The Pope of Liberal Hope

I’ve come to the conclusion that—with regard to politics—there are three types of people in the world:

1. Those who really don’t care about politics, don’t follow it, don’t like it, and have no use for discussions of it;

2. Those who find it interesting, are willing to apply reasoning to it, debate it with analysis and logic, and are able to be contradicted without responding with anger;

3. And those who worship their politicians the way they worship their saints and celebrities.

The first kind should create a mild annoyance, or a sense of disappointment. In Venezuela, where the society has been deeply polarized into two main camps (the Chavistas that support el comandante, and the Opposition), this group of disinterested individuals are called “ni-nis”, which, translated to English, means “Neither-nors”. They support neither Chavez nor the Opposition, and so they sit on the sidelines, totally involved in their own personal interests and don’t care to take a side or try to make a difference. Their indifference, and their abstinence from voting, has enabled Chavez to establish a quasi-dictatorship.

The second kind is best identified by pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and others on the right, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs in the center, or Alan Combs, Rachel Madow, and Keith Olberman on the left. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, these personalities take politics seriously and for the most part apply logic and reasoning to their arguments, and generally remain civil during discussions, even while it may get rather passionate.

But it is the final kind that concerns me today. This group of people does not scratch past the surface of their candidates speeches, do not research, do not seek a variety of opinions, and place all of their “faith” in their candidates. These are the people who—if they are journalists—cannot seem to muster the courage to ask their candidates tough questions. They exploit every weakness in candidates they dislike (note that it’s dislike, more than “with whom they disagree” because it is a personal opposition, not a conflict of ideas). They will even lay traps to trip them up and make them look foolish, rather than explore their ideas.

These are the individuals who vociferously proclaim their political ideas in the workplace, but become absolute livid if someone disagrees with them. These people hang on every word of their beloved politician as if they were a benediction from their Priest. They do not think about the meaning behind the words, but instead repeat them as if they were a holy invocation of God.
For this reason, when they are confronted by anyone who questions the words uttered by their saintly leader, their reaction is visceral, and they feel compelled to hate their opponent as a fanatic would hate a heretic. The new religion of the left is personified by Barack Obama, who has been exalted and is now the Pope of Liberal Hope.

One inaugural attendee stated that Obama was like "any one of the Biblical leaders", such as Joshua. Denzel Washington said "he is like one of those apostles for our day."

Obama evokes tearful adoration. Women swoon, and metro-sexual journalists get thrills down their legs as they watch him.
This cannot end well. Although I may blaspheme by saying it, Obama is only human, is inexperienced, and is characterized by excessive naiveté and insufficient executive experience.

Obama is not divinely inspired, and the problems he faces are fractals of infinite complexity, completely beyond repairing by the simple evocation of heartwarming mantras such as Hope and Change. The philosophical ideals the liberals hope to promote look great on paper, and sound great when they flutter from the lips of their god’s earthly representative, but in practice they inevitably will have unexpected consequences.

Close down Guantanamo, and what becomes of those highly trained, dedicated kamikaze terrorists? Who will die because you placed your ideals above our security?
Force companies to buy “carbon credits”, and you increase the cost of the products, decreasing competitive edge, and what will happen to those companies? Will they move overseas? Will they lay off workers?

Force our coal industry to invest billions to “clean up emissions”, and what will result? Will energy prices sky rocket? What other prices will rise? Will the coal go out of business?

Promote alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and what is the environmental impact? Will hundreds of thousands of acres of viable farmland be converted instead into wind and solar farms? What impact will that have on food supplies and prices?

Promote bio fuels, and will corn that normally feeds us be diverted into fuel for our automobiles?

Will rising energy prices inspire a boom in hydroelectric projects? How many valleys will be flooded?

Promote a single-payer health care system, and what will happen to the high quality of the American medical system?

Will “investing in the future” by way of multiple trillion dollar deficits bankrupt the country?
Some of these projects may turn out well, but without a doubt, not all of them will. There will be unexpected and negative consequences. There will be failures, there will be scandals, and the Pope of Hope will not be able to deliver everything he promised.

But, not to worry: I’m sure the Pope will find some new devil to blame.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

While reading the Venezuelan news at El Universal, I found this Rayma cartoon that just seems to demonstrate what I had thought. People are just going NUTS over this NUT. It shows Obama's photo tucked in between a number of Catholic Saints.

Is it just coincidence that he is located next to Judas?

Obama’s absurdities and contradictions

I watched Obama’s inauguration, surrounded by liberal coworkers who, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked on his eloquence and applauded his brilliance. But to be honest, I left the speech wondering: what in the hell did he actually say? What was the core message in his long-winded diatribe? Could I detect a guiding principal or clearly see the course our government will take with Obama as captain?

I had to go back and re-read the speech and try to absorb it to get any meaning out of it. And as I studied its content, I was impressed—not with its brilliance—but with its sense of gloom, naiveté and inherent contradictions.

An estimated 2 million Americans had braved freezing temperatures in order to be witness to an historic event: the inauguration of America’s first black president. While the vast majority of Americans expected the event to be jubilant, and exaltation of the nation’s success, Obama’s tone instead was hesitant, and somewhat low spirited. Within seconds of starting the speech, he points out that inauguration speeches “have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Clearly, Obama is referring to our current economic recession, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are aware that this is true, but wouldn’t you agree that this is a gloomy way to start a speech when your success heralds a new, triumphant time for African-Americans?

Imagine for a moment that Martin Luther King had actually managed to reach that mountaintop he mentioned in his “I have a dream” speech, but instead of celebrating the successful summiting of the mount, instead he chooses to point out; “It’s damn cold up here, ya’ll!” Isn’t that kind of what Obama has just done?

Apparently Obama sensed the negativity with which he began his speech and attempted to counter it with this little jewel: “America has carried on … because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Contrast this with a statement he makes later:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and
our ideals.”

Here, he is referring to the Patriot Act. So, which is it? Did we remain faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, or not? Apparently not, and Obama plans on setting it right. So we should clearly expect him to eliminate the Patriot Act and go back to pre-9/11 business as
usual attitudes.

Immediately after his “uplifting” introduction, he goes into details of the “crisis”: “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Is that to mean “terrorists”? Why can’t he say that? He later states:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I guess, taking the two quotes together, that Obama—being the son of a Muslim and partly educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia—is finally revealing that he thinks we will be safe from the Islamists if we just stop calling them names. What “mutual interest” do we have with Persian Islamo-Nazis who believe that they can provoke the return of the missing Imam by liquidating Israel?

Obama’s speech is littered with fascinating abstractions: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

What is this mystical “new age”? Could it be a new era, marked by the arrival of “The Chosen One”? Will we need develop a new calendar? B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama)

Now, isn’t it widely understood that our economy is weakened primarily because of liberal social engineering attempts to provide “affordable housing” to anyone—even if they couldn’t afford it? The hard choices that need to be made involve personal responsibility, and admitting that the government can’t give away housing to everyone. To me, the crux of the idiocy in the speech centers on the next sentences:

“Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

Obama needs to learn that “confidence” is sapped because of the stupidity of members of his own party.

When the Democrats vote to give war authorization, but then immediately turn around and predict that we will lose, that we cannot win, and then slander our men and women in uniform, calling them storm troopers and baby killers, confidence is sapped. When socialist economic policies cause a collapse in the markets and the folks who want to be leaders run around screaming about Great Depressions, confidence is sapped. When the President-Elect continuously reminds Americans that our economy is struggling, but then says that he plans on running up multi-trillion dollar deficits for years, our confidence is sapped.

This reveals a very telling perspective of the liberals. They brutally criticized President Bush because he "failed to warn us" about the severity of the economic crisis. Bush repeatedly stated that there was a looming crisis in the economic sector, and as early as 2006 tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats--spearheaded by that queer genius, Barney Frank--thwarted any attempt to reform those organizations. And when the economy began to unravel, Bush repeatedly made statements that we were headed for tough times, but his tone was positive.

So maybe the libs need to consider that it's not that Bush was unaware of what was happening, but he didn't want to sap confidence. Revolutionary thought, eh?

Ironically, Obama has tapped as leader for the EPA a no-growth socialist who believes that the United States’ consumption of energy is an energy injustice, and that developed nations must shrink their economies in order to right this wrong. Now, I don’t know how you can shrink an economy and still provide jobs, so it seems inevitable that—were we to follow the Obama theories of economic justice—the next generation will have to lower its sights.

Obama’s recipe for meeting our “serious” and “many” challenges is to choose “hope over fear”. Really? Hope doesn’t solve recessions: good policy does. Hope doesn’t win wars: good military strategy and logistics (and unflagging support) does. Hope does not feed the hungry: hard work and ingenuity do.

“Hope over fear” sounds like some sort of algorithm for disaster: “hope/fear=desperation”.

We don’t need plans made out of desperation, we need reasonable and logical analysis. It was not “hope” that helped Captain Sullenberger successfully ditch US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river: it was courage, coupled with a brilliant and educated triage of the situation.

So, enough of your platitudes and insults to our intelligence: it's time to actually come up with policies, Barry.

The next theme that begs analysis started with this phrase:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…”

This sounds great. It appears that Obama is praising the hard working entrepreneurs who made the country powerful and wealthy. Taken with the statement that “greatness is never given…it must be earned”, it appears that Obama will promote personal responsibility, instead of a welfare state. But that hope doesn’t last long. Only a few paragraphs further, he states:

“The question we ask today is … whether [our government] works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” So, now he suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide jobs with decent wages, healthcare, and a “dignified” retirement.

Really? Where in the constitution does it state that government must be a great Nanny?

Minutes previously, Obama had said that “We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Those founding documents include a constitution that limit the powers of the federal government, and which clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution belong with the states. Whatever happened to the “ideals of our forbearers”, who stated: “that government is best which governs least”?

For an alleged legal scholar, Obama seems appallingly ignorant of the limits of government clearly stated in the constitution.

Obama made direct reference to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning the ideal that we are all created equal. As a reminder, allow me quote the statement: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Later, says: “…We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.” Why is this important? Because within the modern liberal philosophy is a dogmatic attempt to separate religion from government—except when it gets a liberal candidate votes. And it was the founding father’s firm belief in God that inspired them to clearly state that our unalienable Rights are “endowed” by our “Creator”. If we separate God from government in the way that liberals want, if we consider ours to be a nation of “non-believers”, then we must accept that our rights are not “endowed by [our] Creator”, but are instead granted by our government, and thus, can be rejected by the same government. It is absurd to have included “non-believers” in this statement, and completely unnecessary.

But there you go, it’s Obama being all inclusive. Except of course, he forgot to mention Buddhists, Wiccans, and doggon it, if you’re going to remain popular with the Hollywood nuts, you damn well better pay homage to the Scientologists.

Most frightening, to me, is the naïve comment he makes in this paragraph:

“…Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

This last phrase is one of the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Security does not emanate from a just cause. If that were true, wouldn’t Black have been “secure” from slavery? Wouldn’t the Jews have been “secure” from Nazi ovens? Wouldn’t the American Indians have been “secure” from genocidal attack? How is security connected to “the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” Neither humility nor restraint secured our future when we faced the Germans and the Japanese! Military Force secured our future. Period.

All in all, like I said, "not bad for a socialist".

But I have to say, this speech reminded me uncomfortably of the speeches made by Hugo Chavez. A lot of rhetoric, a lot of confusion, a lot of contractions, and a whole lot of starry eyed supporters drooling on themselves and saying, "wow, isn't he charasmatic?!"

They say the Devil knows how to dance...

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

While part of me is happy for America, and for the triumph of African-Americans who have finally achieved a long overdue objective, my joy is lessened by my experience during the inauguration.

I’m currently living in the outskirts of Denver, Colorado. And Denver, in case you didn’t know, is decidedly liberal. So liberal, in fact, that it is generally an assumption for the locals that everyone around them is also liberal.

So, as I watched the inaugural address today here in our office, surrounded by coworkers, it was made clear that every one of them was a joyful liberal. They were making the standard “go Obama” statements, and carrying boxes of tissues with them to wipe their teary eyes. And whenever former president Bush appeared on the television screen, they emitted scornful insults, sardonic good-byes, and the requisite “Get out of here!”

This was all taken as acceptable behavior, and none seemed in the least aware that they were behaving like boorish poor sports, or that their snide remarks contrasted sharply with their criticism of Bush’s “arrogance”.

Many of the liberals in the room laughed good-naturedly at the television coverage and made jokes about things that were projected, but I really never sensed anything excessively offensive. But when one of the ladies got up and stormed off with her box of tissues, I wondered what was going on.

I struggled to control myself; I had no desire to ruin the event for my happy liberal coworkers. It was only at the conclusion of Obama’s rather long-winded speech, when they all clapped and celebrated his eloquence—apparently without considering the idiocy of some of the content—and while they were declaring that Obama had “killed it!”, did I finally feel compelled to respond: “Not bad—for a socialist.”

This received boos and admonitions, although a few people did laugh.

But when I returned to my desk, I discovered that the lady who fled with her tissues was very angry at the irreverence of her coworkers who—despite their also being enamored of Obama—simply didn’t display quite the level of gushing love for her taste.

Her attitude was reminiscent of an ardent church-goer who has just witnessed blasphemous behavior!

So she had felt compelled to leave, swearing to watch a recording of the speech at home, without everyone else around.

It occurs to me that this is so incredibly typical of the liberals. While conservatives have struggled to be gracious and wish Obama well, in spite of their serious misgivings about his stated policies, liberals have continued to issue hateful scorn toward President Bush and the Republicans. They feel perfectly justified to loudly voice their opinions in the office, knowing that they are surrounded by others who agree with them, and yet they feel offended if a dissenting voice from the minority dares to disagree.

This is just a hint of what is to come.

In defense of the majority

Happy New year.

On January, 20 2009, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn into office as President of the United States of America. While this will be a cause for great celebration among certain sectors of the American populace, one tiny group has chosen to protest. But it’s not conservatives, as one would expect. No, it’s Atheists.

Because Obama, who has repeatedly countered rumors that he is ultra-liberal and possibly a closet Muslim, has emphasized that he is a Christian and will take his oath using President Lincoln’s Bible. The inclusion of the Bible, and the oath taken to uphold the constitution “so help me God”, is apparently offensive to Atheists. These, in turn, have filed suit—that’s right, they are seeking legal recourse to block President-Elect Obama’s right to express his determination to uphold the constitution by invoking the symbol of his religious faith in order to affirm his sincerity. Why?

The atheists assert that "there can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists." They add that any reference to God violates the Constitution’s ban on the governmental establishment of religion. Tragically, they feel that “having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.” They “are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration, or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny.”

At this juncture, it would be helpful to get some facts about atheists in America. A quick search brought me to an atheism blog that provided some basic information. In one article, they discuss their own prevalence within our society and give this interesting poll result:

85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

Did you notice the odd result there? Focus only on these three numbers:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)

These results seem nonsensical to me. If 85% of Americans are Christian, then only 15% remains for anything else. 11% of that remaining 15% clearly state that they “identify with a faith other than Christianity”. That must mean that they are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. 15% minus 11% leaves only 4%, not 12%. Since you cannot be both Atheist and Christian, Muslim , Hindu, etc. one can only come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the polls. But at any rate, it is safe to say that the number of atheists in America is certainly less than 12%, and probably around 4%.

This is only important in so much as it puts into perspective the current situation. A tiny minority (less than 12% of the population) of Americans who profess to be absolutely sure that there is no God are demanding that all public expressions be devoid of religious content, because they feel “excluded” and “stigmatized”. Apparently realizing the hubris in such a demand, they fall back upon the famous “establishment” clause of the constitution, as an attempt to lend credibility to their argument. But once again, we must clarify that the intent of the religion clauses of the constitution was not to eliminate religious expression from the state, but simply to prevent the government from establishing a state-sanctioned faith and imposing that upon the rest of the society and compelling others to believe. The spirit of the amendment was born of historical concerns, as the framers had been direct witnesses to the religious conflicts between the official religions of certain governments, resulting in wars between Catholics and Protestants. But it was never their intent to sanitize government and society of all references to God. Quite the opposite is true. The inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and formalized in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of men “are endowed by their creator”. They are not granted by the government—if they were, they could be denied by the same government at any time. No, they are endowed by God and the Laws of Nature and are therefore inalienable.

It is therefore absurd for a tiny minority of the society to decide that their particular view—that God does not exist—must therefore limit the expression of faith of the rest of the society. Worse, this actually would represent a horrific blow to democracy. After all, the whole basis of a democracy is that the opinions of the majority decide the course taken by the society. Certain provisions in the constitution prevent the majority from violating the rights of the minority, but in no way was it the intent of the framers to allow a tiny minority to impose their views upon the majority.

The desire of the atheists to silence religious expression is just another expression of our cultural decadence, leading to widespread narcissism, and ending in ideological fascism.
I sometimes envision our society as a tiny dory, tossed around by the prevalent forces of culture. The current sometimes draws society to the right—as it did during the Prohibition days—and sometimes toward the left—as it currently appears to be doing. The sudden, often chaotic lurching direction of our culture can appear to be horrifying at times, but the common sense of the citizens has, for over two hundred years, allowed us to stay upright and keep off the rocks.

But be warned: our ability to navigate through the vagaries of cultural whim will be disastrously hindered if the current tendencies of political intolerance prevail. And, to the surprise of the many, the current threat comes not from religious conservatives on the right, but from “liberal” militants on the left. For while it has been a widely accepted notion that the forces of intolerance that have led to totalitarian or fascist policies usually come from the far right, a fair analysis of our society demonstrates that it is now organized and militant minorities on the left that believe they have the imperative to impose themselves upon the majority.

The tendency is showing up in a number of manifestations: The imposition of the “gay agenda” upon society and accusation of being “homo-phobic” against anyone who disagrees with the policies; the attempt to replace Christian expressions of faith from Christmas with “acceptable” secular expressions; the attempt to limit speech and prohibit the use of “ethnically offensive” terms such as “Islamic extremist” or “Islamist Terrorists”; the use of race-baiting to silence opposition to politicians by labeling any questioning of their policies or qualifications as “racist”; the silencing of scientists and academics who disagree with the “Global Warming” craze.

The commonality between all of these “currents” is that every one of them is promoted by a small minority of the society, which in turn is unwavering and uncompromising in their radical dedication to their agenda, and the proponents of each movement have resorted to distorting Human and Civil Rights advances in order to make itself “morally undeniable”, thus automatically tainting any opposition to it as a violation of human rights and human dignity. The scientist who questions the data behind Global Warming is suddenly a “flat earth” radical, the moral equivalent of the religious fanatics who punished Galileo and Copernicus. The pundit who demands to know more about Obama’s connections to extremist groups or convicted felons is “racist” for doubting his purity. And most absurd of all, Christians are told that it is “offensive” for them to say “Merry Christmas” during the Christmas Holiday, because that could be offensive to any non-Christian who hears it.

A democracy simply cannot survive if discussion is forcibly suppressed. When intolerance becomes fashionable and results in the wholesale elimination of open discussion and passionate argument, then the beliefs of a small group may be converted into oppressive policies whose “righteousness” becomes literally indisputable—not because they are right, but because disputation is made impermissible.

This is the precipitous slide toward totalitarianism that allows Nazis to slaughter Jews, Islamists to slaughter infidels, communists to slaughter intellectuals—on and on. The only solution is for the society to recognize that there is wisdom within the ranks of the majority, and to promote and defend the beliefs of the majority.

GMA gives known terrorist a chance to plug his new book

I just got through watching a video clip entitled: “Campaign boogeyman William Ayers Talks to ‘GMA’ {Good Morning America}”

Click here to see the clip and read a transcript of the interview.

Maybe it should be called: “GMA gives known terrorist a chance to plug his new book.”

They do interview Ayers and ask him to explain himself, his relationship with Obama, and his past involvement “with violence” (they never use the word “terrorism”) but then the GMA interviewer states “we’ll talk about your new book, Fugitive Days, in the next segment…”

During this clip, Ayers denies having a deep relationship with Obama, but continues to reassert his statement that he does not regret his actions (which he downplays to being part of the “militant”), and even goes so far as to play the victim by saying that he is being “demonized”, because he was just a part of a larger context of social rebellion against an unjust war, during which the government was “killing thousands of people every day.” In other words, he was nothing more than soldier on the side of Good, blowing up government buildings to stop a terrible government that was waging an unjustifiable war.

And yet, he also says: "We knew it was wrong. We knew it was illegal. We knew it was immoral…{but the Weather Underground} had to do more {to stop the Vietnam War}.

Exactly what journalistic principles are these, that drive GMA to interview an unrepentant terrorist, only to follow up with a promotion his book?

I find it interesting that Ayers apparently felt that the dialog concerning his relationship to Obama was so “dishonest” that he apparently felt it was morally reprehensible to comment on it. He disagrees with the notion of “guilt by association”, and didn’t want to contribute to this “unjust” discussion. However, the week after the election, he suddenly needed to “set the record straight”. Now that his “family friend” won the election, the discussion is no longer so morally reprehensible, and it’s time to express his outrage and being “demonized”.

Ayers continues to see his activities in the light of a righteous militant fighting against his own government, waging a violent “activist” campaign to bring down the government. This concept inspires me to explore the definition of “traitor”, to see if this fits. It seems to fit his actions perfectly:
Traitor: Someone who betrays his country by committing treason.
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation
A citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the {parent nation}…{or to} conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved in such an endeavour.”

Maybe I'm just daft, but by those definitions, is it even deniable that Ayers was a traitor, as well as a terrorist? And if they couldn't prosecute him for terrorism, why didn't they try him as a traitor, and hang him by the neck until dead?

GMA describes Ayers as a “respected professor”. Respected? By whom?

How is it possible that, on the one hand, self-described “progressives” can say that Ayer’s bombings—which occurred in 1970 and 1971—are “ancient history” and “water under the bridge”, while simultaneously celebrating the prosecution (in 2001) of the suspects of the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham? Why isn’t that “water under the bridge”? After all, it occurred seven years before Ayer’s bombings. Don’t get me wrong: I think those murderers should be prosecuted. But by the same notion of justice, Ayers should be also, and the fact that a technical mistake by prosecutors let him escape jail does not absolve him of guilt in these atrocious crimes.

The college professors coming to Ayer’s defense are taking a morally reprehensible position to selectively protect leftist terrorists, while condemning racist terrorists. They are essentially saying that, since the US government was condoning and actively participating in a war that killed thousands of people per day, any acts to stop that immoral violence are forgivable offenses.

In July of 2005, Eric Rudolph was convicted of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing as well as a bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic. Rudolph committed his acts of violence because he believed that abortion—which we know has killed around 45 million babies in the United States alone—was such a horrendous crime against humanity that it must be fought with “deadly force”. “Children are disposed of at will,” he was quoted as saying. “The state is no longer the protector of the innocents.”

For the sake of argument, let us choose to agree with Ayer’s regarding the immorality of the Vietnam War. What’s more, let us decide to take his side and agree that he was justified in his bombings because he was trying to stop a greater evil.

Applying that standard, and considering that Abortion has killed many more children than the number of casualties of the Vietnam War, we must draw the conclusion that Eric Rudolph was also justified in his attacks, and we would expect university professors to line up in his defense.

If we continue this line of “reasoning” {very loosely speaking}, and we conclude that a bomber is forgiven his crime as long as the terrorist is attacking the government that is perpetrating a grave injustice, would terrorist acts against the Obama administration be justifiable?

It is clearly an unjustifiable position to take. No intelligent person can possibly rationalize Ayer’s acts, while simultaneously condemning those of Rudolph. And no self respecting professor should come to Ayer’s defense on the ground that Ayer’s—who is by his own admission “guilty as hell, free as a bird!”—is somehow less of a criminal than Rudolph, who is guilty as hell, and paying for his crime.

I guess we should expect to wake up tomorrow and find GMA interviewing Osama Bin Laden, followed by a plug for the new al Qaeda instructional guide:

Jihad for Dummies: The Progressives’ Guide to Killing Americans
(With a forward by ABC’s Peter Jennings)

Sobering thoughts for Nelson Bocaranda.

I wanted to read to OpEds in Venezuela to see what is being said about Obama’s victory. Think for a moment of the perspective of Latin Americans, especially those under regimes such as Hugo Chavez, where the communist propaganda has been constantly to insult and attack the American system. While the elite there—whether that be the old guard “oligarchy” or the “new rich” communists that are pilfering the state—has offered no hope for improvement or for a better future, the election of Obama has undermined their argument about the evils of the American system, contradicted the accusations that America is a racist nation in which people of color have no hope or future.

There is a bright side to this, and I thought it might be worth sharing. Many in Latin America felt ignored by the United States over the past eight years, and blame American indifference to their plight for the rise of authoritarians such as Chavez, and the spread socialism across the continent.

A well known and highly respected journalist, Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, writes {my translation}:

"Example: Once again the United States has given a lesson of Democracy to the entire world, with special emphasis given to those countries where it is the military jackboot that reigns, and where the disdain for justice and law, as well as the shameless and cynical enjoyment of corruption with state monies, is the daily rule. John McCain’s capitulation speech, in which he recognizes his defeat and offers his support to the winner, and that of Barack Obama, curing old wounds, promising inclusion and a better future for new generations that turned out en masse to vote as they did for J. Kennedy in 1960 or G. McGovern in 1972, are the demonstration of the institutional quality of the nation that will once again be the beacon of democracy that Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin visualized. Another American dream is realized. "

Hence, Bocaranda is quite clearly suggesting that Venezuelan's will again see the contrast between their own plight, their own "Democracy", and the true democratic principals displayed by "the Empire", and that difference made plain should tarnish the popularity of Chavez. And, Obama represents a new hope that America will stop ignoring them and will help them throw off the yoke of tyrrany.

This is all well and good, but the same author continues:

"Promise?: The past June 5th we wrote here about the visit of Democratic governor Bill Richardson to President Chavez, in order to discuss the three North American hostages held by the FARC, and where the American elections were discussed. At that time, the governor informed Chavez of the interest by the Democrats in improving relations with Venezuela {Chavez}. Among the promises, that during the electoral process they would limit criticism of Chavez, and they would guarantee a meeting of Obama and Chavez, being either an informal meeting before Obama takes office, or immediately afterward. In return, Chavez would “lower his anti-Yankee flag”, tone down his anti-imperialist discourse, and increase the possibility of commercial exchange. "

It should also be noted that, the day after the election, once it became clear that Obama had won, the infamous Piedad Cordoba, Colombian congressional member and supporter of the FARC terrorist group, declared that Obama’s victory was a victory for “everyone who has fought for decades for equality”, and immediately requested that Obama work with her to “reach a humanitarian solution” to the ongoing conflict with the FARC.

Allow me a moment to put these events in context. It has been a long-standing goal for Hugo Chavez to spread his influence around Latin America, by any means necessary. This has led him to covertly and illegally pump millions upon millions of dollars into the election campaigns of friendly leftists throughout Latin America, from Argentina (where Chavez’s agents were caught smuggling suitcases full of money to the Kirchner campaign), to Mexico. Chavez stated years ago that he planned to have a “Bolivarian” president elected. And a constant stream of Democrats and another radical leaders has made its way to Venezuela, including film directors (Oliver Stone), actors (Sean Penn, Danny Glover), activists and community organizers (such as ACORN members), and of course, liberal politicians such as Bill Richardson, among others.

Meanwhile, another of Chavez’s strategies appeared to be to position himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. While his loyal followers submitted him for consideration, Chavez unilaterally intervened in the internal affairs of Colombia as they battled the FARC terrorists. It was alleged that Oliver Stone’s frequent visits to Venezuela during this time were intended to document Chavez’s glorious efforts to broker a humanitarian effort to release the hundreds of hostages held by the FARC. Chavez did in fact manage to obtain the release of several low-level hostages, including a political aide to Ingrid Betancourt—the Colombian presidential candidate who was kidnapped by the FARC in the middle of her political campaign. But Chavez could not obtain the release of the four most important hostages held by the FARC: Three American contractors working for Plan Colombia who were captured when their plane was shot down, and Betancourt.

However, when FARC leader Raul Reyes was killed in a military operation, and his laptop recovered, intelligence from that laptop revealed that Chavez had given around 300 million dollars to the FARC to arrange the “humanitarian” release of the three previous hostages. It was Piedad Cordoba who repeatedly kissed Chavez’s boots and praised him for his brilliant and neutral role, even though her own government repeatedly protested to world bodies that Chavez was violating their sovereign affairs. In short, in order to gain political glory and try to achieve world renown by winning a Nobel Prize, Chavez violated Colombian sovereignty and paid a ransom to the kidnappers.

It was in this context that Richardson visited Chavez. Yet another brilliant military intervention by the Colombians rescued Betancourt and the three American contractors without a shot being fired—and simultaneously deflated Chavez’s hopes of being the great liberator.

So, with this context provided, now one must re-examine the declarations by Piedad Cordoba, and the reports from Caracas, that these two very dangerous actors are pleased with Obama’s election, and already planning to meet with Obama.

And we must remember Obama’s statements that he would (and then would not) meet with Chavez without pre-conditions. If Obama does in fact meet with Chavez between now and his inauguration—or even afterward, for that matter, then he would be violating yet another of his campaign promises and revealing that he is the ideologue and naïve politician we thought he would be.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan immigrants who fled the Chavez regime to find safety in the United States, those who supported John McCain because they recognized in Obama this waffling liberal inability to properly assess the danger in characters such as Chavez, now must find themselves in the peculiar position of being members of opposition in two countries. But fear not: with the conservative Cubans by our side, we are all in very good company, and the fight will continue.

Sadly, however, if Obama provees himself to be the idiot I suspect him to be, it is the Venezuelans and others in Latin America who will suffer yet another great disappointment. Not only will America not save them from Leftist tyrrany, but an Obama administration just might help those authoritarians to gain international prestige and consolidate their power.

These are my sobering thoughts for Mr. Bocaranda.

Whose welfare is it, anyway?

Near the end of the Obama/McCain presidential campaign, a Florida television station recorded a woman who was extactic that--if Obama were to win the election--she wouldn't have to worry any more about paying her mortgage, or filling her gas tank. Yes, it's gotten to the point that some people appear to think that Uncle Barack will provide for everyone.

This reminded me of a discussion I had with some of my students way back in 1994.

I was a teacher in an inner urban school, during the period when the Republicans in Washington wanted to reform welfare and make it Workfare.

One of my students walked up to my desk in front of the class and asked me; “Sir, what do you think about them taking away our welfare?”

“Our Welfare? What do you mean, ‘our’ welfare?”

“I mean, it’s mine and my Momma’s, it’s what we need to get by.”

So I asked him, “What makes you think it’s yours?”

“Well, ‘cause we are the ones that need it, so it’s ours.”

I looked at him carefully, and noticed that—as he was a basketball player—he was wearing a pair of expensive Air Jordon’s that cost about three times what my shoes cost.

“Do you have a job?” I asked him.

“What? You know I don’t, Sir, I’m a basketball player!” he protested. “My Momma works two jobs just to support me and my brothers!” Understandably, he seemed indignant that his momma had to work so hard.

“Why does that mean, you can’t have a job?”

“Because I have practice every day, and I have games every week, I don’t have no time to be working at no $5 a hour job!” he answered, indignantly.

“OK, that makes sense.” I commented... “those are nice Air Jordon’s, buddy. Who bought those for you?”

“My Momma did,” he said, a little cautiously.

“Nice Momma, you know those are worth more money than I could afford to pay for shoes, right?” I asked

“Yes, you do wear some lousy shoes!” he joked, and the class laughed.

“Right. Now, whose shoes are those?” I asked.

“Mine!” he quickly answered.

“Are they? Let’s pretend for a moment that your Momma bought you those shoes so that you would do really well at basketball. She hopes you will work hard, and get a scholarship, and build a future…”

He smiled. “That’s right, she does.”

“But let’s pretend that instead of working hard, you loafed around in the gym, and didn’t practice, and just chased the girls, and your Momma got really mad and said to you, ‘Son, I paid for those shoes to give you an advantage, to help you succeed, and you blew it! Instead of working, you just lazed around, so since you don’t appreciate what I gave you, I’m taking those shoes away, and I’ll give them to your little brother, who is willing to work hard!’ Now, she would have the right to do that, wouldn’t she?”

He was silent. The whole class was silent. “So…really, whose shoes are those?”

He paused, thinking about the question, and obviously uncomfortable with the conclusion to which I had led him. Finally, he sheepishly answered: “My Momma’s.”

“Because she paid for them. Right. Now, who pays for ‘your’ welfare?” He didn’t answer. “I do. And all the other teachers do. And all the other workers do. We give you all some money to help you—not to ‘get by’, as you put it, but to get ahead. And here you are, wearing shoes I can’t afford, and not working because you are an athlete, and making your Momma work two jobs, and talking about how all of this is yours. It is NOT yours. I bought the welfare, I paid for it, it’s mine. And I have the right to demand that you and everyone else who receives it do something with it, and work for it, and not just laze around chasing girls. Your Momma has the right to demand that you work for your shoes, and I have the right to demand that anyone who receives welfare work for that money. Now, that’s what I think about that.”

An amazing thing happened. That huge, 6 and a half foot tall black athlete stood up tall, looked at me very critically, and then gave me his hand. And he said, “You know what, Sir? That’s why we all love you. You say it the way it is.”

He went to his seat and that was the last we ever talked about it.