The Redhunter

December 18, 2008

Lila Rose Rocks Planned Parenthood's World Again

Earlier this week our heroine Lila Rose, President of Live Action, released a second film as part of their Mona Lisa Project, the purpose of which is to expose how Planned Parenthood encourages underage girls to cover up statutory rape. Recorded June 24th, 2008, here it is:

Stay tuned, because this is just a preview of more to come. A note on the Live Action website says that they will release the full, unedited version tomorrow, Friday December 19, which I'll post here as an update. The reason for the delay is that they "are taking extra precautions to protect the identity of private individuals included on the tape." Apparently there are legal implications.

An extraordinary young woman, Rose is a 20 year old student at UCLA, who at age 15 founded Live Action, a pro-life student group. Rose and her friends work to expose the culture of abortion and how it degrades and corrupts our society. As the largest provider of abortions in the country, and a recipient of some $272.7 million annually in taxpayer money totaling $3.9 billion since 1987, Planned Parenthood is an integral part of the abortion industry. Planned Parenthood clinics perform some 255,000 plus abortions annually.

The good news, if there really is any in all this, is that on December 15 Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter announced that his office will investigate Planned Parenthood (h/t The Warrior)

The bad news is that the Indiana Department of Child Services won't be doing an investigation. From the WTHR news story:

The Indiana Department of Child Services says it won't investigate a Planned Parenthood site in Bloomington after a worker was fired for violating policies on abuse reporting and intervention.

A conservative anti-abortion group sent a woman to the office who claimed to be a 13-year-old pregnant by a 31-year-old man.

The worker reportedly brushed aside that information when the law calls for any health care professional to report inappropriate relationships to CPS.

Planned Parenthood says it's retraining workers on mandatory reporting procedures.

To the IDCS it's all business as usual, and nothing must come in the way of abortions.

WTHR apparently sees it important to identify Live Action as "a conservative anti-abortion group," as if that really matters.

But hey, Planned Parenthood is "retraining" workers and "suspended" the counselor in question, so everything's ok now. I hate to sound snarky but this is all really just too much.

Not Just Isolated Incidents

Don't kid yourself; what you saw in the video above was not an isolated incident. As I discussed in my first post on Rose and her work last week, in 2002 WB33 News of Dallas TX did an investigation in which they used a company called Life Dynamics to call over 800 Planned Parenthood clinics. The calls were legally recorded. The investigation found that in 91% of the calls, Planned Parenthood employees were willing to cover up statutory rape.

In addition, Students for Life of America recently did their own investigation, which showed how Planned Parenthood clinics in North Carolina were covering up statutory rape:

So I think it's pretty clear that there is credible evidence that the practice of covering up statutory rape is widespread. If this isn't cause for congressional investigation, what is?

Where's the Outrage?

If members of a liberal group had posed as minors, and gone into gun shops and bought firearms, the left would have gone bezerk. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and all the others would headline the story day after day. Exploiting the incident, Democrats in Congress would demand, and probably get, new legislation restricting gun rights in areas having nothing to do with underage purchases of firearms.

As I said in my last post on all this, I too would be outraged.

My analogy with firearms sales may not be perfect, but it does make the point. Abortion is the holy grail of liberalism. Nothing, and I mean nothing, must come in the way of unlimited abortion, apparently to the extent of ignoring credible accusations of coverup of statutory rape.

At the very least, what we need is a full investigation of Planned Parenthood and all abortion providers. PP officers should be hauled before congressional committees and grilled. Their records need to be examined. At a minimum, their funding needs to be cut off.

Write your congressmen today. I have.

Instead of outrage, the left is preparing measures that will increase the numbers of abortions performed in this country. You can read all about it in a document called "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," which is posted on Obama's stupid Change.gov website. Details on how far reaching it is are in an editorial in today's Washington Times. Follow the link for details, but among other things they want $700 million for "family planning."

Much, Much, More

All I can really say is go to the Live Action website and view the videos of their investigations, of which there are many. Rose has made quite a name for herself as a result of all this. She has been interviewed by Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Ed Morrissey, and more.

Lila Rose is one of the bravest conservatives there are. It's easy to sit here and write blog posts. Going uptown to Washington DC to be among a small group of conservatives counterprotesting tens of thousands of insane leftist "anti-war" types took a bit of doing, but it's not really that much.

Rose, however, disguises herself, hides a camera in he purse, and with a compatriot, Jackie Stollar, goes into Planned Parenthood clinics, and tapes the resulting interview. She catches them covering up felony behavior, then posts it on the Internet for all the world to see. it's not just one or two few videos, either, as they've got quite a bit of material on their website. What she has caught Planned Parenthood doing is pretty explosive, as testified by the national media attention she and her group have received.

She is taking on one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and doing so in a manner guaranteed to earn her scorn and abuse from the left. That she presses on is testament to her character and determination.

One more video and then we'll stop for tonight. Here is Lila Rose' address to the Values Voters Summit

More to come. In the meantime, my hat is off to the Lila Rose and the team at Live Action.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 8, 2008

Lila Rose - Exposing Planned Parenthood and the Culture of Abortion

If you don't watch any other videos today, make sure you watch this one:

Pretty outrageous, no?

The person who made this video is Lila Rose, president of Live Action, a small youth led organization based in California and dedicated to the pro-Life movement. I heard about her today while listening to Laura Ingraham. The video was recorded on June 24th, 2008.

Currently a student at UCLA, 20 year old Lila founded Live Action when she was 15. I'm in awe of someone that young doing so much for a cause so good. Further, this isn't just working at the local homeless shelter, good though that is. No one will, or should, attack you for dolling out Thanksgiving meals to the homeless. But go after the abortion industry, and watch out. It is for this bravery in the service of a good cause, and willingness to be mocked and vilified by those on the other side that I admire her.

Lila and her associates "use new media and educational presentations to share the truth about life and the threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness posed against the born and unborn." They tell the story of the abortion culture and abortion industry. Lila is a woman who makes the world better through her work. If you want to see women who make the world worse, go here.

The purpose of her Mona Lisa Project is to expose Planned Parenthood for what it is:

Planned Parenthood's "clinics" contribute to the abuse of young girls.

The Mona Lisa Project videos document Planned Parenthood's willingness to repeatedly violate mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape that protect children.

Our series of hidden camera investigations, collected by a team led by Lila Rose in summer 2008, provide the public the inside story about the abortion industry and its abuses across the nation. Despite a consistent pattern of lawlessness and abuse, Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million from taxpayers. The tax-exempt "nonprofit"netted $100 million in profits last year including revenue in excess of $100 million from performing 250,000 abortions.

We hope that our project will lead to criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood so that their business practices will be forced to comply with governing laws that protect young girls.

Concerned Women of America says that

Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its 2004-2005 Annual Report on June 1, revealing a record income of $882 million and Planned Parenthood's second-highest profit of $63 million. The organization also set a record number of abortions performed in one year¯255,015¯ and an all-time low in adoption referrals: 180 abortions were performed for every one woman referred to an adoption agency.

The organization is using these alarming numbers to promote their services and gain customers.

"Planned Parenthood will use any means or any claim to lure more customers and money," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA). "It insists that the morning-after pill will reduce abortions. Yet Planned Parenthood posts its highest number of abortions committed at the same time as its aggressive campaign promoting and selling the morning-after pill."

On top of its $63 million profit, Planned Parenthood last year received its largest sum of state and federal taxpayer funding ever: $272.7 million, making Planned Parenthood the recipient of $3.9 billion of taxpayer money since 1987.

It's bad enough that we have legal abortions. But do we the taxpayers have to pay for them?

Please follow the links to Live Action and read their many reports and view their many videos. There is also much on YouTube, but you know how to search that site for yourself.

Next is a condensed version of a three part series about an investigation into Planned Parenthood by WB33 News of Dallas TX. In 2002, they used a company called Life Dynamics to call over 900 Planned Parenthood clinics. The calls were legally recorded.

The investigation found that in 91% of the calls, Planned Parenthood employees were willing to cover up statutory rape.

Obviously, Planned Parenthood didn't learn their lesson. They've continued this behavior again and again. Michelle Malkin, to her everlasting credit, has report after report on their nefarious activities at her website.

The Culture of Sexual Abuse

In this interview with Pro-Life Unity Lila explains what he group does and why they do it

As she says, this is not just about Planned Parenthood, though they are the biggest target because they represent the abortion industry and lobby. From the video above, Lila says that

"Planned Parenthood... is violating, is mocking, federal and state regulation ob abortion, they're manipulating women, and they're giving the one choice, of abortion, to women, which is the taking of human life. So all of that is the reason why we stand against them and that we're fighting to get the truth out there."

Much of her expose' centers around workers at Planned Parenthood helping young girls cover-up statutory rape. Lila explains why this is no small matter:

The young girls of America are not being protected. These young girls are victims of the... heavy dose of sexuality that our culture pours on them. Older men prey on them, they get pregnant, and to cover up the crime of that sexual abuse, the older men drive them to an abortion clinic, drive them to a Planned Parenthood, they get the abortion and no one ever knows about the sexual abuse.

...it's all part of the abortion culture that we need to combat and that we need to educate about, and that's what we strive to do at Live Action.

According to a Live Action press release, someone at YouTube is pulling Live Action's videos, and it's not clear why. I'm sure we'll hear an excuse to the effect that "the videos may have been made illegally," but that seems patent hogwash, since there has been no court injunction.

In the Final Analysis

I suppose one can make the argument that the reason Planned Parenthood does this is because they actually have the best interests of the girl at heart. By covering up the rape, the girl doesn't get risk get beaten by her parents (which in the world of the defenders of abortion happens all the time, don't you know). If they knew, the parents might not allow an abortion, and having a child at this age would presumably hurt the child (apparently adoption is not to be considered?). This way, the girl is relieved of a tragedy and goes on with her life unscarred. Or something like that.

Here's the bottom line: Even if you are pro-abortion, er, pro-choice, you should be appalled at this. I'm about as pro-Second Amendment as they get, and I would be furious if a gun store was caught selling guns illegally to anyone. One, I would be angry that they would knowingly sell guns to felons, minors, whomever. Second, as a gun owner and NRA member I would be embarrassed for my movement. I would clearly see how the other side would use this against us and would strive to make sure that all gun stores obeyed the law from here on out.

But where is the investigation of Planned Parenthood? It's clear that these are not isolated incidents but part of a trend. And this organization gets $300 million dollars of taxpayer money each year. I'm sure that if an equivalent thing had happened at gun stores we'd have already had Federal legislation. Senators Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer would be salivating over the opportunity to press their agenda. Getting hearings about Planned Parenthood in congress now, however, will be impossible. It's the penalty, I suppose, for losing elections.

For her actions Lila Rose is a hero.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 16, 2008

Obama the Pro-Abortion Candidate

First, lets get this out of the way: Ithought that John McCain cleaned the floor with Barack Obama last night. In the first McCain might have won, and in the second he clearly lost.

But in this third McCain wiped the floor with Obama. Far from and "calm, cool and moderate" I've heard some commentators say, Obama was clearly rattled and flustered throughout. He stammered and stuttered his way though his answers. McCain was clearly in command from beginning to end. McCain had all of the good one-liners. He nailed Obama on the facts time and again.

But that's not what I want to talk about in this post. The subject of abortion - finally - came up in last night's debate. Moderator Bob Schieffer had asked about Roe v. Wade. Here's the relevant part:

McCain:... Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that.

And then, on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state senator, he voted present.

Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really -- one of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the Illinois State Senate, he voted present.

I don't know how you vote "present" on some of that. I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that's his record, and that's a matter of his record.

And he'll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Sen. Obama voted, I think, in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream America.

Schieffer: Response?

Obama: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception..

Unfortunately for Obama, he's not telling the truth.

National Right to Life has the goods. Their article is rather long because Obama told so many lies. Here is the one dealing with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that has been the subject of so much controversy:

-- The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" - that is, long-term survival - is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama's Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -- and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary source

Call the NRLC biased if you wish, but at the end of the day you have to deal with the facts.

As far as the partial-birth abortion excuse goes, the truth is that there is never a reason to do a partial-birth abortion "for the health of the mother." This one is a total fraud.

I'm not at all happy with legal abortion for any reason and at any state of the pregnancy, but if we are going to have them, do we the taxpayers have to pay for them? According to Barack Obama, that would be a "yes". And not only that, but as you'll see, since the culture wars are "so '90s", we can't even argue with him about it

Again, the NRLC has the scoop

-- Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) (S. 1173), which would nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion before "viability" (as defined by the abortionist). The bill would also nullify all state and federal laws that "interfere with" access to abortion after viability if deemed to enhance "health." Because the term "health" is not qualified in the bill, no state would be allowed to exclude any "health" justification whatever for post-viability abortions, because to do so would impermissibly narrow a federally guaranteed right. In short, the FOCA would establish a federal "abortion right" broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies." The chief sponsors and advocacy groups backing the legislation have acknowledged that it would make partial-birth abortion legal again, nullify state parental notification laws, and require the state and federal governments to fund abortions.

Wonderful.

No doubt some will object that despite all this, Mr. "I don't want them punished with a baby" is still not "pro-abortion" but is "pro-choice." Robert George, in Obama's Abortion Extremism, compares today's pro-choice crowd to those who "accepted" slavery but would not fight against it. Many, such as Thomas Jefferson, were "personally opposed" to slavery, but also opposed abolition. Roberts asks

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Ouch. Be sure and read the rest of his piece, for he lays out the case that even if we do accept the label of "pro-choice" for most people today, Obama himself is so extreme that he deserves the label of "pro-abortion"

For Additional Reading

True Lives: An abortion survivor takes on Barack Obama. An interview with Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. She was the one who brought to light the horrific practice of how official policy was to let living babies who had survived a botched abortion die - slowly, by simply putting them on a table until the expired.

Life with Obama: Abortion champion

Obama and the Born-Alive Act

Life with Obama: A chronology

Deniers for Obama: Abortions do sometimes produce live births

Rick Warren, Obama and the Born-Alive Act

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 26, 2008

District of Columbia v. Heller - A Victory for Civil Rights

That's right, a victory for civil rights. I know that most liberals don't see gun rights as having anything to do with civil rights. They mostly see guns as "scary" things, and the idea that individuals should have them is a relic of a bygone age. In most discussions about the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is either ignored, or interpreted in weird and bizarre ways.

The most bizarre of these is the notion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to grant the states the right to establish their own armies, which is today the National Guard. The right to bear arms is a "collective" right, not one held by individuals. This despite that no one doubts that the rest of the Bill or Rights applies to individuals.

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller changed all that. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that it was in fact an individual right. It also struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, as well as the D.C. provision that all long guns be kept disassembled and with a trigger lock in place. There was more,but that's the essence.

This is very good news. All in all, I rate the decision as 80% positive.

Here's the Court's syllabus of the decision, as posted by Ed Whelen over at Bench Memos over at NRO

(a) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.

(b) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court's opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.

(c) D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.

The decision can be downloaded from the SCOTUSblog here.

Ed Whelen has much more information and commentary on the decision here, and Tom Goldstein (SCOTUSblog.com) has a must-read post here. More from the SCOTUSblog here, here, and here.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play on on TV. Here then are some observations from an NRA member who believes strongly in the individual right to own firearms:

The Good News

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, says outright that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home." This in and of itself is a huge victory.

Scalia also knocks down the notion that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the "right" of the states to have their own militias, ie National Guard.

Also, as mentioned above, the court declared that "D.C.'s ban on handgun possession violates the Second Amendment." and that "The "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." This last one is big, because the anti-gunners want us to rely on the government for protection.

And lastly, the total ban on handguns was struck down: "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose....banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."" Take that, you liberal anti-gunners!

The Bad News

While a victory is a victory, I wish it had been by a lot more than 5-4. That 4 justices see the Second Amendment as a "collective" right is disturbing.

The decision left the door open to gun bans beyond automatic weapons ("machine guns" for you non-gun types). "We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions...the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned"

So there's still going to be much fighting in legislatures. The anti-gunners can still ban "scary" guns.

Finally, the "licensing scheme" business is troubling. The court said that "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.'" which seems to mean that jurisdictions may require a license to own a firearm, but can't be used in a manner to as to create a de facto firearms ban. This, too, opens the door to many court cases.

The Dangers

A change of one justice and a 5-4 decision is reversed. For all the liberals talk about stare decisis with regard to Roe v. Wade, you can bet you'll never hear the term if they think they can reverse this decision.

The bottom line is that a president Obama will appoint liberals to the court who will want to overturn today's decision, and McCain will appoint conservatives who will uphold it. The choice couldn't be clearer.

Update

I've noticed around the Internet that some on the left are decrying this as an "activist" decision, and thus conservatives are hypocrites. I'm not sure if the people making this argument really believe what they are saying of whether they're being disingenuous, but I'll take it on.

No serious person on the right believes that the Supreme Court should not strike down unconstitutional laws, as long as the reasoning is solidly based on what the Constitution actually says, and what the founders (or those who wrote the various amendments) intended. What we object to is "making it up as you go along", ie rulings that are social engineering disguised as constitutional law. Whenever someone starts talking about a "living Constitution" or "penumbras", you know they're making it up to suit their political agendas.

So when Senator Obama said during the Roberts confirmation hearings that

Both a [conservative Justice Antonin] Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time. What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

and during a town hall meeting

What I really believe is that the Supreme Court has to be first and foremost thinking about and looking out for those who are vulnerable. People who are minorities, people who have historically been discriminated against. People who are poor. People who have been cheated. People who are being taken advantage of. People who have unpopular opinions. People who are outsiders.

and to CNN's Wolf Blitzer

...what I do want is a judge who's sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power, and, as a consequence, can't protect themselves from being -- from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for judges.

That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown vs. Board of Education.

...you know you're dealing with someone who sees the Supreme Court as a second legislature, who's purpose is to enact whatever laws the Democrats can't get through the regular legislature. And bty, he's wrong about Brown v Board of Education. Nothing other than the plain reading of Section One the Fourteenth Amendment was needed to decide that case.

Contrast this with Senator John McCain, who says he is a "Strict Constructionist" on his campaign website

John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

As I said, the choice couldn't be clearer. You have Senator Obama, who wants to use the courts as a second legislature, and Senator McCain, who wants the courts to make rulings based on the law.

Update II Sunday June 29

This letter to the editor today in The Washington Times exposes the liberal mindset perfectly:

The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ("The gun ban ends," Editorial, Friday). leaves me with a disturbing realization that our society is strangely wedded to words written in a profoundly different era. While your editorial praises the importance of this ruling on the District's gun ban and the protection of the rights of its citizens, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion was not about what is right, nor about what is smart, nor about the best interests of the District. Justice Scalia's grammar lesson on the relationship between prefatory clauses and objective clauses is hardly worthy of the sheer importance of such landmark decisions for our society. The District of Columbia and the United States do not need a long and winding recitation of the tyrannies of King George III that led to the formation of militias.

Were Justice Scalia and the others in the majority to have argued why the Second Amendment, as interpreted, is relevant today, this decision might not seem so anachronistic. On the contrary, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion smartly ignores such irrelevant history lessons and argues with the realities of the present era in mind. We need a justice system that lives in the 21st century, not one beholden to the myth that words written in 1791 about men carrying muskets have any bearing today.

ANDREW CORSO
Arlington

If you don't like a law, just have some judge declare it irrelevant and put something different in its place. Those legislatures and referrendums can be so pesky!

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 14, 2008

Obama and Clinton at the Compassion Forum

Yesterday evening presidential candidates and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham Pennsylania. Messiah College is a private Christian institution. CNN broadcast the event. Here's what amounts to a mission statement from the website

Now more than ever, Americans motivated by faith are bridging ideological divides to address domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, genocide in Darfur, and human rights and torture. The Compassion Forum will provide the opportunity for candidates to discuss how their faith and moral convictions bear on their positions on these important issues.

The Compassion Forum will be a unique and unprecedented event. Each candidate will participate in a separate substantive conversation. This will not be a debate. Questions will be posed by co-moderators Jon Meacham, editor of "Newsweek," and Campbell Brown, anchor of CNN's Election Center.

This is not the first time the Democrats have openly discussed religion in such a forum. Last June, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards participated in a "Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty" that was sponsored by the Sojourners, a very liberal Christian group. I thought that Clinton and Obama did well in that one, but didn't much care for what Edwards had to say.

Let's see how the Democrat candidates did this time.

But first, let's state the obvious:

If Republicans did this the left would scream that they were "pushing their religion" on the country, and that if elected they would declare a theocracy and (somehow) force everyone to be a Christian. Yet in this presidential season the Democrats have participated in not one but two faith-based forums, and I haven't heard boo about it. If you think that these forums are an aberration and that it is only the right that "mixes politics with religion", just do some basic research on churches and associations like the Sojourners, the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian Church USA, The Unitarian Universalist Association, Christian Peacemaker Teams.... and there are many more.

As I said in my post on the Democrats first forum, I was glad to see that they are not afraid of talking about faith. This is good. What we now have to do is get people to recognize that yes Republicans can and should talk about it too, and no, doing so does not portend the coming of a theocracy.

Both the religious left and religions right think that faith should play a role in public life, and that it should influence what you think about matters of public policy, and thus how you vote. The left is primarily concerned with what they call "social justice", and the right social conservatism (I can't think of an equivalent term so if you have an honest suggestion please leave it in the comments). This is how it should be.

Ok now that I've said that let's move on to the forum. CNN has helpfully posted a transcript.

Read the whole thing, but the parts about abortion are the parts I found the most interesting

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have....

On to the other senator

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there....

MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Oh please.

Both of these Democrats talk in circles and split hairs. Obama's fine words can't hide his radical left voting record on the issue. Clinton is no better. Both claim to want to reduce the incidence of abortion but their records say just the opposite. To them it's all a matter of providing enough condoms and "eduction" and maybe the pesky right-wingers will go away. Their real audience is the abortionist crowd who doesn't want the slightest restriction on their activities. Judging from this forum, they got what they wanted.

Tuesday Update

Some commentary I was reading today over at The Weekly Standard brought up this exchange

MEACHAM: Senator, we've heard about HIV/AIDS. Many people here are concerned about Darfur and a number of other humanitarian issues. Why do you think it is that a loving God allows innocent people to suffer?

CLINTON: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: And we just have 30 seconds.

CLINTON: Yes. You know, that is the subject of generations of commentary and debate. And I don't know. I can't wait to ask him. Because I have...

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: I have just pondered it endless endlessly.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: But I do want to just add that what that means to me is that in the face of suffering, there is no doubt in my mind that God calls us to respond. You know, that's part of what we are expected to do.

For whatever reason it exists, it's very existence is a call to action. Certainly in, you know, our...

There's no need to "ponder" the matter, Senator Clinton. The Bible is very clear on the subject, and it says that there are three reasons why God allows suffering:

1) The original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as told in Genesis 3

2) Heavenly events about which we know nothing about, as told in Job 1-2

3) Punishment for sin, much of the OT, but the book of Lamentations spells it out best

The catch is that we humans can never know which of the three applies to any given situation. Only a prophet can tell us such things, and there are no living prophets.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 20, 2008

Book Review - Come On, People!

On the 17th of May, 2004, Bill Cosby delivered a speech to the NAACP on the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education that rocked the Black community, and indeed the country at large. Known as the "Pound Cake speech", he pointed out negative social trends within the Black community, and said point blank that "we cannot blame white people."

In the speech, he focused on the high crime rate, lack of parenting, "50 percent drop out rate", bad English, focus on multimillionaire sports figures that "can’t write a paragraph", and other social pathologies that plague the black community. Cosby was later criticized for his remarks, but refused to back down.

Come On, People! On the Path from Victims to Victors is the book that resulted from this speech. To write it, Cosby teamed up with Dr Alvin Pousssaint, who is a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Cosby draws the readers, and my guess is that most of the writing was done by him. Dr. Pousssaint leads intellectual weight to the book, so that when they write "studies show that..." you can be sure they are not blowing smoke.

The book is written in a casual, easy-to-read style. It is unfootnoted (although there is an excellent bibliography at the end), as it is meant to be more a call to action than an academic treatise.

What Cosby and Poussaint do not do in the book is prove through a mass of statistics and academic data that the black community is in trouble. This is taken as a given. Nor do they spend their time relating the history of black people in America, and how we got to our current situation. Rather, this is more of a self-help book than anything.

Cosby and Poussaint do not deny that racism plays a role in America today. To do so would be unfactual, and they would lose all credibility. But neither do they dwell on it. Racism gets a few lines here and there, but their message is clear: Most of our ills are not the result of racism, and are things that we can and need to set right ourselves.

The intended audience for Come on, People! are the very people that they are trying to help; black people who are caught in a cycle of poverty and violence. They are also trying to reach black community leaders who can turn things around.

As such, much of the book consists of common-sense advice for black people. There are chapters on prenatal care, parenting, eating properly, managing your finances, how to get a good education and use it to seek gainful employment, and much more. Here is a small sample taken at random:

Go to a doctor early and often for prenatal care

Don't let your kids watch too much TV

Be a good role model for your children

Proper English is a must

Slow down on the fast food

If you're going to have children, get married and stay married

Stop charging anything you don't absolutely need

Whatever you do, graduate from high school

Community colleges have many great courses that can lead directly to a job

Walk away from a fight

Shield your kids from what's on the Internet

The best way to avoid diabetes is to keep your weight under control.

Intersperced throughout the book are "call outs"; most of which are brief stories of black people who faced overwhelming odds yet made it. Others are those of successful black professionals who have useful advice. All are valuable and interesting.

The overwhelming message is that values matter. Come On, People! reminds me as nothing so much as Laura Ingraham's Power to the People, in which she discussed various social ills that are the result of bad value values.

Cosby and Poussaint are all about advancement through education. Unlike too many elies, who obsess over how many CEOs or professional football coaches are black, they look to action that will help the average black person. High profile black success stories in sports and entertainment world are simply not meaningful to the average person, as the chances that he or she will achieve such fame and riches are slim. As such, their advice, as illustrated in the above list, is designed to move people toward obtaining basic degrees at average colleges (they especially stress community colleges) that lead to concrete careers.

I'm not quite sure how much Cosby's message has resonated within the black community, as surely he has faced much resistance from elites for refusing to blame everything on white racism. Yet he and co-author Poussiant are not alone in their quest. For example, NPR Senior Correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams, a black man with impeccable liberal credentials, wrote Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure that are Undermining Black America, and What We can Do About It in 2006, and between the three of them perhaps they can turn the debate around.

Cosby, Poussiant, Williams, and for that matter Ingraham, have picked up on the fact that there is only so much the government can do. Ending blatant racism was good and a must, but clearly this isn't enough to truely liberate black people. Create all the enterprise zones you want, Jack Kemp, but until you change values and attitudes you're whistling dixie.

To me, the question is not whether Come On, People! is a useful book. It is. The question is how to get it into the hands of the people who need it the most. I suspect that many or even most of the people who buy it are people like me; white guys who live comfortably in the suburbs. I'd buy a hundred books and donate them to a black church uptown if I thought they'd hand them out, but such an act would be seen as condescending, I suppose.

Much of the solution, then, is going to have to come from within the black community itself. But there are things that we can do also, like stop buying "gansta rap" music, and cleaning up our own culture. Because ultimately we're all in this together.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2007

Hanging with Laura Ingraham

Ok, so I didn't really hang out with Laura Ingraham today, but the title sounds good.

I went over to the Arlington Costco to her book signing, where I got an autographed copy of Power to the People.

Unfortunately I forgot my regular camera, so was left with the camera on my cell phone, which is only VGA quality. The Costco lady accidentally hit the button too soon, and since there were a lot of people waiting it wasn't appropriate to reset it for another try. It doesn't really matter though, I really just wanted an autographed copy of her book

Although I obviously haven't read the book yet, I did skim through sections while waiting in line, and she has talked a lot about it on her radio show. In her book she talks about negative social trends that are harming our country, such as the "pornification" of the culture. As you may imagine, I'm completely in sympathy with her.

It seemed like people of all ages were waiting in line. It was especially encouraging to see younger people, those who looked to be in their teens or 20s, as they are the ones who need this the most, since they are under the most peer pressure.

The man behind me was with his two preteen daughters, and he was telling them about Laura and her message, as they are obviously in school when she is on the air. But he was telling them that he was going to have Laura sign it to them as well as him, and in the coming months they were going to learn about her and her message.

There's a man who loves his daughters. Sometime small things give me great hope for our country.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 10, 2006

Brave New World, Here We Come

While our troops are trying their best to win the War on Terror abroad, some on the West seem determined to wreck our societies beyond all recognition.

Sherlock Holmes once commented to his companion Dr Watson that while rural areas seem tranquil and uneventful to the observer, great crimes and horrors were committed in isolated homes. Crime went unreported because of the isolation of such residences.

Switzerland is one of those idyllic little countries in Europe that everyone would like to visit. Tranquil and beautiful, it offers the tourist a respite from the busyness of everday life. Who could think ill of such a country, or imagine that anything bad happens there?

But as Holmes pointed out, horrors can occur under our very noses without our being aware of them. The residents of an apartment complex in Zurich have been living with a "house of horrors" in their very midst

Residents who share an apartment building with Dignitys, an assisted-suicide charity, have begun a campaign to evict the organization from the building.

In the eight years that Dignitys has been in the building, more than 450 people have killed themselves with barbiturates in the fourth-floor apartment owned by the Swiss charity. The bodies are put into a zipper bag and transported in the three-person elevator or carried downstairs.

Traumatized by the experience of passing living people going up in the elevator only to come across them hours later descending in a body bag, some residents want to move out of the block.

Unbeknownst, I think, to most people, Switzerland "has gained a reputation for "death tourism"." The residents in the apartment who seek to evict Dignitys do not necessarily object to assisted suicide as such, but just don't want it going on near them. As Miss Sonny, the person leading the effort so evict Dignitys says, "Some people admire the charity but are horrified that they use communal areas." Out of sight, out of mind.

I guess none of this should be surprising. After all, abortion is legal in most Western countries. Once we got used to killing our babies, it was a small step to killing the living, as long as we could be assured that they were terminally ill. Or at least upset with their lives. Or whatever, as long as we could assure ourselves that we were protecting "choice."

You Speciesist!

Not to be outdone in their attempt to destroy our society, the socialists in Spain have introduced a measure in their parliament which will give human rights to apes. Really.

Spain could soon become the first country in the world to give chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes some of the fundamental rights granted to human beings under a law being proposed by members of the ruling Socialist coalition.

The law would eliminate the concept of "ownership" for great apes, instead placing them under the "moral guardianship" of the state, much as is the case for children in care, the severely handicapped and those in comas, said the MP behind the project, Francisco Garrido

Garrido and his fellow socialists get their inspiration from the Great Ape Project, a Seattle-based organization who's mission statement declares that

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law.

Among the "principles or rights" that they demand be extended to the great apes are "the right to life", the "protection of individual liberty", and "the prohibition of torture".

All this is part of the "animal rights" movement.
According to Wikipedia, he infamous Peter Singer, in his 1975 book Animal Liberation,

Argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings or fur is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans. He concludes that the use of animals for food is unjustifiable because it creates unnecessary suffering, and considers veganism the most fully justifiable diet.

Once we have degraded our unborn and aged to the point where they can be killed, it is but a small step toward seeing animals as our constutional equals. Today it is the great apes and chimpanzees, tomorrow the rest of the animal kingdom. Don't you doubt it.

The Family No More

Not satisfied with killing our unborn and ill and with reducing humanity to but one more species among many, the family is now under attack like never before. The prospect of "gay marriage" looms large on the horizon. It's all done, of course, under the banner of "equality". Don't think that you can object on the basis of your religion, either,

New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual "weddings" or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday.

It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.
...

Unless exemptions were strengthened, Christian centres that disapproved of homosexual behaviour could be forced to hire out rooms to gay groups and Christian charities could have their public funding cut if they did not agree to the regulations.

Liberals in the US Senate recently defeated a proposed constitutional measure that would have preserved traditional marriage. The text of the proposed amendment

Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The reason, of course, for an amendment is that we have activist judges in this country who have decided that they want to play legislator. They know no boundaries in their rulings, and will pronounce on just about anything. They relieve Democrats from having to push controversial issues in legislators, where they can be publicly debated. Democrats are caught between two constitutencies; blacks, hispanics, and labor-union types who oppose gay marriage, and gay groups, who want it. They way out is to let the courts do their dirty work for them. That way they can say to the former "don't blame us!", while "wink wink" to the latter.

The claim by opponents of the amendment that the issue ought to be left to the states is therefore disingenuous. As if state legislatures will be deciding the matter. We all know that liberal activist judges will impose it on us sooner or later if we do nothing to stop it.

Matthew Spalding, in a paper on The Heritage Foundation's website, points out what is at stake

The basic building block of society is the family, which is the primary institution through which children are raised, nurtured, and educated, and develop into adults. Marriage is the cornerstone of the family: It produces children, provides them with mothers and fathers, and is the framework through which relationships among mothers, fathers, and children are established and maintained. Only in the context of family built on the foundation of marriage can the sometimes competing needs and interests of men, women, and children be harmonized.

People who think that allowing gays to marry will not have ramifications throughout our society are kidding themselves.

Brave New World, here we come.

Posted by Tom at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 17, 2006

And Now for Something Completely Different

Is it just me, or is there an epidemic of jaywalking in our country?

Yes that's right, Jaywalking.

I cannot drive around anymore without seeing people running across some fairly busy streets. The mainstreet of my little town is one of those four-lane roads, with businesses on each side, with a turning lane down the middle of the street. Undivided, you know what I mean. Every quarter mile or something there is a stoplight, and the speed limit is maybe 35mph but you know how that goes.

And half the time I'm downtown some idiot is running across the street, as often as not young parents with little children in tow.

Now mind you there's a crosswalk not more than a hundred feet away.

And I've seen this too on busier roads than this.

Now mostly, and this is just a personal observation, most of the jaywalkers are Hispanic. If this is accurate, and it might not be, is this the result of cultural or socio-economic factors? Or is it the result of a general breakdown of an attitude towards law-and-order?

Maybe it's just me, but when I was a kid it was inconceivable that I'd do anything other than cross at the crosswalk. But then, we also called adults "Mr" or "Mrs" in those days, too, which is something else that seems to have gone by the wayside.

So tell me, do you notice this where you live too, or is it just me?

Posted by Tom at 10:32 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 15, 2005

The War on the Boy Scouts II

Some months ago I wrote about the War on the Boy Scouts over at Conserva-Puppies. It looks like things are heating up again.

A federal judge has ruled the Pentagon can no longer spend millions in government money to ready a Virginia military base for a national Boy Scout event typically held every four years, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning's June 22 order stems from a 1999 lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois that claimed the Defense Department (search) sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God.

It's enough to want to make you throw up. What is the matter with these people? What is their problem?

The ACLU claims that it's an "establishment of religion" issue (see link above). One suspects that if the Scouts caved on the gay issue the lawsuits would suddenly cease.

Pentagon lawyers are expected to appeal the case above, so this particular situation is not settled yet. Common sense and decency may yet prevail. Yet that mere fact that such lawsuits are brought, and the Scouts and government much spend vast sums of money fighting them, ought to disturb anyone who cares about the youth of this country.

If you're one of those who thinks that this is a simple matter of separation of church and state, explain this:

During the 2000 Democrat National Convention, when a group of Boy Scouts took the stage, they were booed by a significant number of the delegates. This was widely reported in the press, at least the conservative press, so the left is wasting their time if they want to deny it. Here's one account:

Eagle Scouts have earned the highest rank in scouting. When a group of them took the stage at the Democratic National Convention, delegates booed.

Convention-goers knew in advance the Scouts were coming, and they were ready for them.

"We Support Gay Boy Scouts," read the previously prepared signs they waved as they shouted derision at the uniformed Scouts with all their hard-won merit badges.

The Scouts, who had been invited by organizers of the Democratic convention to make their podium appearance Thursday, appeared shocked.

This issue isn't going away, folks.

DefendScouting.org Bookmark it.

Posted by Tom at 8:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

The Most Irrelevant Organization

From today's Washington Times:

The NAACP will target private companies as part of its economic agenda, seeking reparations from corporations with historical ties to slavery and boycotting companies that refuse to participate in its annual business diversity report card.

"Absolutely, we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table," Dennis C. Hayes, interim president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said yesterday at the group's 96th annual convention here.

"Many of the problems we have now including poverty, disparities in health care and incarcerations can be directly tied to slavery."

What a load of bunk. Unbelieveably, they've been able to blackmail, er convince, several cities into going along.

Such laws exist in Philadelphia and Chicago, which can refuse to grant contracts because of a company's slavery ties although neither city has done this. Detroit and New Orleans are considering similar bills.

Two unnamed banks in Chicago, as well as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, have already apologiezed and are making payments in the form of scholarships to black children.

There are to many things wrong with this one hardly knows where to start.

Let's just start with these observations;

The people who did wrong and evil things are dead, so there is nobody left to apologize.

The people who suffered are dead, so there is nobody left to apologize too. The idea that blacks today are hurt significantly by slavery over a hundred years ago is ridiculous, given the massive federal and local spending on their behalf since then, to say nothing of quota programs, which now go under the guise of "diversity".

So people who didn't do anything wrong are apologizing to people who weren't hurt. How modern.

Scholarships based on race are racist. They should be based on economic need, not sex or race or some other such artificial factor.

The whole thing is nothing more than a "get rich quick" scheme.

The Real Crime

All of this is bad, but in itself it's not the end of the world. The real crime is that the NAACP has become absolutely irrelevant to the needs of black people in the United States. Rather than concern itself with genuine problems, such as illegimacy, drug use, the infuence of gangster rap, or bad attitudes towards education that plague inner-city youth, they're off on this reparations kick.

Ten Reasons Why Reparations are a Bad Idea

David Horowitz, who fought for civil rights in the 1960s, has published the best and most succinct response to the reparations movement that I've found yet. It's called "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too"

I'm going to reprint the ten reasons here, because I think it important that we be armed against arguments for reparations. This issue isn't going away, folks:

One

There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

Two

There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.

Three

Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

Four

America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

Five

The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

Six

The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites ( and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

Seven

The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?

Eight

Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?

Nine

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

Ten

The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.

For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

Posted by Tom at 8:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

Over the Top

This is unbelieveable. He is sick, truely sick.

Posted by Tom at 8:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2005

About what I think, too

Are you familiar with the Bratz series of dolls? If not, good for you.

Normally I don't write about this type of thing but yesterday I saw an article in my morning paper that struck me. It was originally in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and it's about the increasing sexualization of children

With their made-up eyes, pouty lips and short skirts, these girls look like real party dolls.

In fact, they are dolls. They're the Bratz, the 10-inch "girls with a passion for fashion" whose skyrocketing popularity among young girls has ignited a marketing war with Barbie, the long-reigning queen of the fashion doll world. Compared with the flirtatious-looking Bratz, Barbie looks like the scrub-cheeked -- albeit curvaceous -- girl-next-door.

As thousands of girls dump Barbie for the Bratz, child development experts worry. They see the Bratz as the cutting edge of a worrisome trend: the increasing use of sexual imagery in products marketed to young children.

They call it the "sexualization of childhood" and point to other examples: thong underwear emblazoned with sexually suggestive phrases for 6-year-old girls; "pimp" Halloween costumes for little boys; the increasingly sexually explicit content of TV shows, movies, and music CDs.

About what I've been thinking, too. And it is most decidedly not a good thing.

Posted by Tom at 8:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 17, 2004

Racial Reconciliation

The Homespun Bloggers Symposium question of the week

What do you believe is necessary for true racial reconciliation to take place in American society? Does your solution involve coercive governmental remedies? Do you believe that Churches have an important role to play in this process?

My answer

Let us first define the problem. The question, I believe, relates mainly to white-black relations in our country. While Hispanics make up a large part of our nation, the issues with them or any of the other minority groups do not have the unique historical background that defines white-black relations.

The problem is that each side blames the other for the current problems that the "black community" faces. I put black community in quotation marks because as a committed individualist I always wince whenever someone tries to lump all people into a neat classification, as if everyone in that group thinks and acts the same way. With that caveat firmly in mind, however, for purposes of this discussion we will cautiously speak of groups of people.

In 1990 Shelby Steele wrote that he thought that "...the real trouble between the races in America is that the races are not just races but competing power groups." It is tempting to say that this is half-right, that the NAACP, for example, constitutes an institution dedicated to black power (which it does) but that since there is nothing similar on the white side we are not a power group. This, I believe, is incorrect. Whites do have power groups, but they are less well defined.

White Guilt

White guilt has been a powerful driving force among white people for over forty years. That such a syndrome developed is not only understandable, but perhaps necessary. Jim Crow lived for far too long in our country, and when he was finally extinguished white people felt that they had to make up for years of oppression.

It's initial result was the construction of LBJ's "Great Society" programs in the 1960's. The consequence of many of these programs has unfortunately been to further the misery of the black underclass. Further, as long as these programs exist, the situation in our country is not going to get any better. (Note; no time now for a detailed discussion of programs such as AFDC or affirmative action)

Today white guilt is mainly confined to liberals and leftists. Those of us usually considered conservatives have seen for some time that these programs were not only working, but are positively harmful. That the left is still consumed by feelings of guilt is demonstrated by the method with which they defend these programs; not through rational discussion but by name-calling and personal attacks. Daniel Patrick Moynihan discovered this in 1965 when he released his "Moynihan Report" showing black families to be in crisis because of the growth of single parenthood. For his trouble he suffered the indignity of being called "racist" and other epithets.

In order for progress to be made, the left must get rid of it's white guilt complex.

Conservative Compassion

At the same time, conservatives must not "write off" black people. That we do not get but a fraction of their vote is no excuse. Jack Kemp is right when he says that we must work to find solutions outside of the traditional leftist welfare state. Now, much work in this area has been done in the past fifteen or so years. The "Welfare Reform" bill passed during the Clinton years is a result of this effort.

There have been many other conservative thinkers who have written about this problem, and they are too many to list here. Suffice it to say that we must not be disheartened by the venom coming from groups like the NAACP, but must redouble our efforts. Survey after survey shows that many blacks hold quite conservative social views. If we work hard enough, and we must surely try, we can over time work to alleviate racial problems.

Black Acceptance

On the "other side" (augh, how I hate to divide us so) some (is that better?) black people need to accept that it is no longer 1955. The NAACP and other extremist groups need to recognize that what columnist Walter Williams has said; that the war against racial opppression has been won, and that it is over. We're not still fighting the Germans or Japanese, thus our military and foreigh policies have changed. Jim Crow is dead, but extremist groups cannot accept this simple fact.

Likewise, racial provocateurs such as Al Sharpton must be marginalized. It is to the everlasting shame of the Democratic Party that such people are not only tolerated but accepted with open arms. Media institutions fawn over Sharpton, and totally ignore his history. This must change if there is to be racial reconciliation. Jesse Jackson marginalized himself, but as long as Sharpton is accepted it will be difficult or impossible for changes to occur.

Lastly, the entire liberal obsession with "victimhood" must end. As Shelby Steele put it, in order "to move beyond the victim-focused black identity; we must learn to make a difficult but crucial distinction; between acual victimization, which we must resist with every resource, and identification with the victim's status."

The Role of the Government

This part is simple; coercion must not be involved. What goes by the euphamism of "affirmative action" has been a net loss for black people. The reasons for this are two: On the one hand it fosters dependancy. On the other, resentment.

The Role of Churches

I wish that I could say that churches could play a significant role. They may be able to effect some change at the local level, but nationally their effect so far has been harmful.

On the "white side" (arugh, there I go again) the mainstream churches are consumed with White Guilt. The Presbyterian Church USA, for example, is run by leftists (no ifs ands or buts, folks, they are way out in left field. I know because I'm a member). As the possiblilty of significan change within their national leadership seems remote, they are best kept out of any discussion process.

Same on the "black side". As long as the "Reverend" Jackson and Sharpton are given prominent places no progress can be made.

If churches are to have a role, it is at the local level. Individual churches can make contact with each other and set up joint-projects. For example, the mostly-white Presbyterian church in my old hometown works with the largely-black First Babtist church. They do joint charity projects. I'm not sure, however, that any of this will bring about any significant changes, but it is better than nothing.

The Bottom Line

Each side must make changes if we are to have racial reconciliation in our country. It behooves each side to make an honest accounting of their failures and prejudices. We have come a long way, and this must be recognized and celebrated, but still have a long way to go, and this, too, must be recognized.

Posted by Tom at 9:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 12, 2004

Immigration and Economics

I had a debate with a friend of mine on the issue of immigration and the global economy. He sent me a copy of the Phyllis Shlafly Report titled "What the Global Economy Costs Americans"

I responded to him with a critique of her column. Sections are reprinted below.

First, do we really want these jobs to stay here?  Consider the consequences of forcing

corporations to keep these jobs here.  To do these jobs, Americans will want to be paid

more than Indians or Chinese.  The increased cost will be passed along to the consumer.

So your bills will eventually (maybe not immediately) go up.  You'll pay more for many

services in the long run.  Because either prices will have to go up, or corporate revinues

will have to go down.  Lagging revinues means recession.  Is this really good for the

American consumer?


Second, any discussion of outsourcing must also include insourcing.  You don't hear so much

about it, but jobs are coming to the United States.  And we are creating new jobs all the time.

In the short term both outsourcing and insourcing cause social dislocations causing politicians

to get involved.   Thomas Sowell has an excellent editorial on this which you can find here.

It's time for Congress to call a halt to the scandal of the way big corporations hire foreigners at the same time they are laying off their American employees. The hiring of hundreds of thousands of foreigners is why this year's college graduates face the worst job market in recent memory.

When U.S. corporations built hundreds of plants in Third World  countries, we were

told not to worry about losing blue-collar  manufacturing jobs because we were

keeping the service jobs. Now the  high-paying white-collar service jobs are going

overseas, too,  particularly jobs for engineers and computer specialists.  


Follow the money. The big corporations hire aliens from India and China  at  half or

a third the wages, work them long hours without overtime pay,  and  treat them like

indentured servants unable to quit for a better job.  What makes this racket possible

is the partnership between corporations  and government.

The wording in this article is a bit too conspiratorial for me, but I'll answer the substance

anyway.


Yes "corporations" hire illegals because they can pay them less. And politicians are reluctant

to crack down because of the economics of the matter.  What economics am I talking about?

Consider the consequequences of tossing all illegals out of the country.  The jobs previously

done by the illegals would now be open.  But Americans would refuse to take these jobs at the

same wage rates as the illegals were paid.  Thus to fill these jobs corporations would have

to raise wages.  The consequences of this would be higher prices paid by the consumer.  Either

that, or lower corporate profits.  And the consequences of lower profits are twofold; lower

investment in new plant and R&D, and lower stock prices. Do you want your 401k to tank?

Now, I am NOT saying that we should ignore illegal immigration.  In fact, I'm in favor of a

cracking down. What I AM saying is that we need to understand the economic consequences

of doing so.  Unfortunately the Eagle Forum newsletter you sent me makes no attempt to do so.

The corporations make political contributions to assure the passage of legislation that legalizes the importation of foreign cheap labor by the devices called H1B visas L-1 visas, and outsourcing....

I admit that I don't know enough about these issues to really comment on the details.


But the basic economics are clear enough; if you put a halt to these visas you will end up paying

higher prices as a consumer.  This may or may not be what the public wants, but before we take

any decisions we need to understand the economic consequences.  This article seems to think

that you can cut off visa's and we'll all live happily ever after. 

Corporations hire people for less money because they're trying to stay competitive.  They want

to offer a good service at a low price.  There's nothing really conspiratorial about it. 

Ok readers, tell me if I've got it right or not. 

Posted by Tom at 2:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack