay on "The Clash of Civilizations?" appeared in the magazine Foreign Affairs in 1993 and was expanded to book-length in 1996. HIs basic point was that conflicts of the future would be principally along cultural and religious lines, with Islam looming as the principal cause of such conflict.

In 2004 Huntington addressed an urgent developing problem for Americans in "Who Are We?" The historical strength of American, he maintained, was indeed the flow of immigrants from all over the world who adopted the American Creed -- belief in liberty, democracy and individual rights --- but a critical component too many overlooked was their immersion into American culture: becoming a citizen, a loyal American and absorbing the Anglo-Protestant culture of the Founders. According to John Fonte, "This culture includes the English language; British traditions of law, rights, and limited government; the values of dissenting Protestantism (especially its moralism and anti-hierarchical spirit, which made it different from European Protestantism); the work ethic, economic opportunity, individualism, and Christianity."

What concerned Huntington, and why he wrote the book, was "since the 1960s, powerful forces among American elites have launched a sustained effort — one that is, “quite possibly, without precedent in human history” — to “deconstruct” American national identity." These forces emphasized the origins and cultures of the immigrants, not their assimilation of American values, and also embraced the transnational -- being citizens of the world -- and denigrated loyalty to and affection for the American nation, in short, patriotism, the belief that America is an exceptional nation. (This "deconstructionist elitest" attitude is remarkably shown by President-Elect Obama -- no flag lapel pin, no saluting the flag or covering his heart during the playing of the national anthem and his "citizen of the world" speech in Berlin, to say nothing about his taking in stride Rev. Jeremiah Wright's cries of "God Damn America.")

The deconstruction efforts of what Huntington terms the "denationalized elites" to turn America into something ordinary crops up in such things as ethnic, racial and group preferences, multiculturalism, bilingualism and opposition to English as the common language. These strike at a core principle of the American Creed: the concept of equal rights for individuals regardless of race. Huntington found disturbing trends of non-assimilation among Muslim and Mexican immigrants that showed that the efforts of mulitculturalist transnational elites to deconstruct American identity were having an effect.

Any renewed effort to regularize the immigration situation, particularly with regard to the 10-12 million illegals already in this country, must include an emphasis on Americanization. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans want new immigrants to become patriotic Americans just like them. Deconstructionist elites like Alan Wolfe of Boston College, who fervently support transnational world citizenry and multiculturalism rather than Americanism, should be beaten back. Although a lifelong Democrat, Huntington was loathed by the elite multiculturalists who inhabit academica today for his views on Islam and what it is to be an American.

Huntington's perceptiveness on Islam and American identity provides a lesson for today.

Multiculturism, as promoted by Professor Wolfe and his fellow transnationals is weakening the American fabric and allowing alien cultures, such as Islam, to grow in America, when all Muslim immigrants, like all immigrans before them, should aspire to be Americans first. Islamic supremacism, the goal being world rule, can be advanced by violence or separatism and gradual infiltration. Multiculturalism allows Islam to advance. During the major immigration periods of the past, Americanization programs for immigrants were common. Whatever academics like Alan Wolfe might say, such programs should be a part of any immigration or amnesty law. The nation needs immigrants who are proud to be Americans.

May Sam Huntington, patriot, rest in peace.

The phrase "family values" has a hollow ring when talking about black families. The incredible rise in fatherless black children has been accompanied by more crime, poorer education accomplishment and lagging incomes.

Obama had no experience of his father, so he invented one in his book "Dreams from my Father." If he does nothing else as president but convince black America of the benefits and desirability of a home with both a father and a mother, he will be a success.

An Enduring Crisis for the Black Family

By Kay Hymowitz
Saturday, December 6, 2008; A15

In the nearly half-century in which we have gone from George Wallace to Barack Obama, America has another, less hopeful story to tell about racial progress, one that may be even harder to reverse.

In 1965, a young assistant secretary of labor named Daniel Patrick Moynihan stumbled upon data that showed a rise in the number of black single mothers. As Moynihan wrote in a now-famous report for the Johnson administration, especially troubling was that the growth in illegitimacy, as it was universally called then, coincided with a decline in black male unemployment. Strangely, black men were joining the labor force more, but they were marrying -- and fathering -- less.

There were other puzzling facts. In 1950, at the height of the Jim Crow era and despite the shattering legacy of slavery, the great majority of black children -- an estimated 85 percent -- were born to their two married parents. Just 15 years later, there seemed to be no obvious reason that that would change. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, legal barriers to equality were falling. The black middle class had grown substantially, and the first five years of the 1960s had produced 7 million new jobs. Yet 24 percent of black mothers were then bypassing marriage. Moynihan wrote later that he, like everyone else in the policy business, had assumed that "economic conditions determine social conditions." Now it seemed, "what everyone knew was evidently not so."

President Lyndon Johnson was deeply shaken by Moynihan's findings. Neither man was driven by sentimentality or religious conviction, but both believed that fatherlessness undermined the "basic socializing unit." Intent on sounding a public alarm, Johnson declared during a commencement address at Howard University: "When the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale, the community itself is crippled."

Unfortunately, those warnings were as prescient as they were reviled. Civil rights leaders, worried about reviving racist myths about black promiscuity, objected to what they viewed as blaming the victim. Feminists were inclined to look on the "strong black women" raising their children without men as a symbol of female autonomy. By the fall of 1965, when a White House conference on the black family was scheduled, the Moynihan report and the subject had disappeared.

But the silent treatment was the wrong medicine. Since 1965, through economic recessions and booms, the black family has unraveled in ways that have little parallel in human cultures. By 1980, black fatherlessness had doubled; 56 percent of black births were to single mothers. In inner-city neighborhoods, the number was closer to 66 percent. By the 1990s, even as the overall fertility of American women, including African Americans, was falling, the majority of black women who did bear children were unmarried. Today, 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. In some neighborhoods, two-parent families have vanished. In parts of Newark and Philadelphia, for example, it is common to find children who are not only growing up without their fathers but don't know anyone who is living with his or her biological father.

And what has this meant for racial progress? Fifty years after Jim Crow, black U.S. households have the lowest median income of any racial or ethnic group. Close to a third of black children are poor, and their chances of moving out of poverty are considerably lower than those of their white peers. The fractured black family is not the sole explanation for these gaps, but it is central. While half of all black children born to single mothers are poor, that is the case for only 12 percent of those born to married parents. At least three simulation studies "marrying off" single mothers to either the fathers of their children or to potential husbands of similar demographic characteristics concluded that child poverty would be dramatically lower had marriage rates remained what they were in 1970.

Black married couples make a median household income of $62,000, which is more than 80 percent of what white households earn and represents a gain of 13 percentage points since the 1960s. Yet overall, black household median income is only 62 percent that of white households, a mere six-point increase over the same period.

Merely walking down the aisle can't explain these differences. Rather, the institution of marriage appears to promote ideals of stability, order and fidelity that benefit children and adults alike. Those who pin their hopes for black progress on education tend to forget this. Numerous studies, when controlled for income and race, show that, on average, children growing up with single mothers are less likely to graduate from high school and go to college. And Moynihan's discovery of a negligible relationship between "economic conditions and social conditions" suggests that even increases in black male employment are not a certain cure.

Through the power of his own example, Obama presents a chance to revive what Lyndon Johnson called "the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights." Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father," conveys the economic, emotional and existential toll of growing up fatherless, and he has spoken movingly of his determination to ensure for his own children a different life. Yet tackling this issue won't be easy. When Obama gave a Father's Day speech lamenting "fathers . . . missing from too many lives and too many homes," Jesse Jackson was so incensed that he said he wanted to castrate Obama. Still, painful as the subject is, the alternative is far worse: racial inequality as far as the eye can see.

Kay Hymowitz, a contributing editor of City Journal, is author of "Marriage and Caste in America."

Saxby Chambliss won the run-off in Georgia to preserve a vital seat for U.S. Senate Republicans, holding Democrats short of a filibuster-proof 60 votes. He achieved a smashing victory, capturing 57% of the vote.

This morning Senator Chambliss was interviewed on Fox's morning program. He thanked all those Republican heavyweights who had come into the state to campaign for him -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee among others. Sarah Palin came at his invitation the day before of and the day of the election. Chamblis said this:

“You want to peak on the last day, and we had John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Governor [Mitt] Romney and Rudy Giuliani. But Sarah Palin came in on the last day and man, she was dynamite. We packed the houses everywhere we went.”

Kilmeade asked, “You saw all the heavyweights in the Republican Party show up . . . tell me about Sarah Palin. Will her popularity last?”

“I cannot see it diminishing," the senator answered. “I can’t overstate the impact she had down here. All these folks did a great job, they all allowed us to add momentum, but when she walks in a room, folks just explode. She’s a dynamic lady, a great administrator, and I think she’s got a great future in the Republican Party.”

Once again, Professor Sowell speaks clearly about the growing fascism of the left. This time he shows how the fascists operate in academia. (Hounding Lawrence Summers out of the presidency of Harvard for the unforgivable sins of supporting the return of ROTC to campus and wondering out loud if genetics had anything to do with the poor performance of females in science is another example of academic fascism at work.)

Freedom and the Left
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.

Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free.

One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college admissions committees that students do "community service."

There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate, and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted, unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community service."

The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or is not a service to the community.

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?

This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned.

But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole. You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter, both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist.

What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you."

The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities students are required to engage in under the title of "community service."

The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?

What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?

Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice, it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them receptive to the left's vision of the world.

I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.

Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.

The president-elect says he wants to "jolt" the economy. Metaphor aside, will it do any good?

Professor Thomas Sowell sees the frenzy whipped up by the media as a wonderful opportunity for politicians to spend money on their favorite groups which they will take away from those who have earned it. Could that be?

What we are talking about is a golden political opportunity for politicians to use the current financial crisis to fundamentally change an economy that has been successful for more than two centuries, so that politicians can henceforth micro-manage all sorts of businesses and play Robin Hood, taking from those who are not likely to vote for them and transferring part of their earnings to those who will vote for them . . . .

No doubt we could all use a few billion dollars every now and then. But the question of who actually gets it will be strictly in the hands of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is one of the few parts of the legacy of the Bush administration that the Democrats are not likely to criticize.

Professor Sowell's timely warning is of what looks like a good imitation of totalitarian socialism. But who can stop them?

Read "Jolting" the Economy

Victor Davis Hanson is on a roll. He had a few things he wanted to get off his chest and he did. Good food for thought.

Ten Random, Politically Incorrect Thoughts

By Victor Davis Hanson
November 24, 2008

1. Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the 'role model' diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles's Antigone in Greek or Thucydides' dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies--indeed, anything "studies"-- were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.

2. Hollywood is going the way of Detroit. The actors are programmed and pretty rather than interesting looking and unique. They, of course, are overpaid (they do to films what Lehman Brothers' execs did to stocks), mediocre, and politicized. The producers and directors are rarely talented, mostly unoriginal--and likewise politicized. A pack-mentality rules. Do one movie on a comic superhero--and suddenly we get ten, all worse than the first. One noble lion cartoon movie earns us eagle, penguin and most of Noah's Arc sequels. Now see poorer remakes of movies that were never good to begin with. I doubt we will ever see again a Western like Shane, the Searchers, High Noon, or the Wild Bunch. If one wishes to see a fine film, they are now usually foreign, such as Das Boot or Breaker Morant. Watching any recent war movie (e.g., Iraq as the Rape of Nanking) is as if someone put uniforms on student protestors and told them to consult their professors for the impromptu script.

Continue reading "TEN POLITICALLY INCORRECT THOUGHTS"

The Pilgrims had their firm beliefs in how they wanted to live and worship. With great courage and faith they sailed to an unknown land to establish a new life, relying on themselves and their ingenuity. With some help from new friends, their self-reliance created abundance and they celebrated their success with their friends in thanksgiving.

That self-reliant spirit is still alive, though it is in danger as the hand-out line in Washington lengthens. Michelle Malkin tells about a courageous woman and her courageous family who aren't "victims" looking for the government to help them. They do for themselves and feel blessed they live in a nation in which they have the opportunity to re-invent their lives following tragedy.

Ronald Reagan famously said one of the most dangerous statements ever uttered is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

The government of late -- and seemingly even more so in the immediate future -- is dictating more and more things for you to do and the bureaucrats will make sure they create as much make-work for themselves in the process as possible.

For how to make your old TV work when you MUST switch to digital this February, a helpful video has been provided by government, ah, workers.

On this Thanksgiving Day In the midst of a financial crisis and watching on television the horrors of Islamic supremacism playing out in Mumbai, there is still much to be thankful for.

Simple acts of kindness, such as the one featured on our website, are characteristic of Americans, where more charity springs from the acts of individuals and private organizations than from the government. That’s the way it should be. Government has essential functions, such as national security. What citizens can do for themselves and others the government shouldn’t do. The more reliant people become on government rather than themselves, history shows bad things happen. The Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, well-intentioned though it was, resulted in the breakdown of black family culture and individual responsibility.

Deepak Chopra, the Indian-born guru, has the answer to the Islamic threat, speaking to Larry King Thanksgiving Eve:

You know, there's 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. That's 25 percent of the population of the world. It's the fastest-growing religion in the world. We cannot, if we do not appease and actually recruit the help of this Muslim world, we're going to have a problem on our hands.

Appeasement always works, of course. Chopra overstates the size of the Muslim population somewhat (1.3 billion is the best guess). More important to understand is that Islam is principally a political ideology bent on world domination and those who have signed on to that cause are growing in number each year due to the spread of Koranic education financed worldwide by Saudi Arabia. Muslims as never before are learning exactly what the Koran says and Mohammad commanded – unrelenting war against non-Muslims till Islam rules the world. Islam needs a reformation, but there is no institution or device to make this happen, since Islam officially has no clerics, no hierarchy. Also, since the Koran is held by Muslim scholars to be the immutable word of God, there is no good way to “interpret” the Koran differently from the way it has been interpreted over the last 1400 years. Rather than adapting Islam to modern times, Islam is returning to the literal reading of the Koran and Mohammad’s words.

Our Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, one of the key architects of the subprime housing bubble and its collapse that brought on the worldwide credit crisis, is wrong again, calling for a 25% cut in defense spending at a time of unprecedented danger. Muslim pirates are threatening the world’s supply of oil, India’s largest city is paralyzed by Islamic terrorism, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Russia is making threatening noises and China is rapidly building its military might. New rumors swirl about a possible Islamic terrorist attack in New York City over the holidays. Cut defense?

The president-elect is now getting the same briefings as the President on Russia, Iran and Islamic piratical and terrorist attacks and threats, so it can be hoped reality will temper such dangerous Democratic rhetoric.

Here's to many Happy Thanksgivings ahead.

Power Line carries a Thanksgiving message sent by an extraordinary soldier Tom Cotton serving in Afghanistan, reminding us all of the blessing it is to live in such a great country and to honor those who have given so much to make Americal what it is.

Thanksgiving provides a good opportunity to do something to honor those who have sacrificed to keep this country safe and free. Of the many organizations supporting our men and women in the service of our nation, these three are highly recommended:

Soldiers' Angels

Injured Marines

Wounded Warriors

Links to their sites are to the right.

At this time of giving thanks, it is good to dwell on one aspect of American civilization that is quite different from, say, European civilization. In Europe, it is the government which provides for the welfare of people. Since the government does, ordinary citizens do not. Dependency on government grows and inertia spreads to those receiving welfare and those who let the government do the work

In America much of the charity flows from private sector individuals and organizations. And recipients know that other people voluntarily gave money or did work to help them have a better life. Community works.

What evokes this observation is a true story that hit the email box today.

It's always amazing to hear what one person can do.

A University of Notre Dame graduate living in the Lower Cape (and a member of the Notre Dame Club of Cape Cod) learned that the University was urging alumni groups and students to gather clothing to send to Haiti, which had suffered devastating blows from recent hurricanes. She thought she would see what she could do. Over the past several weeks she made calls, sent emails and contacted hundreds of people with her appeal for clothing for Haitians. The effects of her her astonishing commitment and success will soon be felt in Haiti. Her email today (name withheld for privacy purposes):

Other than offering our prayers for the U.S. Air Force pilots' safe trip to and from Haiti, we have completed our part in the “Hands & Hope for Haiti” project. The last few weeks were incredibly hectic with respect to the clothing drive. Consequently, I didn’t have a chance to inform everyone of the generous gift we received from Siracusa Moving & Storage Co. I had planned on driving our clothing donations to Youngstown on 11/22. I estimated our anticipated expenses for the truck rental, gas, and one-night accommodations at approximately $1,100. Just 1½ weeks prior to departure date, we received word from Ted Horan ’81, of Hartford, that his friend Dan Siracusa offered to have his moving company transport our boxes from Hartford to Youngstown free of charge. What a gift! I only had to get our boxes from the Cape to Hartford and, for that, Penske Truck provided us with a truck. We had to pay Penske only the insurance & environmental fees which came to approximately $95. With gas, our transportation costs were about $160. Those individuals who contributed gifts to help cover transportation expenses all asked that I keep their contributions and put them toward some other area of the clothing drive. I received all donors’ approval to purchase underwear for the people of Haiti.

On Nov. 19, I drove over 250 banana boxes of clothing, (including almost $900 worth of new underwear!), to Hartford. The Siracusa Moving & Storage truck met me at Jim Smith’s house and, within 45 minutes, the movers loaded our more than 6,500 lbs. of clothing onto their truck. The clothing arrived safely in Youngstown on Friday morning, Nov. 22., and will be transported to the Dominican Republic on Dec. 5. The Dominican Republic’s 64 Rotary Clubs will transport the clothing to designated locations throughout Haiti.

In closing, I have to tell you I was more amazed every day by the generosity of so many. When I thought I was done folding and sorting, more clothes appeared on my doorstep. The beauty of your compassion and selfless giving quickly extinguished any feeling of being overwhelmed I may have had when my kitchen and family room floors were piled knee-high with clothes. Truly, this project snowballed more than I imagined it ever would. Every day was different and as new ideas unfolded, each one seemed to multiply our efforts exponentially.

On behalf of our brothers and sisters in Haiti, I thank you for your generous outpouring of love and compassion. “When I was naked, you gave me your coat.”

Happy Thanksgiving and, again, a very heart-filled thanks to all of you!

L.........

N.B. Since our club has helped Pope John Paul II High School, I thought you should know how the students have “given back”. The Student Council organized a mini-drive and asked all students to donate clothing for Haiti. They did a super job collecting, sorting and folding clothing for us. The kids were great and actually seemed to have fun doing this. While speaking with Chris Keavy [the principal], he expressed his appreciation for all our club has done for the school. As he said, we’ve got a win-win relationship.

On this Thanksgiving, we can all give thanks for the wonderful work of this woman who thought that just maybe she could do something for others. As the magnitude and demands of the project grew, she rose to the challenge.

What an example for all of us. One person can make a difference.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Ronald Reagan used the image of the three-legged stool to describe American conservatism: national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Lose one and the stool collapse.

Looking at the election picture nationally, McCain/Palin, despite all the financial mess, media bias and inept McCain campaigning (and position on issues such as global warming and illegal immigration), received a majority of the white vote, though 54% of (hopefully, just ignorant) Catholics and 78% of the (delusionally unconcerned about Israel) American Jews voted for Obama. Blacks full of pride voted upwards of 95% for Obama as did a majority of non-white Hispanics. (Statistics for other groupings, such as Asians, will be forthcoming in due course.)

Altogether, 56 million voted for the Republican ticket, which is a big number. Obama's vote was around 63 million, a bit above what President Bush received in the last election (62 million). All things considered, that wasn’t bad. Conservatism is far from dead, though it took a bad body blow due to the economic situation and Congressional excesses and departure from principles over the last four years as well as the weakness of the Republican ticket.

Of the various things written and said after the election, Victor Davis Hanson probably comes closest to correctly analyzing the results. As is usually the case, he writes with brilliant clarity and good sense.

His very important observations about Hispanics being far from a lost cause for conservatism are made from deep experience. Hanson and his forebears for several generations were farmers in California’s Central Valley just south of Fresno, where grapes are grown to produce most of America's raisens. He has witnessed -- and suffered from -- the massive, mostly illegal, immigration of Mexicans into the area to work in the fields.

He has written a compelling indictment of the government’s failure to enforce immigration laws ("Mexifornia"). Hanson does not oppose immigration, but believes, as many conservatives do, that the nation has the right to select its immigrants, not have them descend on us through open borders. Legal Mexican immigrants and their descendants tend to be family oriented, religious and conservative by nature and want to become good Americans. Many of them, like many if not most non-Hispanics, oppose the flood of illegal immigration, which is bringing a great deal of crime with it, and, who knows how many would-be terrorists.

But his analysis is about a lot more than this large and growing bloc of voters. He believes that young minorities as well as whites, when they grow older and have families, naturally become more conservative. Some Republicans in Congress and elsewhere in high place did not distinguish themselveds as men of moral character. They did not live up to conservative principles or standards and that hurt. In addition, the conservative message is one of optimism and equal opportunity and for a strong America and, with some reworking in novel ways, should resonate with today's younger adults.

The key is not to abandon conservative positions, but to explain them in novel ways to the majority who might find them more in tune with human nature — and consequently more humanitarian than their usual caricatures of being too selfish, tough, or insensitive. . . .

Conservatism also applies to bearing and comportment. There was something repugnant about greedy CEO and speculators on Wall Street wildly raking in hundreds of millions under the guise of “free-market conservatism” — as if Ace hardware store owners, truck drivers, and farmers would find them kindred spirits. Conservatism’s social message used to be something like “Don’t do all the things that you are otherwise free to do” or “Just because we don’t make all your appetites illegal, does not mean that some are not immoral.” Conservative populism is not anti-intellectualism at all, but rather a disdain for excess and arm-chair elitism.

In short, explain why conservatism appeals to the innate values of most ordinary Americans and the squabbling about the proper message disappears.

November 21, 2008, 1:00 a.m.

What Went Wrong?
Well, it wasn’t conservatism.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Continue reading "LOOKING BACK AT THE ELECTION -- CONSERVATISM LIVES"

Iraq has dropped off the front pages because it's a success, a success that many thought not possible. American deaths in Iraq last month were half the violent deaths in Chicago. With an agreement in place, Iraq can now assume more responsibility for its future, but knows it needs the U.S. Armed Forces helping until at least 2011.

William McGurn was President Bush's speechwriter until early this year, so he had an intimate view of what went on at the highest White House levels. Without question, he says, it was Stephen Hadley who inside the government singlehandedly made success possible by proposing and advocating for what became known as the "surge." McGurn believes that Hadley has earned the gratitude of the nation and should be awarded the Medal of Freedom. Perhaps, he surmises, President Bush will do that before he leaves office, but how fitting and symbolic it would be if this award were bestowed by the new president. Why does he think that?

McGurn explains.

Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 18, 2008

Mr. Obama, Give That Man a Medal

Stephen Hadley offered the option of victory in Iraq.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Stephen Hadley

I suppose it's possible that George W. Bush would award Stephen J. Hadley the Medal of Freedom. Certainly the president's national security adviser has earned it, for work that made possible the success we are now seeing in Iraq. And it would be within the president's prerogative to see that work acknowledged with this honor before they both leave the White House come Jan. 20.

But how much better it would be all around -- for the country, for the recipient, and even for Barack Obama -- if Mr. Hadley were to receive this honor from the hands of the 44th president of the United States.

Continue reading "OBAMA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW GRATITUDE FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE SURGE"

As the bailout rolls on, a real difference in philosophy is emerging in the case of the auto industry. Democrats want to use bailout money to "save" the industry. The White House and Congressional Republicans oppose that, saying that reviving credit for all is what the bailout was intended for and money should be limited to that sector.

Democrats, eager for a European-style socialist economy, or worse, want to keep the U.S. auto companies afloat pretty much as they are. Those who know how bloated and unsustainable the costs of the industry are say that bankruptcy is a far better solution, as it has been for other industries and companies, including large ones such as the airlines. In bankruptcy, companies keep operating but work together with their creditors and all other involved parties and the court to fashion a solution for sensible survival. All parties generally have to give up something to make it work, including, in this case, the powerful auto unions that the Democrats are trying to continue as business as usual. It is labor costs that are sinking the U.S. auto companies, as Charles Krauthammer points out. Toyota's worker cost is $48 per hour; GM's.$73.

Also, if bailout money is used outside the credit industry, where do you stop? There is no longer any "bright line," it's who has the muscle, the clout and the connections to get on the gravy train to socialism. Let bankruptcy work and make the auto industry competitive. Asian carmakers are turning out millions of vehicles in America profitably. So can the Big Three.

The elections aren't over yet. And the outlook is grim. The Democrats are close to achieving a filibuster-proof Senate.

For those who fear Obama's extreme socialist and anti-life agenda and honor the U.S. Constitution, it is a dangerous situation. Obama has made it clear he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and should have guaranteed not equal opportunity but "fair" wealth redistribution. He has said he would appoint radical judges to the Supreme Court who have "empathy" for African-Americans and others he considers disadvantaged to "interpret" the Constitution the way he wants. He clearly prefers giving those he wishes to benefit a handout, not just a hand up. Since the money has to come from somewhere, it will clearly come from the successful and productive in society through much higher and more sharply progressive taxes. Defense and national security are likely to suffer as funds are diverted to social and income redistribution programs. The number one cause of death in the U.S. today is abortion and if Obama's pledge to Planned Parenthood to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act is realized, the number of those deaths will explode.

In the House, the solid Democrat majority will be able to ignore the minority Republicans altogether on virtualy all issues. With the filibuster threat the majority in the Senate usually has to listen to and work with the minority and that is why the Senate often tempers extreme legislation originating in the House. That won't be the case if the Republicans can routinely muster 60 votes to block filibusters. Minority Republicans will be virtually defenseless except for their ability to get their message out to the American people. You can be sure the media won't be helping them do that.

How is this happening?

Democrats appear to be attempting to steal a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. The incumbent Republican Norm Coleman had about a 1,000 vote lead over the execrable former sick comedian Al Franken when the polls closed on Election Day. Mysteriously, additional ballots turned up after the initial reporting, all favoring Franken. About half of them came from two small towns in the heavily Democratic north. 32 more ballots were "found" in a poll worker's car. Coleman's lead shrank to about 200 votes. The Power Line blog, two of whose writer-lawyers live in Minnesota, are following developments closely. A statewide recount will get underway and is estimated to take a month. The Minnesota Secretary of State who oversees elections is a Democrat who was affiliated with ACORN before his election. Coleman has already filed one lawsuit alleging fraud.

Democrats made a concerted effort to elect Democratic Secretaries of State in states in which close elections were likely (because of the closeness of party registrations and past elections) and have had considerable success. One of those targeted states was Minnesota.

In Georgia, incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss received 49.9% of the vote in a three-way race and there will be a run-off election. Democrats are sure to pour oceans of money into the race.

If Coleman and Chambliss lose, Democrats will have 59 Senate seats (with Alaska's Republican seat still undecided) and will surely be able to get the 60 votes to block Republican filibusters. There are two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who normally vote with the Democrats and the two liberal Maine Republican senators (Collins and Snowe) all too frequently side with the Democrats.

Even veteran newsmen Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose admitted on a recent Charlie Rose show that they didn't know much about Obama. Nor did most of those who voted for Obama, many of whom just wanted to elect the first non-white president of the United States, assuming he was just a "normal" Democrat and they liked the idea of "change." Well, the change we may get may not be to their liking.

Update: In Alaska absentee ballots are being counted and the Democrat has moved into the lead. The best guess is he will hold the lead. This brings the Democrat Senate total to 58 with Minnesota very much at risk because of the manipulation that is going on there. Whether Democrats move to an absolute 60 majority or not, they, with the aid of two independents, one of whom (Sanders of Vermont) will always vote with them, have now a filibuster-proof majority to be as radical as the House will be.

Catholic bishops are meeting. The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley has spoken out about the Obama election. The Boston Globe reports that "O'Malley is visibly moved by the moment, but also horrified by what he sees as Barack Obama's "deplorable" record on abortion rights." O'Malley said:

"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues, and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which, in its origins, was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them."

The Globe points out, "As a senator, Obama voted 100 percent of the time with abortion-rights organizations, according to evaluations by abortion rights groups."

Obama's record is worse than that. In 2001-2003 Obama was leading the fight in the Illinois Senate against the Born Alive Act that would require proper medical care for babies who survive a failed abortion, saying keeping the babies alive would put an unfair burden on the decision of the mother. In other words, even though no one disputes that a baby born alive is a baby, Obama still wanted the baby dead so that the "abortion" would be made effective.

And in 2007 he told his enthusiastic backer Planned Parenthood that he wanted his "first thing" (just think of that: his "first thing") as president to be signing legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) allowing abortions without limit, forcing hospitals and doctors to perform abortion despite their religious beliefs or qualms of conscience. Furthermore, the legislation he supports would require all taxpayers to pay for abortions and eliminate funding for pregancy crisis centers which help young pregnant women make informed decisions about alternatives to abortions. This is a Planned Parenthood priority because it will mean many more abortions; as the number one abortion mill in the country Planned Parenthood rakes in hundreds of millions from its abortions and is eager to increase its revenues.

Now, all of the Catholic bishops knew this before the election. A handful of them spoke out forcefully, such as the brilliant Archbishop of Denver Charles Caput, the archbishop of Philadelphia Rigali and the New York archbishop Egan. Most did nothing and few parish priests addressed the issue in sermons.

Boston's O'Malley only issued one mild weak statement in response to an inquiry from the Globe asking for his views about strong statements such as those from Chaput, Rigali and Egan. O'Malley said this:

The American people are not in favor of abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, or allowing babies who have survived an abortion to die

O'Malley, by referencing the Born Alive Act. showed he knew very well Obama's extremist position and why he is considered the most extreme pro-abortion official in the nation. While Obama was fighting that act in Illinois, the same bill passed the U.S. Congress unanimously. O'Malley deplored the tyranny of the Supreme Court, which was nice. But O'Malley also said this:

If we had the opportunity to vote as a nation, there would certainly be limitations imposed on the abortion industry that destroys not just the lives of the babies but also the lives of all involved...We pray for the opportunity to allow the American people to have a voice in such a crucial issue.

Well, Cardinal, your statement was issued on October 30th, less than a week before Catholics would have the opportunity to voice their position on Election Day, but you failed to mention that opportunity.

Pope Benedict and his predecessors have made it crystal clear that abortion is a moral evil on an unarguable level totally different from and above such moral questions as those about war, death penalty, poverty, racial preferences and so on, where Catholics and others may reasonably differ.

One Catholic priest confided he was going to vote for Obama. His listener expressed shock, saying, How can you vote for someone who had announced he will remove all limits on abortion and would force Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions? Wouldn't that be a grave sin? The priest replied, "Oh, well, he'll change." Sure.

How widespread was such self-delusion? Exit polls indicate that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama/Biden. (88% of Evangelicals voted for McCain/Palin.)

So now O'Malley is "horrified." A bit late.

Continue reading "CATHOLIC BISHOPS FAIL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO LIFE"

In 1775 the establishment of the U.S. Marines was approved by the Continental Congress. In their honor, God Bless America.

And remember the injured Marines needing help. Semper Fi Fund.

Hard-headed British columnist Melanie Phillips provides good advice to American conservatives in the wake of the Obama victory. She cites the disaster that has been building in Britain over recent decades -- and is still building -- hastened along greatly by the ascendency into high office by Labour's charismatic leader Tony Blair, whose arrival was hailed almost as messianically as Obama's. Similar, or worse, damage looms with Obama:

Obama has talked about remedying what he sees as the flaws in the U.S. Constitution which promotes only “negative liberties,” or freedom from something rather than positive rights to something. Well, through human-rights legislation Britain has exchanged its historic concept of “negative” liberty — everything is permitted unless it is actively prohibited — for the ‘positive’ European idea that only what is codified is to be permitted.

As a result, freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits. Equality legislation has cemented a “victim culture” under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (black people, women, gays ) trump those deemed to be powerful (white people, men, Christians). Since this doctrine holds that the “powerless” can do no wrong while the “powerful” can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups is vilified as a racist or bigot.

Her warning should be read in full and printed out to post above the desk as a constant reminder.

Read it all:

Preventing National Suicide

By Melanie Phillips

Continue reading "A BRIT WARNS: DON'T LET OBAMA DESTROY AMERICAN VALUES"

Posted by Republican on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 10:52 AM | Comments (0)
Email This | DIGG This | del.icio.us | Facebook | Stumble It