By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Democrats in Congress recently went all out to try to pass the Dream Act, an amnesty for illegal-alien students willing to enroll -- and stay -- in college. Most who opposed it were derided as heartless at best, racist at worse. An insolvent California -- still struggling with its $15 billion budget shortfall -- is trying to advance its own version of the bill that would contravene federal immigration law and cost millions of dollars.
At about the same time, the state has announced plans to release about 40,000 prison inmates due to a shortage of funds needed to address overcrowding. Highly taxed Californians can borrow money to send illegal aliens to school, but not to keep felons in prison.
Americans still seethe about the Wall Street meltdown of 2008. But the "fat-cat bankers," in fact, were players in a far larger fraud made possible by liberal executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bill Clinton's appointees and insider friends like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Robert Rubin made millions while agencies and banks they oversaw lost billions.
It was just disclosed that Rep. Barney Frank helped land a job at Fannie Mae for his then-live-in boyfriend Herb Moses -- despite at the time sitting on a House oversight committee that monitored the federally regulated agency. Fannie Mae went belly up. Moses made a lot of money. And Frank kept assuring the public in hearings that the nearly insolvent agency was in no financial danger.
When news surfaced about Frank's conflict of interest, he scoffed, "There is no rule against it at all," and predicted the story would die. He was right, it will. But substitute scary names like Dick Cheney or Halliburton and it would not have.
Last week, President Obama quietly signed a renewal of the once-hated Patriot Act -- rather nonchalantly from the United Kingdom via mechanical autopen. There was no media outrage, there were no hyperbolic campus protests, no juvenile outbursts from a Hollywood celebrity about shredding the Constitution. Most even forgot that senatorial candidate Barack Obama had once promised to help repeal the Patriot Act.
But then such moral outrage belongs to the now fossilized age of George W. Bush's presidency, when the exalted goal of stopping a conservative Texan justified any means of opposition necessary. We may continue almost all of his antiterrorism protocols, but they can no longer earn elite outrage.
The same holds true of the ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq that somehow reverted to back-page news. Moveon.org could care less about the new involvement in Libya, and the media now could care less about Moveon.org -- in the same manner that Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are now no more than extinct dinosaurs of a forgotten Jurassic age. After all, Iraq magically went from the "worst" mistake in U.S. foreign policy history to one of the Obama administration's "greatest achievements."
Social Security and Medicare are nearing implosion. The aging baby boomers are about ready to retire in mass. They have no reputation for either stoic acceptance or self-sacrifice. The people are overtaxed, and the government is running a $1.6 trillion annual deficit. So either the retirement age must be upped, benefits cut, high payroll taxes further increased, or portions of the entitlements privatized to spur competition and efficiency.
And the progressive response to proposed remedies? Instead of a detailed plan of salvation, we see ads portraying a Rep. Paul Ryan look-alike, who is not just throwing an elderly woman out of her wheelchair, but sending her over a cliff as well.
There is a vast machinery of selective liberal outrage, fueled and lubricated by the media, universities and celebrity entertainment. When the redistributive welfare state starts to run out of money, the gears and pulleys are flipped on and shrill charges of greed, cruelty, nativism and racism spew out of the production line. The machine sputters and shuts down when an aggrieved liberal suddenly either must make cuts or adapt the very policies that he used to damn.
Understand the mechanics of selective outrage, and our upside-down politics become comprehensible: A state suing to enforce immigration law is tantamount to a racist intrusion on federal jurisdiction, but a state openly flouting federal statutes for the Dream Act is acting in enlightened humanitarian fashion.
Greedy Wall Street insiders at the center of the 2008 meltdown could not possibly include progressive bureaucrats and their liberal enablers in Congress, who are interested in people first, profits last. Everything in 2006 that we were told was near fascistic about national security suddenly evolved into what is wonderful and necessary.
Heck, General "Betray-Us" is now Obama's pick to run the CIA!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Congress Has War Powers, Too
And it is time to start using them.
Andrew C. McCarthy
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Which is worse: bad leadership or no leadership? That’s a question for a Congress that remains AWOL while young Americans continue to be placed in harm’s way in military missions increasingly divorced from American national interests. Like developments in Afghanistan and Iraq that cry out for a public examination of what U.S. forces are doing overseas, President Obama’s incoherent war in Libya brings increasing urgency to the question.
To recap, the president unilaterally ordered air strikes in Libya despite the fact that Moammar Qaddafi’s regime had neither attacked nor threatened the United States and that the regime was considered a valuable American ally in the war on terror by the Obama administration, just as it had been by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush State Department had opened the foreign-aid spigot to Qaddafi, and settled past terrorism claims against him, after the dictator forswore the pursuit of nuclear weapons and shared intelligence on al-Qaeda supporters in his country. Those supporters largely hail from eastern Libya, which — surprise! — is now the stronghold of an opposition affectionately called “the rebels” by pro-interventionists. That opposition is better understood as the Libyan mujahideen — Libya having sent more jihadists to fight against American forces in Iraq than any other country proportional to its population.
If you’re not dizzy enough yet, President Obama started out even more enthusiastic about Qaddafi (an Obama admirer) than was his predecessor. Foreign aid, including military aid to the brutal regime, was increased. Moreover, when violent unrest broke out, Obama gave Qaddafi the same kid-gloves treatment he extended to anti-American dictators repressing their opponents in Iran and Syria.
Soon, though, Obama convinced himself that Qaddafi was about to fall. This misimpression was compounded by European pressure (driven by the continent’s dependency on Libyan oil reserves) and by what Victor Davis Hanson sagely diagnosed as a desire to avoid being seen as once again trailing rather than leading events, as in the case of Egypt. All this together induced a lethal flip-turn, and the president announced that it was time for Qaddafi to go.
Yet, Obama’s unprovoked military offensive, in conjunction with NATO, is ostensibly divorced from this stated American goal. We began attacking Qaddafi’s forces and his compound while disavowing any intention to oust him. We are there only to protect civilians, administration officials maintain. Meanwhile, attacks against Qaddafi intensify, “rebel” atrocities against black Africans are ignored, and intervention hawks like Sen. John McCain (until recently a supporter of the U.S. embrace of Qaddafi) advocate that the rebels be armed and trained, notwithstanding their known terrorism ties.
Obama did not seek congressional authorization to commence combat operations in Libya. In compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act (WPA), however, he notified Congress about his commitment of U.S. forces. This triggered the 60-day time limit within which the WPA instructs a president to either obtain congressional approval or withdraw U.S. forces. That deadline came and went on May 21 with no congressional authorization and no movement to wind down the mission — even though, when he began bombing, Obama had assured Americans that the mission would last “days, not weeks.”
The WPA is probably unconstitutional. It was enacted over the veto of an embattled Pres. Richard Nixon, and, ever since, presidents of both parties have regarded it as non-binding, though they have substantially complied with its terms to avoid a constitutional showdown. I could exhaust you with a couple of thousand words on the relative merits of the arguments pro and con, but that would be pointless, for two reasons. First, WPA disputes between the political branches are not justiciable. The federal courts are not going to intervene, certainly not with a left-wing Democrat in the White House. Such controversies were meant by the Framers to be worked out politically, not by resort to the courts.
Which gets us to the second and more important point: The WPA is craven. It is designed to allow Congress to carp from the sidelines or stay silent without being accountable. Presidents are implicitly encouraged to initiate hostilities, and the issue becomes whether they comply with the WPA’s arbitrary deadlines. Of course, in the absence of an attack (or at least the threat of an attack) on the United States, presidents should never take the nation to war without the approval of the people’s representatives; the salient issue in debates over the use of force is whether war is necessary to advance some vital American interest. If the stakes involve something important enough to go to war over, fidgeting over 60-day time frames is frivolous.
The WPA is sideshow. The Framers vested Congress with not only the power to declare war but also with the power of the purse. Federal legislators don’t need to wait 60 days. They can vote at any time to deny public funds to a presidentially initiated war, and they can deny the aggression political legitimacy by voting against the use of force. But such congressional action requires leadership rather than gamesmanship. With rare exceptions, today’s lawmakers would rather lie low in the tall grass.
Our young men and women deserve much better. In the absence of congressional debate over the Libyan intervention, the administration has not been compelled to clarify American goals. If the true objective is protecting civilians, how does doing so in Libya advance American interests? Are there limiting principles, or is our financially strapped nation now obliged to be the world’s policeman and, ultimately, the world’s nation-builder? Why Libya but not Iran, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Sudan, etc.? And if, as Stanley Kurtz persuasively argues, the Obama administration is stealthily sowing a novel “responsibility to protect” doctrine into international law, what are its ramifications? Why wouldn’t it, for example, justify other uninvolved nations to impose their policy preferences on American allies (such as Israel) under the cover of protecting “oppressed civilians” (such as the Palestinians)?
The road to jihadist terror is paved from here to Afghanistan, Gaza, and Kosovo with good intentions toward besieged Muslim “rebels” who invariably turn out to be virulently anti-Western and allied with Islamic militants. How do we know Libya is not a rerun of that costly error?
With a few honorable exceptions, Congress is sitting on its hands rather than pressing for answers. Meanwhile, President Obama takes the imperial presidency to warmaking heights George W. Bush would have been flayed for even contemplating, much less trying. The antiwar Left has gone mute — proving yet again that its main objection is not to war but to commanders-in-chief whose names are followed by the designation “R.” The Republican leadership is feckless — making very little noise, and doing even less.
As we learned in the Bush years, lawmakers love to yap about Congress’s constitutional war power. That power, however, is a duty not a debating point. It’s a duty on which the current Congress is derelict.
Andrew C. McCarthy
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Which is worse: bad leadership or no leadership? That’s a question for a Congress that remains AWOL while young Americans continue to be placed in harm’s way in military missions increasingly divorced from American national interests. Like developments in Afghanistan and Iraq that cry out for a public examination of what U.S. forces are doing overseas, President Obama’s incoherent war in Libya brings increasing urgency to the question.
To recap, the president unilaterally ordered air strikes in Libya despite the fact that Moammar Qaddafi’s regime had neither attacked nor threatened the United States and that the regime was considered a valuable American ally in the war on terror by the Obama administration, just as it had been by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush State Department had opened the foreign-aid spigot to Qaddafi, and settled past terrorism claims against him, after the dictator forswore the pursuit of nuclear weapons and shared intelligence on al-Qaeda supporters in his country. Those supporters largely hail from eastern Libya, which — surprise! — is now the stronghold of an opposition affectionately called “the rebels” by pro-interventionists. That opposition is better understood as the Libyan mujahideen — Libya having sent more jihadists to fight against American forces in Iraq than any other country proportional to its population.
If you’re not dizzy enough yet, President Obama started out even more enthusiastic about Qaddafi (an Obama admirer) than was his predecessor. Foreign aid, including military aid to the brutal regime, was increased. Moreover, when violent unrest broke out, Obama gave Qaddafi the same kid-gloves treatment he extended to anti-American dictators repressing their opponents in Iran and Syria.
Soon, though, Obama convinced himself that Qaddafi was about to fall. This misimpression was compounded by European pressure (driven by the continent’s dependency on Libyan oil reserves) and by what Victor Davis Hanson sagely diagnosed as a desire to avoid being seen as once again trailing rather than leading events, as in the case of Egypt. All this together induced a lethal flip-turn, and the president announced that it was time for Qaddafi to go.
Yet, Obama’s unprovoked military offensive, in conjunction with NATO, is ostensibly divorced from this stated American goal. We began attacking Qaddafi’s forces and his compound while disavowing any intention to oust him. We are there only to protect civilians, administration officials maintain. Meanwhile, attacks against Qaddafi intensify, “rebel” atrocities against black Africans are ignored, and intervention hawks like Sen. John McCain (until recently a supporter of the U.S. embrace of Qaddafi) advocate that the rebels be armed and trained, notwithstanding their known terrorism ties.
Obama did not seek congressional authorization to commence combat operations in Libya. In compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act (WPA), however, he notified Congress about his commitment of U.S. forces. This triggered the 60-day time limit within which the WPA instructs a president to either obtain congressional approval or withdraw U.S. forces. That deadline came and went on May 21 with no congressional authorization and no movement to wind down the mission — even though, when he began bombing, Obama had assured Americans that the mission would last “days, not weeks.”
The WPA is probably unconstitutional. It was enacted over the veto of an embattled Pres. Richard Nixon, and, ever since, presidents of both parties have regarded it as non-binding, though they have substantially complied with its terms to avoid a constitutional showdown. I could exhaust you with a couple of thousand words on the relative merits of the arguments pro and con, but that would be pointless, for two reasons. First, WPA disputes between the political branches are not justiciable. The federal courts are not going to intervene, certainly not with a left-wing Democrat in the White House. Such controversies were meant by the Framers to be worked out politically, not by resort to the courts.
Which gets us to the second and more important point: The WPA is craven. It is designed to allow Congress to carp from the sidelines or stay silent without being accountable. Presidents are implicitly encouraged to initiate hostilities, and the issue becomes whether they comply with the WPA’s arbitrary deadlines. Of course, in the absence of an attack (or at least the threat of an attack) on the United States, presidents should never take the nation to war without the approval of the people’s representatives; the salient issue in debates over the use of force is whether war is necessary to advance some vital American interest. If the stakes involve something important enough to go to war over, fidgeting over 60-day time frames is frivolous.
The WPA is sideshow. The Framers vested Congress with not only the power to declare war but also with the power of the purse. Federal legislators don’t need to wait 60 days. They can vote at any time to deny public funds to a presidentially initiated war, and they can deny the aggression political legitimacy by voting against the use of force. But such congressional action requires leadership rather than gamesmanship. With rare exceptions, today’s lawmakers would rather lie low in the tall grass.
Our young men and women deserve much better. In the absence of congressional debate over the Libyan intervention, the administration has not been compelled to clarify American goals. If the true objective is protecting civilians, how does doing so in Libya advance American interests? Are there limiting principles, or is our financially strapped nation now obliged to be the world’s policeman and, ultimately, the world’s nation-builder? Why Libya but not Iran, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Sudan, etc.? And if, as Stanley Kurtz persuasively argues, the Obama administration is stealthily sowing a novel “responsibility to protect” doctrine into international law, what are its ramifications? Why wouldn’t it, for example, justify other uninvolved nations to impose their policy preferences on American allies (such as Israel) under the cover of protecting “oppressed civilians” (such as the Palestinians)?
The road to jihadist terror is paved from here to Afghanistan, Gaza, and Kosovo with good intentions toward besieged Muslim “rebels” who invariably turn out to be virulently anti-Western and allied with Islamic militants. How do we know Libya is not a rerun of that costly error?
With a few honorable exceptions, Congress is sitting on its hands rather than pressing for answers. Meanwhile, President Obama takes the imperial presidency to warmaking heights George W. Bush would have been flayed for even contemplating, much less trying. The antiwar Left has gone mute — proving yet again that its main objection is not to war but to commanders-in-chief whose names are followed by the designation “R.” The Republican leadership is feckless — making very little noise, and doing even less.
As we learned in the Bush years, lawmakers love to yap about Congress’s constitutional war power. That power, however, is a duty not a debating point. It’s a duty on which the current Congress is derelict.
Supreme Court to California: 'Release the Hounds'
By Larry Elder
Thursday, June 02, 2011
"Today the court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history." So began Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's enraged dissent.
Release up to 46,000 convicted felons, the court recently ordered the state of California. In a 5-4 decision, the court gave California two years to reduce its prison "overcrowding" -- or set tens of thousands free. The ACLU, which brought the suit, successfully argued that poor prison conditions violated the prisoners' rights as a class, not individually, thus the threat of mass premature release.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, agreed with the lower court, which said that overcrowding and an undermanned medical staff mean "an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days." California houses 143,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons designed for 80,000. The prison conditions, including under-treatment for the mentally ill, wrote Kennedy, "(fall) short of minimum constitutional requirements."
Where to start with this outrageous decision?
First, elections matter. A Republican president would have seated neither Sonia Sotomayor nor Elena Kagan, who together comprised two-fifths of the majority. President Barack I-look-for-justices-with-empathy Obama filled two liberal vacancies with two liberal justices. Given that the major Republican presidential candidates promised to seat justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Sam Alito, this decision would have gone 6-3 the other way.
Second, criminals commit crimes when not locked up. Alito, in a separate dissent, wrote: "In the early 1990s, federal courts enforced a cap on the number of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system, and thousand of inmates were set free. Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes (emphasis added), that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses." These, of course, are only the ones who got caught and were charged.
Where's the "empathy" for the future victims of crime? Alito attacked this "premature release of approximately 46,000 criminals -- the equivalent of three Army divisions." Even if California somehow managed to release only "nonviolent" prisoners, a 2004 study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that, after release, one out of every five "nonviolent" criminals are re-arrested for violent crimes -- including murder.
Third, the dissents concede that some prisoners have died and some have inadequate medical care due to overcrowding. But the number is small and declining. Not all of the up to 46,000 will have suffered, let alone equally. "Most of them," wrote Scalia, "will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym." They are, after all, convicted felons deserving of nothing more than protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Housing 200 prisoners in a gym violates the Eighth Amendment -- for all 200? Fifty-four men per one bathroom violates the Eighth Amendment -- for all 54? Surely there are ways of addressing the overcrowding short of one of the largest court-ordered mass prisoner releases in U.S. history.
What's more, in January 2010, California's "non-revocable parole law" went into effect. It grants the release, without parole supervision, of "less-serious" offenders that a computer program predicts are unlikely to re-offend. An inspector general report found that the computer was wrong 23.5 percent of the time in assessing 10,000 inmates under consideration for early release during the first seven months of the new law. One thousand five hundred were improperly released, including 450 carrying "a high risk for violence."
Fourth, what gives courts the expertise to direct a state on how to run a prison system? "Three years of law school and familiarity with pertinent Supreme Court precedents," wrote Scalia, "give no insight whatsoever into the management of social institutions. ... (T)he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable. ... Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning and the commitment of resources. ..." This is the job of the legislature, not the courts.
Finally, what does this order say about California, a state that produces an annual "structural deficit" between $20 billion and $30 billion? Its tax-the-rich, three-to-one Democrat vs. Republican electorate recently returned to the governorship the same man who, in the '70s, granted collective bargaining rights to public employee unions, one of the reasons for the state's pathetic job-killing fiscal condition.
California owes $500 billion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities to its public employees. Prison guards, backed by the strongest union in the state, earn $71,000 per year before overtime. Texas pays its guards an average of $31,000. It costs California $47,000 to house an inmate each year, versus $18,000 in Texas.
The effect of California's welfare-state-supporting, "environmentally conscious," self-destructive left-wing policies has failed to convince voters to re-think. Maybe the impending murders will.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
"Today the court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history." So began Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's enraged dissent.
Release up to 46,000 convicted felons, the court recently ordered the state of California. In a 5-4 decision, the court gave California two years to reduce its prison "overcrowding" -- or set tens of thousands free. The ACLU, which brought the suit, successfully argued that poor prison conditions violated the prisoners' rights as a class, not individually, thus the threat of mass premature release.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, agreed with the lower court, which said that overcrowding and an undermanned medical staff mean "an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days." California houses 143,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons designed for 80,000. The prison conditions, including under-treatment for the mentally ill, wrote Kennedy, "(fall) short of minimum constitutional requirements."
Where to start with this outrageous decision?
First, elections matter. A Republican president would have seated neither Sonia Sotomayor nor Elena Kagan, who together comprised two-fifths of the majority. President Barack I-look-for-justices-with-empathy Obama filled two liberal vacancies with two liberal justices. Given that the major Republican presidential candidates promised to seat justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Sam Alito, this decision would have gone 6-3 the other way.
Second, criminals commit crimes when not locked up. Alito, in a separate dissent, wrote: "In the early 1990s, federal courts enforced a cap on the number of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system, and thousand of inmates were set free. Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes (emphasis added), that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses." These, of course, are only the ones who got caught and were charged.
Where's the "empathy" for the future victims of crime? Alito attacked this "premature release of approximately 46,000 criminals -- the equivalent of three Army divisions." Even if California somehow managed to release only "nonviolent" prisoners, a 2004 study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that, after release, one out of every five "nonviolent" criminals are re-arrested for violent crimes -- including murder.
Third, the dissents concede that some prisoners have died and some have inadequate medical care due to overcrowding. But the number is small and declining. Not all of the up to 46,000 will have suffered, let alone equally. "Most of them," wrote Scalia, "will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym." They are, after all, convicted felons deserving of nothing more than protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Housing 200 prisoners in a gym violates the Eighth Amendment -- for all 200? Fifty-four men per one bathroom violates the Eighth Amendment -- for all 54? Surely there are ways of addressing the overcrowding short of one of the largest court-ordered mass prisoner releases in U.S. history.
What's more, in January 2010, California's "non-revocable parole law" went into effect. It grants the release, without parole supervision, of "less-serious" offenders that a computer program predicts are unlikely to re-offend. An inspector general report found that the computer was wrong 23.5 percent of the time in assessing 10,000 inmates under consideration for early release during the first seven months of the new law. One thousand five hundred were improperly released, including 450 carrying "a high risk for violence."
Fourth, what gives courts the expertise to direct a state on how to run a prison system? "Three years of law school and familiarity with pertinent Supreme Court precedents," wrote Scalia, "give no insight whatsoever into the management of social institutions. ... (T)he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable. ... Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning and the commitment of resources. ..." This is the job of the legislature, not the courts.
Finally, what does this order say about California, a state that produces an annual "structural deficit" between $20 billion and $30 billion? Its tax-the-rich, three-to-one Democrat vs. Republican electorate recently returned to the governorship the same man who, in the '70s, granted collective bargaining rights to public employee unions, one of the reasons for the state's pathetic job-killing fiscal condition.
California owes $500 billion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities to its public employees. Prison guards, backed by the strongest union in the state, earn $71,000 per year before overtime. Texas pays its guards an average of $31,000. It costs California $47,000 to house an inmate each year, versus $18,000 in Texas.
The effect of California's welfare-state-supporting, "environmentally conscious," self-destructive left-wing policies has failed to convince voters to re-think. Maybe the impending murders will.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
'Buy American' Is Un-American
By David Harsanyi
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Buy American! A conventional, well-intentioned, patriotically affirming sentiment. We've heard it all our lives. But unless you crave less competition, fewer choices and higher prices, it's also a completely irrational one.
Naturally, then, as we kick off "Recovery Summer! Part Deux," the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee says that buying homemade cars is a matter of national importance. "If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained while defending the protectionist auto/union bailout. "They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes." (And by "we," Wasserman Schultz, proud American, is talking about herself and her sweet Japanese-made Infiniti FX35.)
As if that weren't enough, those who oppose this brand of corporate welfare, according to Wasserman Schultz, also reject the very idea of "American exceptionalism." Now, one might argue that those who claim we must bankroll a few politically favored companies because an entire manufacturing sector could collapse are the ones skeptical of American ingenuity, perseverance and exceptionalism.
But God, evidently, loves the Volt and the Volt only. And Americans -- people who can do almost anything, including, but not limited to, electing politicians who keep rotten companies buoyant for political gain -- have a patriotic duty to buy poorly conceived automobiles. You have an obligation to insulate Washington's favorite companies from responsibility. For God and for country, taxpayers must purchase cars from corporations that have not come close -- despite the contention of the administration -- to paying back what they already owe you.
But hey, the car was assembled in Michigan. If that's not a sign of American exceptionalism, I don't know what is.
Even if Wasserman Schultz's "Buy American" rhetoric were genuine, it would be severely misguided. Every time we overpay for an American-made product (whatever it is), don't we also spend less on an array of other services and products that create jobs at home? Real jobs. Self-sustaining jobs. If we all mechanically bought American, wouldn't we allow manufacturers to avoid competition and rely on their locations rather than the excellence of their products? Sounds like the opposite of exceptionalism.
Companies on the dole also have incentive to please their benefactors in Washington -- a place that has the power to offer more handouts or to stifle competition. Like much of modern liberalism these days, a socially responsible outcome is far more important than a profitable one. Business is for social good, not for profit-mongering. We have no clue what's good for us, anyway. These companies, though, have less incentive to keep prices low or to innovate or to meet consumer demand.
Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman once explained in his book "Pop Internationalism" that if he could stress one thing to students, it would be that "international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange." Wasserman Schultz is bright, so she must know all about the counterproductive history of protectionism. Then again, when she says "Buy American," maybe she just means "Buy Union" -- buy union because taxpayers subsidize GM and it pays workers and they subsidize unions that subsidize the right candidates. A mutually beneficial exchange.
Or maybe -- like most Americans, however inclined they are to embrace populist rhetoric regarding trade during tough times -- Wasserman Schultz acts rationally when spending her own money. Now if only that rationality could seep into her political life, we'd be a lot better off.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Buy American! A conventional, well-intentioned, patriotically affirming sentiment. We've heard it all our lives. But unless you crave less competition, fewer choices and higher prices, it's also a completely irrational one.
Naturally, then, as we kick off "Recovery Summer! Part Deux," the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee says that buying homemade cars is a matter of national importance. "If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained while defending the protectionist auto/union bailout. "They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes." (And by "we," Wasserman Schultz, proud American, is talking about herself and her sweet Japanese-made Infiniti FX35.)
As if that weren't enough, those who oppose this brand of corporate welfare, according to Wasserman Schultz, also reject the very idea of "American exceptionalism." Now, one might argue that those who claim we must bankroll a few politically favored companies because an entire manufacturing sector could collapse are the ones skeptical of American ingenuity, perseverance and exceptionalism.
But God, evidently, loves the Volt and the Volt only. And Americans -- people who can do almost anything, including, but not limited to, electing politicians who keep rotten companies buoyant for political gain -- have a patriotic duty to buy poorly conceived automobiles. You have an obligation to insulate Washington's favorite companies from responsibility. For God and for country, taxpayers must purchase cars from corporations that have not come close -- despite the contention of the administration -- to paying back what they already owe you.
But hey, the car was assembled in Michigan. If that's not a sign of American exceptionalism, I don't know what is.
Even if Wasserman Schultz's "Buy American" rhetoric were genuine, it would be severely misguided. Every time we overpay for an American-made product (whatever it is), don't we also spend less on an array of other services and products that create jobs at home? Real jobs. Self-sustaining jobs. If we all mechanically bought American, wouldn't we allow manufacturers to avoid competition and rely on their locations rather than the excellence of their products? Sounds like the opposite of exceptionalism.
Companies on the dole also have incentive to please their benefactors in Washington -- a place that has the power to offer more handouts or to stifle competition. Like much of modern liberalism these days, a socially responsible outcome is far more important than a profitable one. Business is for social good, not for profit-mongering. We have no clue what's good for us, anyway. These companies, though, have less incentive to keep prices low or to innovate or to meet consumer demand.
Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman once explained in his book "Pop Internationalism" that if he could stress one thing to students, it would be that "international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange." Wasserman Schultz is bright, so she must know all about the counterproductive history of protectionism. Then again, when she says "Buy American," maybe she just means "Buy Union" -- buy union because taxpayers subsidize GM and it pays workers and they subsidize unions that subsidize the right candidates. A mutually beneficial exchange.
Or maybe -- like most Americans, however inclined they are to embrace populist rhetoric regarding trade during tough times -- Wasserman Schultz acts rationally when spending her own money. Now if only that rationality could seep into her political life, we'd be a lot better off.
Obama and the Shifting Ground of Race
By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Princeton's Cornel West, one of the most famous black intellectuals in America, says that President Obama is afraid of "free black men." Because of Obama's atypical upbringing, West says, "when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a de-racination."
With whom does the rootless cosmopolitan-in-chief find himself most comfortable? Jews and rich white men, says West. No surprise given the professor's view that Obama is a "black mascot" and a "black puppet" for Wall Street and corporate America.
Meanwhile, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, offers a far more familiar if no more persuasive take: "The president's problems are in large measure because of his skin color."
If forced to choose, I'd say West has the slightly more plausible position, only insofar as there's an argument to be made that Obama has been a puppet of Wall Street. What that has to do with his skin color is beyond me (a community organizer with a phobia about "black folk," married to a black woman, strikes me as the recipe for a hilarious Tyler Perry sitcom).
Still, I find the whole thing fascinating. Here are West and Clyburn, two of the most influential black people in America, bitterly clinging, as Obama might say, to ideologically racial views -- He's not black enough! He's too black for racist Americans! -- that have less and less relevance. This is not to say that there is no racial animus against Obama. Of course there is. But is it significant, as Clyburn suggests? Well, certainly not enough to keep him from being elected president of the United States (!) or being the establishment favorite to be re-elected.
Clyburn's take strikes me as the left-wing version of the right-wing theory -- popularized by Dinesh D'Souza -- that everything Obama does can be explained by his allegedly "post-colonial" worldview. Simpler explanations are available. Obama's a liberal Democrat. He does things a white liberal Democrat would do, and he receives mostly the same opposition a white liberal Democrat would receive. If a President John Edwards (shudder) had rammed through the economic stimulus or "EdwardsCare" the same way Obama did, Republicans wouldn't say, "Well, since he's white, it's OK."
Take the "tea parties," which have been accused of racism by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, mainstream media outlets and entertainer-activists such as Janeane Garofalo, who proclaimed they are "about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." So, after nearly two years of "experts" telling us that the typical tea party member is two holes in a white sheet shy of being a Klansman, guess who is arguably the most popular tea party candidate for president? Herman Cain, a black businessman.
Perhaps the most telling sign of the changing racial landscape comes with voting patterns, though not at the ballot box. Blacks -- particularly among the young and educated -- are voting with their feet by leaving cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit in huge numbers and moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte and Dallas. Clement Price, a Rutgers history professor, told the New York Times, "The black urban experience has essentially lost its appeal with blacks in America."
(One reason that might be the case: Black entrepreneurialism skyrocketed from 2002-07, according to the census. Perhaps the rise in black-owned small businesses breeds disenchantment with big-city bureaucracy?)
For years, liberals have glibly smeared the GOP as racist because it is disproportionately Southern. Obviously there are historical reasons behind the charge, but in 2011? If the region is so racist, why are blacks so eager to flee to the less "progressive" South?
Blacks are still largely lockstep Democratic voters and will probably remain so for a while. But when you listen to the likes of West and Clyburn, never mind silly white liberals like Garofalo, one cannot help but be reassured that the ground is shifting under their feet as inexorably as it shifted under the feet of racists more than a generation ago.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Princeton's Cornel West, one of the most famous black intellectuals in America, says that President Obama is afraid of "free black men." Because of Obama's atypical upbringing, West says, "when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a de-racination."
With whom does the rootless cosmopolitan-in-chief find himself most comfortable? Jews and rich white men, says West. No surprise given the professor's view that Obama is a "black mascot" and a "black puppet" for Wall Street and corporate America.
Meanwhile, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, offers a far more familiar if no more persuasive take: "The president's problems are in large measure because of his skin color."
If forced to choose, I'd say West has the slightly more plausible position, only insofar as there's an argument to be made that Obama has been a puppet of Wall Street. What that has to do with his skin color is beyond me (a community organizer with a phobia about "black folk," married to a black woman, strikes me as the recipe for a hilarious Tyler Perry sitcom).
Still, I find the whole thing fascinating. Here are West and Clyburn, two of the most influential black people in America, bitterly clinging, as Obama might say, to ideologically racial views -- He's not black enough! He's too black for racist Americans! -- that have less and less relevance. This is not to say that there is no racial animus against Obama. Of course there is. But is it significant, as Clyburn suggests? Well, certainly not enough to keep him from being elected president of the United States (!) or being the establishment favorite to be re-elected.
Clyburn's take strikes me as the left-wing version of the right-wing theory -- popularized by Dinesh D'Souza -- that everything Obama does can be explained by his allegedly "post-colonial" worldview. Simpler explanations are available. Obama's a liberal Democrat. He does things a white liberal Democrat would do, and he receives mostly the same opposition a white liberal Democrat would receive. If a President John Edwards (shudder) had rammed through the economic stimulus or "EdwardsCare" the same way Obama did, Republicans wouldn't say, "Well, since he's white, it's OK."
Take the "tea parties," which have been accused of racism by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, mainstream media outlets and entertainer-activists such as Janeane Garofalo, who proclaimed they are "about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." So, after nearly two years of "experts" telling us that the typical tea party member is two holes in a white sheet shy of being a Klansman, guess who is arguably the most popular tea party candidate for president? Herman Cain, a black businessman.
Perhaps the most telling sign of the changing racial landscape comes with voting patterns, though not at the ballot box. Blacks -- particularly among the young and educated -- are voting with their feet by leaving cities like New York, Chicago and Detroit in huge numbers and moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte and Dallas. Clement Price, a Rutgers history professor, told the New York Times, "The black urban experience has essentially lost its appeal with blacks in America."
(One reason that might be the case: Black entrepreneurialism skyrocketed from 2002-07, according to the census. Perhaps the rise in black-owned small businesses breeds disenchantment with big-city bureaucracy?)
For years, liberals have glibly smeared the GOP as racist because it is disproportionately Southern. Obviously there are historical reasons behind the charge, but in 2011? If the region is so racist, why are blacks so eager to flee to the less "progressive" South?
Blacks are still largely lockstep Democratic voters and will probably remain so for a while. But when you listen to the likes of West and Clyburn, never mind silly white liberals like Garofalo, one cannot help but be reassured that the ground is shifting under their feet as inexorably as it shifted under the feet of racists more than a generation ago.
Enough with Liberal Name Calling
By Carrie Lukas
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
In January, the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords by a mentally ill assailant became an occasion for media elites to preen about the need for more civil political discourse. Somehow, the liberals fashioned a connection between Rush Limbaugh's radio show and Jared Loughner, despite the complete lack of any evidence that Loughner had ever listened to conservative radio or was anything other than an apolitical madman.
The media's interest in the pressing need for more civil politic discourse was short lived. They yawned weeks later at the violent rhetoric used in Wisconsin by union protestors and politicians in the state of Wisconsin—even when some making implicit threats had declared such language off-limits in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Evidence of profound hypocrisy bored our media watchdogs.
It's clear that the idea of civility is applied selectively. Those charged with the weighty task of setting the rules of political-correctness—liberal media figures, academia, leftist politicians—see their own as sufficiently enlightened so they can be exempt from p.c.'s uncomfortable constraints. Thus National Public Radio can fire Juan Williams for carefully admitting to associating Muslims with terrorism, but overlook when Nina Totenberg wishes for Jesse Helm's grandchildren to contract AIDS.
The double standard was made clear again last week when Ed Schultz, a liberal talk show host on MSNBC, called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a "slut". This wasn't just a slip of the tongue, but a term he used twice to describe the accomplished lawyer and Supreme Court clerk turned conservative icon. The reaction? Schultz apologized on air, was given a week long suspension by MSNBC, and the scandal quickly dissipated.
One can only imagine how different the reaction and coverage would have been had a conservative television personality—say, a Sean Hannity—used a similar term to describe a liberal woman, such as a Rachel Maddow. His quick dismal would most certainly have been followed by endless ruminations about the latent misogyny riddling the conservative movement, indeed, anyone who dares classify him or herself Republican. Speeches of apology would have to be made not just by the man who had issued a slur, but by anyone who'd said a good word about him or given him the implicit endorsement of appearing on his show.
Yet just days after the liberal icon Schultz calls Ingraham a slut, it was the head of the Democratic National Committee, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schlutz, who charged that Republicans are “anti-woman” and waging a "war on woman" in Congress. The basis for her charge? The Republican push to defund Planned Parenthood and cut other spending.
People can disagree about these proposals' merits, but my kindergartener could tell them that name calling isn't the way to win arguments. Several Republican female Congresswomen responded with a statement condemning Wasserman-Schlutz language, and explaining how they believe their agenda actually advances women's interests:
Republican women fight every day for the women who can't start a business because of burdensome taxes and regulations, for the women who worry that we are capping their children's future and trading it to China in exchange for cheap loans, for the women who deserve to make their own health care choices, and for this year's young women graduates who are entering a job market stagnated by Washington-driven uncertainty.
Well put. Yet Republicans shouldn't have to respond to charges that they have launched a "war" on half of the American population. To the contrary, Ms. Wasserman-Schlutz should be facing questions about her careless slander of a political party. Republican women shouldn't just offer evidence against the offensive charge, they should be demanding an apology.
Media elites who claim they want a more civil discourage should begin by setting some ground rules. Having the right to free speech (which of course Ed Schultz has) doesn't mean you have the right to your own talk show. Calling a pundit with whom you disagree a "slut" should be out of bounds for those who want to be considered in the business of serious news. We should also expect our political leaders to debate policies on their merits, rather than name calling. And yes, those standards should apply to conservatives and liberals alike.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
In January, the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords by a mentally ill assailant became an occasion for media elites to preen about the need for more civil political discourse. Somehow, the liberals fashioned a connection between Rush Limbaugh's radio show and Jared Loughner, despite the complete lack of any evidence that Loughner had ever listened to conservative radio or was anything other than an apolitical madman.
The media's interest in the pressing need for more civil politic discourse was short lived. They yawned weeks later at the violent rhetoric used in Wisconsin by union protestors and politicians in the state of Wisconsin—even when some making implicit threats had declared such language off-limits in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Evidence of profound hypocrisy bored our media watchdogs.
It's clear that the idea of civility is applied selectively. Those charged with the weighty task of setting the rules of political-correctness—liberal media figures, academia, leftist politicians—see their own as sufficiently enlightened so they can be exempt from p.c.'s uncomfortable constraints. Thus National Public Radio can fire Juan Williams for carefully admitting to associating Muslims with terrorism, but overlook when Nina Totenberg wishes for Jesse Helm's grandchildren to contract AIDS.
The double standard was made clear again last week when Ed Schultz, a liberal talk show host on MSNBC, called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a "slut". This wasn't just a slip of the tongue, but a term he used twice to describe the accomplished lawyer and Supreme Court clerk turned conservative icon. The reaction? Schultz apologized on air, was given a week long suspension by MSNBC, and the scandal quickly dissipated.
One can only imagine how different the reaction and coverage would have been had a conservative television personality—say, a Sean Hannity—used a similar term to describe a liberal woman, such as a Rachel Maddow. His quick dismal would most certainly have been followed by endless ruminations about the latent misogyny riddling the conservative movement, indeed, anyone who dares classify him or herself Republican. Speeches of apology would have to be made not just by the man who had issued a slur, but by anyone who'd said a good word about him or given him the implicit endorsement of appearing on his show.
Yet just days after the liberal icon Schultz calls Ingraham a slut, it was the head of the Democratic National Committee, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schlutz, who charged that Republicans are “anti-woman” and waging a "war on woman" in Congress. The basis for her charge? The Republican push to defund Planned Parenthood and cut other spending.
People can disagree about these proposals' merits, but my kindergartener could tell them that name calling isn't the way to win arguments. Several Republican female Congresswomen responded with a statement condemning Wasserman-Schlutz language, and explaining how they believe their agenda actually advances women's interests:
Republican women fight every day for the women who can't start a business because of burdensome taxes and regulations, for the women who worry that we are capping their children's future and trading it to China in exchange for cheap loans, for the women who deserve to make their own health care choices, and for this year's young women graduates who are entering a job market stagnated by Washington-driven uncertainty.
Well put. Yet Republicans shouldn't have to respond to charges that they have launched a "war" on half of the American population. To the contrary, Ms. Wasserman-Schlutz should be facing questions about her careless slander of a political party. Republican women shouldn't just offer evidence against the offensive charge, they should be demanding an apology.
Media elites who claim they want a more civil discourage should begin by setting some ground rules. Having the right to free speech (which of course Ed Schultz has) doesn't mean you have the right to your own talk show. Calling a pundit with whom you disagree a "slut" should be out of bounds for those who want to be considered in the business of serious news. We should also expect our political leaders to debate policies on their merits, rather than name calling. And yes, those standards should apply to conservatives and liberals alike.
Obnoxious Classroom Curricula
By Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Elementary school curriculum isn't just about the three R's anymore. Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmetic now have to make time for lessons in gender diversity and for nosy questionnaires that lead kids into teen sex and illegal drug usage.
Students in all grades at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, Calif., were given two days of gender diversity lessons designed to teach them that gender is not confined to the "binary concept" of two options. The lessons promoted "gender neutrality," the concept that no distinctions between male and female should be legally allowed.
These lessons were taught by an anti-bullying group called Gender Spectrum and paid for by a $1,500 grant from the California Teachers Union. The course featured all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish.
The major message was that "gender identity" means people can choose to be different from the sex assigned at birth and can freely "change their sex." According to Gender Spectrum, "Gender identity is a spectrum where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither."
Kindergartners were introduced to this new subject by asking them to identify toys that are a "girl toy" or a "boy toy" or both, and whether they like the color pink. They were read a story called "My Princess Boy."
Fourth-graders were told that if someone were born with male "private parts" but identified more with being a girl, he should be "accepted" and "respected." They were taught "gender fluidity," which means a boy might be a boy one day and a girl the next.
The Oakland School District personnel were apparently proud of this course because they allowed Fox News to audit and report on these lessons. District spokesman Troy Flint said that gender identity lessons are required by school board policy and supported by federal, state and local law as a means to support "equity" and a safe classroom environment.
The lessons seem more likely to confuse the kids about who they are, and indeed, Gender Spectrum boasted that its goal is to confuse the children and make them question traditional ideas about who is a boy and who is a girl. It is not surprising that many parents were upset when they heard about the two-day course.
Some of the bills now pending in the California State Assembly indicate that these gender neutrality notions may become the new normal curriculum in California public schools. Gender Spectrum is determined to make children think that boy and girl don't mean anything anymore, and that it's no longer normal to believe people are born male or female or have different roles.
The California State Assembly is considering changes to 34 statutes by redefining gender to include a person's own "gender expression," and passed AB 887 on May 17, which prohibits any discrimination against the "transgendered." Among its predictable effects is that employers can be forbidden to require men to dress like men.
We wonder why anyone is surprised at this Left Coast nonsense, because university women's studies courses have for years taught that the obvious differences we observe between males and females are not a natural occurrence but are a social construct due to conditioning by parents and traditional social norms. It's a misunderstanding of the feminist movement to think it was ever about equality for women; it always advocated the interchangeability of men and women and an end to what they lambaste as gender "stereotyping."
Memorial Middle School in Fitchburg, Mass., featured another type of classroom atrocity: requiring pupils to answer nosy questions that are not only intrusive but designed to lead the kids into unacceptable behaviors. The survey, called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, was created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also provided the funding for it to be administered.
One question asked: "The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or your partner use to prevent pregnancy? ... A. I have never had sexual intercourse; B. No method was used to prevent pregnancy; C. Birth control pills; D. Condoms; E. Depo-Provera (or any injectable birth control), Nuva Ring (or any birth control ring), Implanon (or any implant) or any IUD; F. Withdrawal; G. Some other method; H. Not sure."
Here are a couple more leading questions: "During your life, how many times have you used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?" "During the past 30 days, how many times did you sniff glue, breathe the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhale any paints or sprays to get high?"
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment makes such interrogation of students illegal without prior parental consent, which the school did not have. Some parents have appealed to the Rutherford Institute, and we wish them success in stopping the school from asking elementary school children such nosy questions.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Elementary school curriculum isn't just about the three R's anymore. Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmetic now have to make time for lessons in gender diversity and for nosy questionnaires that lead kids into teen sex and illegal drug usage.
Students in all grades at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, Calif., were given two days of gender diversity lessons designed to teach them that gender is not confined to the "binary concept" of two options. The lessons promoted "gender neutrality," the concept that no distinctions between male and female should be legally allowed.
These lessons were taught by an anti-bullying group called Gender Spectrum and paid for by a $1,500 grant from the California Teachers Union. The course featured all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish.
The major message was that "gender identity" means people can choose to be different from the sex assigned at birth and can freely "change their sex." According to Gender Spectrum, "Gender identity is a spectrum where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither."
Kindergartners were introduced to this new subject by asking them to identify toys that are a "girl toy" or a "boy toy" or both, and whether they like the color pink. They were read a story called "My Princess Boy."
Fourth-graders were told that if someone were born with male "private parts" but identified more with being a girl, he should be "accepted" and "respected." They were taught "gender fluidity," which means a boy might be a boy one day and a girl the next.
The Oakland School District personnel were apparently proud of this course because they allowed Fox News to audit and report on these lessons. District spokesman Troy Flint said that gender identity lessons are required by school board policy and supported by federal, state and local law as a means to support "equity" and a safe classroom environment.
The lessons seem more likely to confuse the kids about who they are, and indeed, Gender Spectrum boasted that its goal is to confuse the children and make them question traditional ideas about who is a boy and who is a girl. It is not surprising that many parents were upset when they heard about the two-day course.
Some of the bills now pending in the California State Assembly indicate that these gender neutrality notions may become the new normal curriculum in California public schools. Gender Spectrum is determined to make children think that boy and girl don't mean anything anymore, and that it's no longer normal to believe people are born male or female or have different roles.
The California State Assembly is considering changes to 34 statutes by redefining gender to include a person's own "gender expression," and passed AB 887 on May 17, which prohibits any discrimination against the "transgendered." Among its predictable effects is that employers can be forbidden to require men to dress like men.
We wonder why anyone is surprised at this Left Coast nonsense, because university women's studies courses have for years taught that the obvious differences we observe between males and females are not a natural occurrence but are a social construct due to conditioning by parents and traditional social norms. It's a misunderstanding of the feminist movement to think it was ever about equality for women; it always advocated the interchangeability of men and women and an end to what they lambaste as gender "stereotyping."
Memorial Middle School in Fitchburg, Mass., featured another type of classroom atrocity: requiring pupils to answer nosy questions that are not only intrusive but designed to lead the kids into unacceptable behaviors. The survey, called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, was created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also provided the funding for it to be administered.
One question asked: "The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or your partner use to prevent pregnancy? ... A. I have never had sexual intercourse; B. No method was used to prevent pregnancy; C. Birth control pills; D. Condoms; E. Depo-Provera (or any injectable birth control), Nuva Ring (or any birth control ring), Implanon (or any implant) or any IUD; F. Withdrawal; G. Some other method; H. Not sure."
Here are a couple more leading questions: "During your life, how many times have you used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or ice)?" "During the past 30 days, how many times did you sniff glue, breathe the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhale any paints or sprays to get high?"
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment makes such interrogation of students illegal without prior parental consent, which the school did not have. Some parents have appealed to the Rutherford Institute, and we wish them success in stopping the school from asking elementary school children such nosy questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)