A vote for victimization

I have spent much proverbial ink making the case against Barack Obama, something that hasn't been difficult for me given the clear and compelling character deficiencies he has-- not to mention the horrific policies he will pursue as president. For anyone who has been paying attention and who really understands what Obama represents, opposing the Democrat in this election is a no brainer. Of course, brains are hard to come by in our electorate -- even among the so-called intellectual class among the left, who live in a world of idealism and good intentions. For them, Obama is a "righteous wind" of soaring rhetoric that fulfills their fondest ideals of an America of perfect equality. But these "intellectuals" live in their own world of privilege and money; for them, "equality" is a concept that they preach but don't live. It's easy to be a leftist in a limousine. Just ask anyone in Hollywood. For them, a vote for Obama absolves all manner of guilt and enables them to go on making millions without feeling so badly about it. Wow. Isn't America a great country?   For those of us who don't make millions but run businesses in the real world -- who strive to make enough to retire early and enjoy the fruits of our labor -- John McCain is the only choice in this election. McCain is a man of principle and courage, who understands that America is an exceptional country built on hard work and the promise of reward. It is not a nation of economic redistribution and social welfare, but one of individual liberty. McCain will not forsake those in need for greed; but neither will be forsake those who prosper in favor of those who choose not to make something of their life. Note I use the word "choose" here, because I believe that many in our society have chosen to succumb to the narrative that they are victims, that opportunity doesn't exist, and that they must depend on government to help them.   This is nonsense. Opportunity exists for everyone in this country -- from the poorest whites in West Virginia to the poorest blacks in South Los Angeles. Education is free -- including community colleges, which provide an excellent two-year degree for virtually nothing. It only takes an understanding that as an individual you have only ONE life to live; you can sit and sulk at the injustice of it all, or you can take advantage of the opportunities available and make something of yourself. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? Absolutely.   My father grew up dirt poor during the Great Depression with little material wealth. But he had guts and determination, and decided that he would not let his circumstances control his destiny. He studied hard in school -- while working odd jobs to help his family pay the bills -- and won a national merit scholarship to the University of Chicago at the age of 16. At an age when most kids today are playing video games in their basement, my dad went off to college to study Latin and the humanities. He struggled mightily. But he didn't give up, eventually earning his Ph.D. from UCLA. My dad's odds were long but he knew that no one would help him if he didn't help himself.

That is the promise of America. It is not a story of dependence, but one of courage and determination. It is a story of self reliance and personal responsibility. And it is a story that is being slowly but inexorably lost today. We are fast becoming a nation of children who want to be coddled and excused when we make mistakes. Its always someone else's fault -- from poverty to crime to the housing mess. We are now in the age of victimization.   And a vote for Obama will be a vote for victimization, for this is a man who has spent his entire life working to reinforce the idea that race and class are the prime obstacles in people's lives. He is all about cultivating inequality and using it as a cudgel with which to remake society in the image of his deepest fears of an oppressive white establishment with an exploitative economic system. His view of our country is based on the politics of black and white -- regardless of how he has spun his "hope filled" campaign. Barack Obama has cast himself as a mainstream candidate, but his past and his proclivities are decidedly on the fringe of the Democratic Party.   The impact of an Obama victory will be to dramatically increase the divide in this country on virtually every level. Rather than bringing "hope" and a "stronger America" to the nation, Barack Obama will bring racial and political polarization.

Obama is a man who believes America to be a deeply flawed nation. He is not the man to lead this great country.   Vote John McCain on Tuesday. Our future as a great nation depends on it.

Dare you to see 'American Carol'

No, it's not a dream. Hollywood really has released a feature film -- no mere documentary, an in-joke you'll appreciate after seeing this piece of work -- that hoses down with merciless ridicule such richly deserving targets as... Hollywood itself, the ACLU, leftist universities and their perpetually juvenile faculties, radical Islam, the anti-war movement, Obama's negotiation fetish, the demonizing of Christians, gun control, gay rights, Katrina guilt, Cuban health care, wimpy Democrats claiming to revere the macho JFK, slavery, handicapped kids (okay, maybe not all the targets are deserving, but this is a David Zucker movie after all), Michael Moore in love with himself, Rosie O'Donnell confronting Bill O'Reilly, and Leslie Nielsen as a dirty old man.

It's all jammed into, and spilling out around the edges of (like our favorite radical documentarian overflowing a theater seat), "An American Carol," now in theaters.

Watching the slovenly, America-hating Moore, or "Michael Malone" as the Kevin Farley character is called, get figuratively and literally slapped around for 110 minutes in this campy tribute to Dickens' "Christmas Carol" will do your heart good, especially amidst the headlines about Obama's soaring polls and Oliver Stone's propaganda slam against McCain's predecessor, "W."

There was no doubt Zucker has delivered slapstick as I lost count of the stinging red handprints on Farley's pudgy, stubbled cheek.

Granted, "American Carol" is not in the league with "Airplane!" as a truly zany and outrageous comedy trip from Nielsen and Zucker. This is no cinema jetliner -- it's more of a rubber-band-powered balsa wood job with more chuckles than belly laughs.

But to have Tinseltown heap mockery on liberalism, for once, is so amazing as to qualify with Dr. Johnson's comment about a dog walking on its hind legs: Never mind if it's really done well, you just marvel that it's done at all.

If you're on the right, see the movie and salve your soul. Ten bucks (including maybe a small popcorn, maybe not) were never better spent.

If you're on the left and man enough, take my dare and endure two hours in the George Patton (Kelsey Grammer) and George Washington (Jon Voight) reeducation camp for woolly-headed utopians.

If you're in the center, give "Carol" a try just for the fun of it. I promise you'll never waste time or money on another Michael Moore celluloid abomination.

Sanctity of life a chasm in campaign

On some issues, voters may have difficulty distinguishing between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Examples could include the economy, energy, defense and even taxing and spending. But there is one area in which their differences are absolutely clear: the rights of unborn children. McCain would protect these innocents and Obama would not. Ever since Roe v. Wade (1973), which held that unborn children are not persons and denied them any rights whatsoever, defenders of the controversial decision have employed the rhetoric of "a woman’s right to choose" or "reproductive rights." Indeed, in the name of "health," a woman may have an abortion for any reason during the entire nine months of pregnancy. It has been, and always will be, an absurdity to maintain that women cherish the right to make war on their nature or that they would place no value on the most precious gift of the Creator. But the euphemisms are necessary to conceal from everyone, including the parties directly involved in an abortion, with the actual horrific nature of baby killing.

In fact, "pro-choice," which is another version of the euphemism, has an historical antecedent which has all the vicious attributes of its vile successor. That would be "popular sovereignty," the rallying cry of northern Democrats before the Civil War who sought to deprive the decision of whether to permit slavery in the Western territories of any moral significance. "Let the people decide" is no different in principle from "let the woman decide." There is never a right to do what is wrong, so advocates or apologists for evil acts have to resort to sophistry. The most effective method is to corrupt liberty or majority rule, flattering the people but leading them astray.

McCain has always opposed Roe v. Wade, which nationalized abortion protection, and has advocated that the matter be returned to the states for their determination. He believes that the people should legislate and not the courts. Obama, on the other hand, is a cosponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would remove all barriers to unrestricted abortion, including financial. He has said that this will be a priority of his administration.

When Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, McCain voted for it. This gruesome procedure is employed late term to ensure the death of the infant by severing its spinal cord at the back of the neck. Obama insists on a "health" exception, which would serve the same function as it does in Roe v. Wade, meaning that no such abortion could be prevented. Obama opposes the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), which upheld the congressional ban.

The late Rep. William Hyde of Illinois in 1975 authored the amendment which bears his name forbidding federal funding of abortions. McCain has always voted for it when it has been challenged. Obama opposed any limits on funding in the Illinois legislature and has stated that he does not support the Hyde Amendment.

No thanks to the "sexual revolution," millions of adolescent girls have gotten pregnant and many of them are pressured by their (frequently older) boyfriends to have an abortion and spare them the responsibility of supporting the child which the couple has conceived. Even states with permissive abortion rules and funding have adopted measures that require an abortionist to notify at least one parent of the impending procedure. McCain voted for such legislation whereas Obama voted to block it even if the child is from another state.

Finally, sometimes babies survive late-term abortions and yet they are either allowed to die or are put to death by drowning or suffocation. McCain voted for federal legislation to protect these babies just as those who are born prematurely, while Obama voted three times against a similar bill in the Illinois legislature.

It came as no surprise to those familiar with Obama’s pro-abortion record when he told Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Baptist Church that determining when life begins is "above his pay grade." McCain forthrightly declared that the rights of the child begin at conception. Nothing else but a human child is developing in the mother’s womb, a fact which Obama denies and McCain affirms.

The real Ayers threat

I've been researching a piece on the Ayers connection, so was glad when Palin started focusing on Obama's relationship with this "unrepentant domestic terrorist", and have, like many in the conservative blogosphere focused my own blog often on Obama's work with Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. I'm glad that the mainstream media is finally being forced into addressing the issue -- even as they continue to whitewash the issue in their determination to make Obama president. But in looking deeper into the Ayers connection, I realize that part of the story has not been effectively told -- and that is the practical impact that Ayers will have on the education policy of an Obama presidency. The most significant aspect is a focus on "education debt" -- essentially paying reparations to minorities for the "history of oppression" perpetrated by Whites. This is a cornerstone of Bill Ayers' education reform program, and is also a key element in the race-based education philosophy of Linda Darling-Hammond -- a Professor of Education at Stanford, Obama's primary education adviser and prospective Secretary of Education in an Obama administration.

Here's part of what I found -- excerpted from my piece entitled "Reading, Writing and Radicalism": The radical orientation of Ayers as an “educational reformist” should be well known, as he has written more than a dozen books on the subject and has been a leading educational scholar and advisor in Chicago for the past two decades. Ayers was recently elected vice-president for curriculum for the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association -- the nation's largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. His work with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has been highly emphasized by the Obama campaign as a form of “legitimization”, and Daley was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying “People make mistakes. You judge people by their whole life”. Daley’s view is likely based on a politician’s appreciation for Ayers’ role in doling out $100 million in grants within the city during the 1990s rather than any deep analysis of Ayers’ political or educational views – none of which have changed since the 1960s. Ayers continues to describe himself as a “radical, leftist, small ‘c’ communist”, and has written that he believes “teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression”. He sees teaching as a natural extension of the quest for social justice – which he feels requires a revolution in the capitalist economic, political and education system. In a speech given in November, 2006 before Hugo Chavez and the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, Ayers said the following:

As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion! It is in this context that the Obama-Ayers relationship should be viewed. While the Ayers’ terrorist connections are significant retrospectively, his education goals that were actively endorsed and sponsored by Barack Obama are prospectively even more important.

And this is where things get interesting. While it is obvious that Ayers will not have a formal role in an Obama administration, it is equally obvious that Obama’s experience with Ayers and the CAC will animate his education policy as president. The Obama Campaign’s primary education adviser is Linda Darling-Hammond, a Professor of Education at Stanford University, and well-known expert in school design and teacher training. Hammond has been mentioned as a possible Secretary of Education in an Obama administration, has been a vocal supporter of traditional teacher certification programs, current union control of public education and opposes charter school programs. She also has been a vocal critic of the implementation of the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. More importantly, she is an advocate of a race-based paradigm for education that fully embraces the concept of “education debt” – a form of reparations for generations of racial bias perpetrated by White America. Hammond argued forcefully last year in the liberal magazine The Nation, for example, the importance of “pay(ing) off the educational debt to disadvantaged students that has accrued over centuries of unequal access to quality education.” The concept of education debt is an idea laid out in 2006 by Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings of the University of Wisconsin, the then-president of the American Education Research Association and actively supported by Ayers. Ayers wrote himself in January of 2008 on his website the following:

The dominant narrative in contemporary school reform is once again focused on exclusion and disadvantage, race and class, black and white…the monster in the room: white supremacy. Gloria Ladson-Billings upends all of this with an elegant reversal: there is no achievement gap, she argues, but actually a glancing reflection of something deeper and more profound—America has a profound education debt. The educational inequities that began with the annihilation of native peoples and the enslavement of Africans…transformed into apartheid education, something anemic, inferior, inadequate, and oppressive. Over decades and centuries the debt has accumulated and is passed from generation to generation, and it continues to grow and pile up. Further, the long-standing professional relationship between Ayers, Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings – and thus Barack Obama -- is well established. As legal analyst Steve Diamond writes at No Quarter, a chapter called “Education for Democracy” by Darling-Hammond appeared in a volume co-edited by Ayers called “A Light in Dark Times”. In addition, a chapter co-authored by Ladson-Billings on “racing justice” appeared in a book co-edited by Ayers called “Teaching for Social Justice: A Democracy and Education Reader”. Ladson-Billings wrote the foreword to Ayers’ book “To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher” and Ayers and Ladson-Billings are co-editors of “City Kids, City Schools: More Reports from the Front Row” just published. All have been consistent in support of a radical education reform program.

Linda Darling-Hammond’s piece in The Nation is an excellent illumination of what may underscore education policy under a President Obama. She makes abundantly clear that she supports the notion of education reparations and that this should be paid in part by a wholesale revamping of NCLB to focus on more on investment and less on testing – modifications that the Obama Campaign’s education platform also supports . She calls for a “New paradigm for national education policy…guided by dual commitments to support meaningful learning on the part of students, teachers and schools; and to pay off the educational debt, making it possible for all students to benefit from more productive schools.” This is education code-speak for vast sums of money to be poured into minority schools and community programs to atone for past sins.

The Ayers-Hammond approach to education debt has been essentially supported by Barack Obama on the campaign trail. In fact, Obama has spoken repeatedly about the need for reparations to make amends for the past oppression of minorities. On “Meet the Press” in July he said:

The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income…And that involves investing in early childhood education, fixing the schools in those communities, being willing to work in terms of job retraining. And those are serious investments.Obama’s education platform as outlined at his campaign website is full of community-focused programs that will be ripe targets for massive “reparation” investments in a reformulated NCLB. His K-12 Education Fact Sheet discusses at length the expansion of Head Start programs, universal preschool and includes “enlisting parents and communities to support teaching and learning”, including “school-family contracts” and a massive school redesign project that includes increased funding for teacher recruitment and retention. It is a blueprint taken almost whole-cloth from one written by Darling-Hammond that calls for a “Marshall Plan” for teaching and the institution of a more authoritarian structure for driving curriculum development, testing and investment. Like Ayers’ own admiration of Venezuela’s centralized educational dictatorship, Darling-Hammond has expressed support for countries such as Singapore that have instituted highly structured systems that are the antithesis of school choice – signaling what will certainly be a strong emphasis on the unionized public education system in the U.S. under an Obama administration.

The real impact of the Obama-Ayers relationship is not in Ayers’ radical past but rather in his radical present. The influence that Ayers’ has had on Obama’s view of education during his time at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge can be seen in his appointment of Linda Darling-Hammond as his primary education advisor, and signals what is certain to be radical reform at the core of Obama’s education policy as president. This will include more investment into the current public school monopoly at the expense of free market solutions like vouchers and charter schools, and a more aggressive social change agenda that will result in greater control by unions and community organizations – all orthodox elements of the William Ayers radical agenda.

California needs Proposition 8

"We, the people of the United States, in order to . . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Orange County Register (Oct. 2), lead newspaper in the Freedom Communications chain, is devoted to the freedom of every individual, particularly political and economic. Experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the maximum of liberty for promoting justice and prosperity. But as the Preamble above makes clear, a free society also must be devoted to perpetuating itself and not facilitating practices at odds with the common good.

When it comes to decisions regarding marriage and family, no one should be forced into unwanted relationships. But inasmuch as marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman by every rational definition; and protected, until recently, by every society in the history of the world; it hehooves us to support Proposition 8. Then we may know that we have secured our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The Register wishes to secure individual rights (there are no other kind) against denial by majorities and their governments, but overlooks the indispensable role of public opinion and public officials. Reflection and experience taught our forbears to reject governments of the one or the few because, as Thomas Jefferson observed, "Republican government is the only one not in open or secret war with the rights of mankind."  He also said that the people are bound "by the moral law."

It is not true that the California Supreme Court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage. It already has, as county clerks have been ordered by state authorities no longer to refer to the parties as bride and groom, but as A and B. Just this week Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law bills (1) mandating that nurses support homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality (SB 1729), (2) making foster parents teach homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "rights" to foster kids (AB 3015) and (3) elevating homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual "rights" above everyone else's rights (AB 2654). If same-sex marriage is right, the State Legislature and the Governor have decided, all barriers to its full development must be swept away.

Marriage indeed has been reformed to insure the equality of both sexes and to remove racial barriers, as the Register maintained, but it has always been between one man and one woman. It is remarkable that the Register expresses satisfaction that marriage has "evolved" when it has done the opposite with other judicial decisions that treated the text of the Constitution as an "evolving" document.

The Register expresses the hope that same-sex marriage will promote societal stability and reduce promiscuity, but only after affirming as a right what no society heretofore has ever sanctioned. I have read too many angry pronouncements by activists inveighing against "Ozzie and Harriet" families to believe that "lullaby argument."

It is simply wrong for the Register to claim that "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not require those who have a moral objection to homosexuality or to homosexual marriage to recognize or approve of it," including ministers. What sort of argument can any responsible party be making against those who disapprove of same-sex marriage except a moral one? Ministers would be advised to protect their congregations from being inundated with demands for same-sex marriage, for surely lawsuits will be filed against and damages sought from uncooperative clergy.

The state has "inserted itself" into marriage and family for good reasons. We all have a stake in insuring that our free society perpetuates itself by upholding the only institution that channels potentially dangerous passions into loving relationships, secures everyone's property rights, and protects children from adults more concerned with their own gratification than the welfare of their offspring. Children need a father and a mother to guide them as they grow up and to provide examples of how to be a man and woman.

The Register has rightly been dubious of experiments in government and the marketplace. It needs to include marriage and family among the institutions to be protected against the same folly. We should vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.