Archive for the ‘Editorial’ Category
Obama And Mandela: A Lot More Than Little White Lies
by John Myers
“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.” — Nelson Mandela, Jan. 29, 2003
Nelson Mandela, the former terrorist-turned-compromiser and the so-called “father of democracy” who served as president of South Africa, hated America. But progressive liberals loved him — none more so than President Barack Obama, who ordered that flags at the White House and all Federal buildings fly at half-staff through Monday, following Mandela’s death last Thursday at age 95. But that was only the start.
Obama, like so many black celebrities and members of the white media, has personalized his relationship with Mandela beyond all reason: “He no longer belongs to us; he belongs to the ages,” Obama saidupon learning of Mandela’s death. The President added, “We will not likely see the likes of Nelson Mandela again.”
I have no doubt about that last statement. Can you think of another terrorist bent on killing and overthrowing a government with bombs and armed insurrection who went on to be considered the greatest statesman ever? And just in case you think that Mandela was never a terrorist but a misunderstood man walking in the steps of Mahatma Gandhi, then you are at odds with Washington. He was on the terrorist list until 2008.
No doubt, South Africans were upset when Mandela tried to blow up a hospital in the early 1960s. The difference between Mandela then and Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, is that McVeigh was a deadlier terrorist. Later in life, Mandela did say that he was glad he was caught and did not kill all those innocent sick people. Millions of people find it heartwarming that Mandela had a change of heart.
Check one for sainthood!
In the 1980s, when the Government of South Africa said that Mandela could walk out of jail a free man if he would simply renounce violence as a means to black majority rule, the great leader said no. Apparently, his wife Winnie Mandela was too happy necklacing her black opponents with tires filled with gasoline for her husband to make a false promise.
Check two for sainthood!
Then there is the fact that Mandela is now celebrated as the greatest human being of the modern era, perhaps any era. Larry King said on CNN that he knows of no greater person who lived in the 20th century than Mandela. Apparently, King has forgotten a lot of people.
But my favorite shout-out comes from Peter Oborne, who wrote last Friday for The Telegraph:
There are very few human beings who can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela is one. This is because he was a spiritual leader as much as a statesman. His colossal moral strength enabled him to embark on new and unimaginable forms of action. He could lead through the strength of example alone.
Check three for sainthood!
That makes two human beings who I have heard compared to Christ: Mandela and Obama. (After all, Oprah Winfrey called Obama the “chosen one.”)
What do both men have in common? Their roots are African. And, beneath all that gloss, polish and hype, Mandela was what Obama remains: a die-hard Marxist.
Dying To Be Seen By Obama
After Obama was snubbed last summer by a then-ill Mandela, the President and the first lady were a spectacle at services for Mandela, fueling the flames of the debate over who loved Mandela more: Bill and Hillary Clinton or Barack and Michelle Obama? It was practically a repeat of three weeks ago, when the Clintons and the Obamas were almost wrestling over the eternal flame torch at the burial site of John F. Kennedy upon the 50-year anniversary of his assassination.
World leaders flew in from all corners of the world to prove they also loved Saint Nelson, despite his past proclivity for violent revolution and his enduring friendships with the late Moammar Gadhafi and Fidel Castro.
It is reality TV, the “I Loved Nelson Mandela The Most Show.” And the Big Three networks, plus CNN and MSNBC, all want to win. Thus they present a Mandela love fest (which began last Thursday and may last until his burial on Dec. 15), detailing how he single-handedly sowed the seeds that brought peace, democracy and prosperity to South Africa.
But what is the truth about Mandela?
I believe he was a changed man, a nonviolent man, by the time he was released from prison in 1990. I also believe that without him, South Africa would have disintegrated the way Rhodesia did — with mass killings and an immediate government takeover of white property. Instead, the property takeover in South Africa has happened over a decade and will probably accelerate now that Mandela is gone.
That said, no man was a greater savior to his country against oppression than Lech Wałęsa, the co-founder of Solidarity in Poland and a political prisoner under martial law imposed at the behest of the Kremlin. Wałęsa probably did more to tear down the Iron Curtain than any person, and he helped give Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe its first independence since Vladimir Lenin enslaved hundreds of millions of people.
What will happen when Wałęsa, the former President of Poland, dies? At best, he might get a mention at the bottom of Page 1 in The New York Times. There will be no flags at half-staff; neither will there be hour upon hour of specials on his life. No past or present American Presidents will speak of Wałęsa’s greatness and attend his memorial service.
But what are the core differences between Wałęsa and Mandela? One fought for democracy through peaceful means. The other used violence in an attempt to overthrow a white government and was a lifelong Marxist. One was a playwright. The other, even in old age, raised a clenched fist as a symbol of black power.
But the biggest difference is that Wałęsa is white and Mandela was black.
The Unreported Suffering Of Whites In South Africa
Have you noticed what is missing in the lionization of Mandela? There has hardly been a report out of South Africa. Perhaps that is because millions of lives were turned upside down once Mandela became President. We’ve seen no reports from the disenfranchised whites who have lost their jobs, been swallowed up by poverty or had to leave South Africa. And we’ve seen no reports on the growing poverty and crime in South Africa that has sprung up since Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) has economically ruined the sole bright economic spot that existed in all of dark Africa. That Apartheid was evil is beyond dispute, but that the new South Africa that Mandela helped create is a multiracial democratic paradise is an outright lie. The huge transition in that country has caused terrible suffering.
My best friend of 30 years teaches overseas and speaks of South Africa often. For the past decade, at his different posts, the largest groups of expatriates he’s worked with originate from South Africa. They are whites who teach and administer in schools in Europe, the Mideast and Asia. They have been forced to leave their homes and families in South Africa because, under ANC rule, jobs have been taken from whites and handed to blacks. Freedom for all races, which Mandela bragged about for 20 years, is nothing more than affirmative action on a national scale.
Three years ago, The Christian Science Monitor published “More White South Africans Struggle In Post-Apartheid Economy,” which stated:
It was an improbable sight even 10 years ago in South Africa: white people in shacks — poor, desperate, and surviving off handouts.
But with the fall of apartheid and the transformation of the job market in favor of the majority black population, increasing numbers of white people are without work and living below the poverty line.
Recent statistics from the Bureau for Market Research show that there are 650,000 whites ages 16 or over without work, with estimates saying that total is growing by 15 percent a year.
That is not even the worst of it. Author Ilana Mercer wrote: “Since he came to power in 1994, approximately 300,000 people have been murdered.”
Given a population of only 50 million people, that many dead in less than two decades is not so different from the purges under Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong. So even if we accepted Mandela at his word as a changed man who was once a terrorist, the erasure of white society and the soaring violence against non-ANC blacks hardly make Mandela a man for the ages or a Christ-like figure.
Yet you won’t hear that from Obama or the liberal media. It is an inconvenient truth. Instead, black leaders, black celebrities and the media will keep doing what they have been doing: exacerbating white guilt over the treatment of African-Americans and pushing race relations to a new low in the United States. Divide and conquer. That was Mandela’s way. That is Obama’s way.
Yours in good times and bad,
SCOTT WALKER MAKES HIS 2016 CASE IN “UNINTIMIDATED”
Walker’s book–written with the help of ghostwriter Marc Theissen, a former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush–reads so much like a political thriller (for TV fans,The West Wing or House of Cards in the form of a book) that the reader has to pause after every dozen pages or so to remind himself that the events of the governor’s first two years in office really happened and aren’t out of a Hollywood screenplay. Wisely, Walker spares his readers the boring autobiographical details that bog down the majority of political books and gets right to business, telling the story of his wild term in office and laying out his political philosophy.
For those who spent the better portion of 2011 and 2012 in a bunker, a quick recap: Walker inherited a massive budget shortfall from his predecessor and seemingly had no way to balance the state’s books without raising taxes, laying off workers, or slashing funding to schools and local government. After identifying absurd public-sector union contracts as the albatross around his state’s neck, Walker moved to eliminate collective bargaining for government employees and require them to contribute to their pensions and benefits. Chaos, in the form of 100,000–occasionally violent–protesters followed, as did 16 months of political warfare the likes of which no U.S. state had ever seen. Walker emerged not only victorious, but as an unexpected hero to conservatives nationwide.
For the first three-quarters of the book, Walker recounts the events of 2011 and 2012 in Madison from a firsthand perspective, taking the reader alongside him on his wild ride. The narrative–clearly aided by Theissen’s strong background in speechwriting–is engaging and easy to read, and intersperses with glimpses into Walker’s political mindset. Walker explains his policies–particularly the landmark collective bargaining bill that cured Wisconsin’s budget woes–to the reader just as he would to voters on the campaign trail. His explanations are concise, logical, and above all make sense–to the point where the reader wonders why they caused an angry mob to violently swarm Wisconsin’s State Capitol, damage public property, assault legislators, and compare Walker to Hitler, bin Laden, and Satan (among other dignitaries).
Political junkies will appreciate the inside baseball of Walker’s fight to pass and defend his reforms, which began with a single Democrat’s change of heart a month before Walker took office and culminated in a historic election that saw Walker become the first governor ever to survive a recall attempt. Even if you followed the events in Madison closely and know how Walker’s story will unfold, you’ll still be amazed by what went on behind the scenes. From the midnight riots that required legislators to escape the Capitol in secret, to the secret meetings with runaway Senators on the side of a highway in Illinois, to the man in Virginia whose last-minute commercial saved Walker’s reforms and the county clerk whose error nearly doomed them, the play-by-play of Unintimidated is a popcorn thrill ride.
Walker didn’t write the book–and subsequently crisscross the country to promote it–to entertain politicos, however. Unintimidated‘s final 50 pages read like a preamble to a Walker campaign for the presidency, which may come as soon as 2016. And if Walker the candidate makes the same arguments that Walker the author does, conservatives had ought to take notice.
The essence of Walker’s political philosophy is a belief in power of work, not only to drive the economy and to build the tax base, but also to uplift the poor and make the American dream possible. Like most Republicans, Walker stakes his claim as the ideological successor to Ronald Reagan, but unlike most, he seeks to first and foremost follow in the footsteps of Reagan as the “Great Communicator,” not Reagan the tax cutter or national defense hawk, or–as many Republicans are wont to do–Reagan the be-all and end-all. The most intriguing chapter of Unintimidated, “Misreading the Message of Wisconsin,” minces no words in lambasting Mitt Romney for demonizing those dependent on government assistance instead of appealing to them with the promise of work and dignity. Walker demonstrates that he is capable of messaging to blue-collar and downtrodden voters even while championing smaller government, a skill that few other proclaimed successors to Reagan have possessed.
Walker may be the second-most famous governor in America, but he would start a hypothetical 2016 presidential campaign as a far lesser known entity than the first–New Jersey’s Chris Christie, of whom Walker generally speaks favorably but does mildly criticize in this book for his affinity for confrontation. He also doesn’t get as much attention on the airwaves as Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, or his fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan. But the Walker we meet in Unintimidated is clearly someone that conservatives will want to get to know–and the book’s thrills ensures that they’ll have fun doing so.
Unintimidated is available in bookstores nationwide, on Amazon, and at Unintimidated.org for $29.00.
The Case for Repealing Dodd-Frank
Peter J. Wallison
American Enterprise Institute
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on November 5, 2013, during a conference entitled “Dodd-Frank: A Law Like No Other,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig Von Mises Lecture Series.
The 2008 financial crisis was a major event, equivalent in its initial scope—if not its duration—to the Great Depression of the 1930s. At the time, many commentators said that we were witnessing a crisis of capitalism, proof that the free market system was inherently unstable. Government officials who participated in efforts to mitigate its effects claim that their actions prevented a complete meltdown of the world’s financial system, an idea that has found acceptance among academic and other observers, particularly the media. These views culminated in the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act that is founded on the notion that the financial system is inherently unstable and must be controlled by government regulation.
We will never know, of course, what would have happened if these emergency actions had not been taken, but it is possible to gain an understanding of why they were considered necessary—that is, the causes of the crisis.
Why is it important at this point to examine the causes of the crisis? After all, it was five years ago, and Congress and financial regulators have acted, or are acting, to prevent a recurrence. Even if we can’t pinpoint the exact cause of the crisis, some will argue that the new regulations now being put in place under Dodd-Frank will make a repetition unlikely. Perhaps. But these new regulations have almost certainly slowed economic growth and the recovery from the post-crisis recession, and they will continue to do so in the future. If regulations this pervasive were really necessary to prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis, then we might be facing a legitimate trade-off in which we are obliged to sacrifice economic freedom and growth for the sake of financial stability. But if the crisis did not stem from a lack of regulation, we have needlessly restricted what most Americans want for themselves and their children.
Study reveals why some are leaving the Republican Party
Libertarians tend to be moneyed and more educated than the everyday people in the Republican base, they therefore have the upper hand when it comes to winning over weak Republican leaders. I read that it was something of a struggle for conservatives to keep in the 2012 party platform an adherence to traditional marriage and support of the unborn.
What exists now is a fractured Republican Party, in the throes of deciding whether it will be the God-oriented, patriotic, principled party that it was years back, or whether it will be driven by libertarian and liberal ideals more on the order of the Democratic Party, which has become socialist.
If the Republican Party continues on its downward spiral to become something more fitting to its libertarian members, a truly conservative alternative party will arise. The sentiment for such a party is certainly out there. It will take a few more tries on the part of Tea Party enthusiasts (who are primarily social conservatives) to reinstate the full spectrum of conservative principles into the Republican party structure. If that task fails, a genuinely conservative party will be the result. It may take time to come to fruition, but I am convinced that it will happen.
© Sylvia Thompson
Uniting the Right
Visit National Review Online.
When the voices of the Left all come together, the amplification is stupefying. The result is that a morally bankrupt, politically tyrannical, economically destructive party is able to set the course of an entire nation and put it on the road to disaster.
Republicans, in contrast, speak with multiple voices, and in words that often have no relation to each other. If one Republican says “defund Obamacare,” another says, “fund the government,” even if that might mean funding Obamacare. The argument and the dissension are over tactics, not substance, since all Republicans oppose Obamacare. If one Republican says “don’t intervene in Syria,” another says “don’t hesitate”; if one says “Obama-supported immigration reform is a dagger aimed at American sovereignty,” another says “opposition to immigration reform is a death-knell for our party.” This, again, is a tactical division, since all Republicans support enforceable borders.
These contending party voices are multiplied by conservative talking heads in the nation’s media who march to their own political drums. The result is a cacophony of talking points, which in the end point nowhere. Because Republicans speak with many voices, their message is often difficult, if not impossible, to make out.
To continue reading this article, click here.
The Progressives pushed through the 17th Amendment in 1913 so that Senators would no longer be selected by the state legislatures but rather by the popular vote of the entire state.This was done by the Progressives to reduce the power of individual states and to increase the power of the national government.
Imagine if Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Cornyn, and Lindsay Graham were accountable to the state legislatures of Kentucky, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina, respectively. They could never be the progressive Republicans they have become. They could not play the games we saw this week.
Imagine if the Michigan legislature selected our U.S. Senators. Levin and Stabenow wouldn’t have a prayer, because they are two of the most progressive politicians in the country.
The Communists, Socialists, and Progressives have used Saul Alinsky tactics, including the power of Big Labor, to take over the leadership of every major city – Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc., all in blue on the map below.
Results of the 2012 presidential election by county (Blue: Obama, Red: Romney)
The Progressives have successfully transformed many urban dwellers into dependents who do not pay taxes and who are advocates for the welfare state even if they have to forfeit liberty to do so. Most of the non-urban counties in Michigan and other states are made up of conservatives, libertarians, and independents who honor their freedom more than a check from the government.
As a result of the 17th Amendment, when the large urban vote overwhelms the accumulation of the more liberty-conscious voters in a state, the Senators elected are progressive whether they Democrat or Republican, even though the state legislature is much more conservative.
When a newly elected Senator gets to Washington, D.C., he/she quickly becomes beholden to the national liberal media and the large national self-interest groups with their K Street lobbyists. At re-election time, money pours in from the national GOP and from K Street, not Main Street. Opportunities for soft corruption abound. In many cases, Senators become political elitists “living the high life while Americans suffer.”
Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment via a convention convened by a majority of state legislatures per Section V of the U.S. Constitution. Concurrently, liberty-loving groups could ensure better candidates for state legislatures if they found out where they stand on the Liberty Amendment Movement.
Dick Manasseri, a resident of Rochester Hills, is a big fan of the US Constitution, doing whatever he can to preserve and protect it for his children and grandchildren.
Building a GOP majority on quicksand
From listening to the banal musings of inside-the-beltway Republicans, one would come away with the impression that we are just six Senate seats away from curing all our political and policy ills. These wizards of smart believe that we must refrain from engaging in risky policy battles until after the next election, when presumably, we stand to win back the Senate. To that end, they accuse some conservative groups of working to undermine a Republican majority, both by engaging in “unwinnable” fights and by working to replace incumbent Republicans instead of focusing exclusively on growing our numbers from 45 senators to 51.
Conservatives need to confront the fact that Democrats enjoy a defacto 75-80 seat-governing majority on many critical issues.
This line of thought obfuscates an inconvenient truth about the state of the Senate GOP Conference, and prevents Republicans from working to build an enduring conservative majority in the Senate. Conservatives need to confront the fact that Democrats enjoy a defacto 75-80 seat-governing majority on many critical issues. While House Republicans united to fight Obamacare, besides Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), almost every Senate Republican worked to sabotage the effort. Instead of using their filibuster-strong minority to enable House Republicans to jam the Democrat-controlled Senate with legislation, Senate Republicans empowered Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to jam the House. This occurred both at the beginning of the showdown and at the end when McConnell undercut Republicans by unilaterally surrendering everything to Senator Reid.
Only 19 Republicans19 Republicans voted to block Harry Reid from reinserting Obamacare funding into the Continuing Resolution (CR) on September 27th, and only 16 Republicans voted to block the final surrender.
Some Republicans claim we shouldn’t use this past legislative battle as a litmus test because many members supposedly sided with us in theory, but opposed the strategy. However, they fail to notice how many Senate Republicans give “aid and comfort” to Democrats on an array of liberal priorities.
When Democrats proposed a 1,200-page amnesty bill, which would have hampered future enforcement and perpetuated lawlessness, 14 Republicans voted for the bill. A number of others were sympathetic to the cause, and only refrained from voting for final passage after their phone lines melted down. And once again, just like with the ObamaCare votes, not a single Democrat crossed party lines on the issue.
Senate Republicans also agreed to confirm all of Obama’s cabinet appointees for his second term with very little dissent. They passed a massive Farm/Food Stamps bill with 20 Republican votes.
In February, Republicans helped pass a radical iteration of the deceptively named Violence Against Woman Act by a 78-22 margin, enabling Democrats to jam the Republican-controlled House.
In March, 27 Republicans 27 Republicans voted for a job-killing Internet sales tax.
In almost all of these instances, every Democrat, even those from red states, stood firm with their party leadership.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders such as Mitch McConnell (R-Ky,), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and John McCain (R-Ariz.) either publicly or privately sided with the Democrats, creating a surrender faction of the Republican Party.
Often, they even refused to whip for the conservative position, leaving conservatives with no leverage or power.
The vacuum of leadership has allowed the McConnell-Cornyn-McCain faction to continuously grow and even include many members from solid conservative states.
Worse, the default Democrat super-majority is not only built upon reliable GOP votes, but GOP voices. During the immigration debate, numerous Republican senators worked hand in glove with Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) both on and off the Hill to coordinate messaging and attack conservative opponents of amnesty.
During the ObamaCare showdown this past month, one after another, Republican senators went to the Senate floor to denounce fellow Republicans and echo Harry Reid’s talking points.
When the Senate was voting on the nomination of Todd Jones (of Fast and Furious fame) for director of the ATF, Senator McCain was seen on C-Span whipping up votes for Democrats.
Taken as a whole, roughly half of the GOP conference could be counted on to join the united Democrat caucus on many major policy issues.
With recent history in mind, does anyone really think that a bare minimum Senate majority built upon the same members – with Mitch McConnell as leader – would produce better results for conservatives?
Even in the best-case scenario, Democrats would have a robust and united filibuster-strong minority in 2015. The 20-25 Republicans who empower Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer this year will continue to do so after 2014.
Furthermore, Senator McConnell has already promised that he will never engage in brinkmanship to force a fight over Obamacare.
Given that Obama will still be president even after the midterm elections, a McConnell-led majority built upon quicksand will never force even partial delay of the law.
The only way to build an enduring majority is to elect game-changing conservatives, especially in our most conservative states, to join the ranks of the few unwavering fighters.
Much like the Democrat majority, which is built upon solid progressives from blue states and surreptitious progressives from other states, an enduring conservative foundation with a clear and united message can challenge the Democrats and actually win.
But that would require changing the status quo and challenging the current failed leadership. That would require courage and principle.
Daniel Horowitz is a contributing editor to RedState.com. He is policy director of the Madison Project.