THE AUDACITY OF ROPE-A-DOPE

Saint Obama made his "big speech" about race in America, yesterday, entitled A More Perfect Union. As he usually does, he made a wonderful speech. There are few better public speakers than Barak Obama. And, on the surface at least, he seemed to "transcend" the racial divide in America, while trying to put paid to the hateful rhetoric of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.




That was the style, anyway. But what about the substance? Yes, let's look at the substance of his wonderful speech.


He starts out, pretty accurately, looking at our Founding, and how slavery was one issue that was deferred for "at least twenty years". That much was true.


Unfortunately, he left out the genius of the Founding Fathers and how they minimalized the power of the slave states with the infamous "three-fifths rule", wherein blacks in the slave states, who were already forbidden to vote, would count as three-fifths of a vote when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. No, the Founding Fathers didn't actually believe that blacks were less than whites. But the Southern states, the slave states, were left with fewer votes in the House, thereby hastening the eventual abolition of slavery in the newly minted United States.



Still, Obama was quite accurate when he described America as a nation that seeks "a more perfect union", that seeks always to improve itself. It's just his ideas of improvement and perfection that I find problematic.



After this brief, if not misleading, history, we are regaled with Obama's personal history. This is the sort of story that proves the lie of the Modern Civil Rights Industry, Inc. With all the strikes against him (bi-racial parents, single mother, raised by his grandparents, etc.) there should be no possibility of him reaching for the White House. That is, if we were to believe the various Professional Victims of the MCRI, Inc.



Yet, here is Obama. He's at, or very nearly so, the pinnacle of American politics. He's highly educated, he's rather wealthy, despite his sweetheart deals with Tony Rezco. His wife sits on some very powerful corporate boards, which she advises her listeners not to aspire to.



I still believe that Obama will win the election in November against John McCain, provided Hillary doesn't steal the nomination. But should he lose, it will not be racism. It will be the rejection of his Liberal agenda.



At this point in the speech, Saint Obama seems to make a few oblique references to the vile and hateful teachings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

...we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary
language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial
divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our
nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?
Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors,
priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Fine enough. But I don't recall any sermons from my church experience that accused America of inventing AIDS, or wantonly incinerating thousands, or purposely selling drugs to imprison minorities.


Obama goes on to cite the good that Rev. Wright has done:

The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me
to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one
another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his
country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest
universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a
church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing
the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and
scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from
HIV/AIDS.

Forgive me, but isn't this a little like saying Hitler wasn't all that bad? After all, look at the Volkswagen or the fact that the trains ran on time. Louis Farrakhan told his followers to get educated, take care of the children you father, and follow Islam. That didn't change the fact that he was a bigot, and anti-Semite, and un-American. What we have here is the minimization of Rev. Wright's horrible beliefs, with the over exaggeration of his virtues.



Obama, though, stays loyal to his pastor, but less so to his grandmother:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

There goes grandma, right under the bus. Grandma, you see, was also a racist. Basically, she is racist because she said the same things about passing black men that Jesse Jackson so famously once said. What's worse, he took the private comments by an old woman (who, God help her, is alive to see her grandson publicly humiliate her) and equated them with, as James Taranto observed, was a "systematized black liberation theology." Simply put, the man is shameless.



Charliein wrote to Montag's World, that "...he can't disown his blood relative, but he never had to embrace his pastor by naming him to his campaign." Truer words have never been uttered.

Suddenly, Obama goes off the rails entirely, trying to "me-too" the debate:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most
working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been
particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

Uhh... where to begin on this one? First, the Reagan Coalition was forged from more than affirmative action and Political Correctness, although they were a part. Let's not forget the near despair Americans viewed their nation after Nixon and Carter, after the idiocy of the welfare state, the crushing taxation and over-regulation that it entailed. Of course, were Saint Obama to actually mention any of those things, he would have to find some other way to sell his social utopian visions for America's future.



Which, he is quick to add, are just what we Americans need to overcome the "divisiveness" (he used this word a lot in this speech) of racial issues today.

So, in a nut shell:

• Rev. Wright's speech is a result of past racism in America, an expression of black bitterness.
• White antipathy to Liberal solutions (affirmative action, welfare, bussing, etc.) are the result of their misunderstanding of the real issues.
• Both blacks and whites need to cool their rhetoric while voting for Saint Obama who is going to bring "change" by supporting the same old policies that caused all that white angst.
• Grandma just has to understand the "bigger picture" and not be upset that her grandson just humiliated her on national television.

Yup! This is what Saint Obama is all about. This is the Audacity of Rope-a-Dope. Disavow vaguely "controversial" comments, tear grandma a new one, blame white America, change the subject.

And, of course, offer himself, messiah-like, as the solution.

Are you buying any of this?

Copyright March 19th, 2008

PC THOUGHT CONTROL

Many of our friends on the Left decry the alleged Conservative takeover of the United States. These are the same folks who claim that every Democratic electoral loss was actually stolen by the GOP, that President Bush actually blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, that our efforts to fight the War on Terror are rounding up Liberals wholesale and having them waterboarded. To listen to these delusional folks, you'd think it was Adolph Hitler himself who is running this country.

Actually, many of them make that claim, calling the President "Chimpy W. Bush-itler" and other such nonsense. They really believe that the government is run by the corporations, while simultaneously advocating for more and more government control over our lives. And they see no contradictions in these mutually exclusive views. It's quite stunning, don't you think?

But what is the truth? Who is it that is really trying to reign in our Liberties? Let's look at five different examples. Let's see who it is that is really declaring war on Freedom.

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission issued guidelines to the holders of broadcast licenses. While there was no outright ban on controversial speech, the license holders had to balance each opinion aired on their stations. The logic for such controls was that there were only a limited few broadcast wavelengths available with the technology of the time, hence there were only a few choices available to the news/information consumer. Therefore, some effort had to be made to make even unpopular viewpoints available.

This policy was in effect until 1985. The Supreme Court had previously ruled, in the 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Co, Inc. v. The FCC, that the Fairness Doctrine was a necessary regulation, but many journalists became troubled by the apparent violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press. Many were concerned that a "forced fairness" by the FCC was the exact antithesis of free speech. What happened was, instead of trying to find "contrasting viewpoints" to make a story "fair", journalists simply avoided covering any issue that was controversial. In other words, all discussion of controversial issues was ended. While this can, perhaps, be contrued as "fair", it certainly doesn't amount to informative broadcasting.

By the early 1980's, things began to change dramatically. First of all, the scarcity argument (there are only a very few frequencies available, therefore we have to enforce "fairness") became moot with the proliferation of cable television, more and more radio stations, and the gradual rise of the Internet, although the Internet didn't become truly influential until the 1990's. The second major change was political. The nation as a whole had been moving away from the idea of government as a regulatory body. The 1980's was the Age of Deregulation.

The FCC, in a 1985 document entitled The Fairness Report, found that the Doctrine "chilled" debate of controversial issues, rather than made the discussion more balanced. The Supreme Court in 1987 revisited the matter in Merideth Corp. v. The FCC, and found that, since the Fairness Doctrine was not a legislation of Congress, the FCC did not, in fact, have to enforce it. That year, the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine.

Today, with many hundreds of radio stations, with satellite radio, cable, and the Internet, there is even less need for the Fairness Doctrine. Yet, our friends on the Left demand its return. Why? The simple truth of the matter is that Liberal talk radio and Liberal news outlets are failing at a stunning rate. If you can't get Air America in your market, that is simply because the network doesn't make enough money to justify its existence. I mean, these are the same folks who'll tell you that we need the National Endowment for the Arts because no one will buy a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Why should we let them force their Liberal bilge onto the airwaves?

What they really object to is the overwhelming popularity of such talk radio luminaries as Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Grant, and Ingraham. There is, in fact, no comparable market available for the likes of Randi Rhodes, Thom Harmann, or Rachel Maddow. There was one evening host on Air America that was actually giving advertising away in a contest for select Liberal businesses.

That's right, folks! They are so hard up for advertisers, due to low listenership, that they have to give advertising time away with contests!

Essentially, since they can't seem to compete in the marketplace of ideas, they have to force stations to air their programming. This, by definition, is the exact antithesis of Free Speech.

HOMESCHOOLING:

Let's say you don't like the way your public schools teach. Or you don't like the values that they try to inculcate in your children. Let's say that you can't afford send your kids to a private school that is more appropriate for your kids. Looks like you're stuck with the public schools, right?

For many parents, the only real option is homeschooling.

The United States has, for almost all its history, recognized the rights of parents to educate their children in the manner they see fit. Public education was, until recently, a matter of local jurisdiction, allowing the parents a greater control over the content and quality of the educational product they were consumers of. Since Jimmy Carter and the elevation of education to a Cabinet post, things have become more and more centralized.

They have also become more and more Liberal and secular. California, for instance, has made it a matter of law that homosexuality be taught in the schools as just another way of living. No disparaging remarks may be uttered. In fact, children wearing T-shirts with the relevant Bible verses are suspended and remanded to "sensitivity" training.

Teachers in schools all across America are discouraged, at best, often times punished, for uttering such "hateful" phrases as "Merry Christmas". On the other hand, in New York City, there is a public school that has been turned into a madrassa, an Islamic school following the teachings of the Wahabi sect, the very same sect that Ossama bin Ladin belongs to.

Many parents have turned to homeschooling their children to escape such PC thuggery. They make sure that their kids are learning their school work. Indeed, homeschoolers often out-perform public schoolers by wide margins in standardized testing. The local school boards all monitor the education of these kids, and they are all enrolled in many extracurricular activities to allow them to socialize. The school districts still collect the taxes that would otherwise be spent on educating these children, but they don't have to actually educate them.

Sounds like a win-win situation all around, doesn't it? The schools get more money per pupil, the parents get freedom from PC oppression, and kids still get a decent education. Everyone's a winner, right?

Well, in a word... no. For one thing, the school district gets federal money, separate from the local school taxes, for each pupil enrolled in public school. So, even though they aren't spending all the money they take in for education, the districts aren't getting as much as they would with the homeschooler enrolled in public school.

The economics of the situation alone should be enough for school districts to be unhappy, but it is the education establishment itself that has the real beef. You see, these are the very same Liberals who foist their PC agenda on our children. If you, as a parent, remove your child from their embrace, well... We can't have that, now. Can we?

To our Liberal Elites, homeschooling is a monstrous threat. For it liberates far too many children from the Liberal indoctrination mills that our public schools have become. Therefore, some way must be found to get these kids back in their clutches.

Fortunately (for the Liberal Elites, not for us normal folks) there are the Courts. In California, a family who had been homeschooling their kids for years were suddenly brought up on child welfare charges. Local school officials had managed to cajole some child advocate to gin up charges of neglect, since the kids weren't enrolled in a public school nor being taught by a government approved facility. They then proceeded to find a judge that would go along with this travesty.

World Net Daily reports:

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special
petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children
after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child
advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's
ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on
appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then
ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be
subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and
subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and
counseling program."

The court, of course, totally ignored the state's practice of allowing homeschooling, and the fact that the kids were enrolled in an accredited private homeschooling program. What mattered most was to get those kids into the indoctrination program ASAP. Failure to comply might result in the parents getting "re-educated".

Of course, this has struck fear into the hearts of the parents of 166,000 children in the state of California who are homeschooled today. Attorneys for the parents and for the homeschooling program vow to fight right up to the Supreme Court.

But isn't it sad that Americans have to fight their own government over the education of their children?

HATE SPEECH?

A woman in Rochester, Mn, is facing trial for felony harassment and disorderly conduct. And what did she actually do? She tried to preach Christianity to a Muslim woman. By her own admission, she said that she tried to "plant a small little seed" in the woman, telling her to Just Say No to Islam.

The Muslim woman claimed that the accused, Patricia Stockwell, threatened and menaced her. She claimed that Ms. Stockwell yelled and said she wanted to kill her. No one else witnessed the exchange, but why should we let a little matter like evidence get in the way of a good hate crime?

Obviously, the court in this matter is taking the side of the Muslim woman. So let's see what the Quran has to say about these matters:

• In Surah 2:282 we find this lovely bit of misogyny: And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205). The Hadiths clarify the Surah with this observation from the Prophet himself: The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind."
  
  Therefore, according the Quran, we shouldn't believe either of the two women and the case is moot.


• Abdullah al Araby, writing for the Islam Review, notes that, while the Quran in general forbids deceit and dishonesty, it is perfectly hunky dory to lie to infidels and other non-believers. Therefore, why should we believe this young Muslim woman?

Look, I don't want to take sides in the this particular issue, but don't you think it's a bit overboard to side with the Muslim woman over the Christian? In America? After all, most observers would agree that the case is much ado about nothing.

However, Political Correctness mandates that the majority, simply by being the majority, is automatically suspect. Therefore, in the PC worldview, the Christian woman must have been in the wrong.

So what happened to the Christian woman's right to preach? In PC, she has no right to preach!

THE PREACHER AND THE POLICE:

In Salem, Mass, a Christian preacher was arrested for preaching the Gospels on Halloween Night in 2007. Salem, you might recall, has made witchcraft something of a cottage industry, thanks to its infamy in the Salem Witch Trials. To be sure, the police didn't actually put "preaching the Gospels" on the paperwork, but that was all Michael Marcavage was doing, as shown by this video. Apparently, preaching to would-be witches and other non-Christians has now become "disorderly conduct".

But, in this brave new PC world, that is only right. Christianity is intolerant, not witchcraft. And besides, the witches were persecuted, so it's only that preacher's just desserts.

More PC thought control? You betcha'!

PICTURES OF GUN CONTROL:

This last case really takes the cake! Young Donald Miller III, 14, wore a T-shirt last December emblazoned with a picture of a gun, with the words "Volunteer Homeland Security" on the front and the legend "Special issue — Resident — Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner — No Bag Limit." on the back. He said he wore this shirt in support of his uncle, who is fighting for our freedoms in Iraq.

Well, his school, Penn Manor in Lancaster, Pa, took the view that the shirt was a threat. Said Kevin French, the school district's attorney, the policy of the schools is to foster a safe environment, where no one would feel threatened. Even a picture of a gun violates that policy.

So, this poor kid gets detention for a patriotic shirt in a time of war. He expresses his support of the Second Amendment and the defense of America, and he is threatening? Precisely whom is he threatening? An Islamo-fascist terrorist? Are there any in Penn Manor? Why aren't they in violation of school policy?

Ray Bradbury wrote the cautionary tale, Fahrenheit 451. Presciently, he predicted just the sort of dystopian thought control we are witnessing in America today. How long before our firemen start pumping kerosene?

Copyright March 9th, 2008