Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Now Govern

Democrats' Big Choice

By Jonah Goldberg
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/
November 5, 2008

Congratulations, Democrats: Barack Obama ran an amazing, landmark race. And the Democratic Party has broken with its historic tradition of snatching defeats from the jaws of victory.

Expect the Democrats to stream into Washington and dive into the federal treasury like giddy caddies cannonballing into the swimming pool in Caddyshack. Obama and his allies appear to have their mandate.

Those of us who didn't want this to happen now have two competing hopes:

* The conservative in me hopes that Obama sees the wisdom in governing as a centrist, if not a center-right, president.

Conservatives believe that we have the right solutions to the problems that face all Americans, and that it would be better for the country if Democrats adopted the right policies, even if it helped their party politically.

* The Republican in me hopes for something far different: that the party of Obama runs like the Barack Obama to be found in the man's record, not his rhetoric - that is, as the most leftwing president in modern memory.

Democrats are itching to have their way after spending much of the last eight years doing little much more than shoot spitballs at President Bush while the man fought two conventional wars, as well as a couple monster hurricanes and the much thornier War on Terror.

Well, now the Democratic Party is for all practical purposes America's super-majority party. It has complete control of the presidency and Congress. It's time to put away childish things and govern.

If Democrats govern from the center, good for the country. If they govern from their instincts, good for the Republicans.

Just yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer said the arguably dumbest thing uttered by a New York politician since Gov. George Pataki claimed his hate-crimes bill would have prevented the Holocaust. Schumer explained that objecting to imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" - which would silence conservative talk radio - was no different than objecting to keeping hard core porn off broadcast TV.

The same day, a video surfaced in which Democratic Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia ridiculed "the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

Then of course there were the recent revelations that Obama hopes to bankrupt the coal industry and send electricity rates through the roof. He's still on record promising that his first act as president would be to sign a law guaranteeing federally funded abortion on demand.

If that Barack Obama becomes president, if he becomes a rubber stamp for the party of Schumer and Moran (never mind Reid and Pelosi), then the Democrats will walk en masse into the rear rotor blade of a helicopter called the 2010 elections.

If, however, Obama stays true to his promises - mostly implied - of moderation, centrism and the like, then that's about as good news for the country as the right can hope for, given the failures of the GOP brand.

Democracy depends on accountability. The Republicans in many respects deserved to be fired. They spent money like a pimp with a week to live; they lost their way.

But the problem with the two-party system is that when you throw one set of bums out, you have to throw the other party in.

The Democrats deserved to win, if by Democrats you mean "not Republicans." But "not Republican" only works when you're the minority party. Now that they're in charge, the Democrats will define themselves by what they choose to do.

If they choose right, great for us all. If they choose left, great for the Republicans.

JonahsColumn@aol.com

The Possibilities of President Obama

In historic victory, he reaches out to the loyal opposition.

By Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/
November 05, 2008, 9:50a.m.

Getty Images

For one night at least, it was all about possibilities. Possibilities that Barack Obama, America’s new president-elect, weaved in a tapestry of patriotism and change, with his trademark eloquence — in that effortless baritone that starts from someplace down here.

For one night, a night of smashing victory unseen in American politics in nearly a generation, he exuded a confident humility that was beyond his years but seemed, in him, so natural and alluring.

It was a night that invited haughtiness. And make no mistake about it: His core supporters yearn for payback — over the Clinton impeachment, over what their lore says was stolen from them in 2000, over the frenzy into which each Bush initiative seemed to drive them these eight long years. But on this night, to his great credit, our new president would have none of it.

Be under no illusions: The president-elect knows where he came from and who got him to this point. “Change” has come to America, he proclaimed to a waving sea of jubilant supporters. Exactly what that change will be is not yet clear, but it would be foolish not to feel the ground beneath us shifting. Change will lean leftward. It will be statist. The questions are how far and how fast — and with his sweeping coattails that solidified Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, how far and how fast will really be up to President Obama.

It is here, though, that Obama, at least for one night, was at his most gracious. He addressed himself directly to us — to conservatives and other skeptical Americans who opposed him, often stridently.

On a night of glorious triumph for him and his ravenous supporters, the message could easily have been: Time for you bitter clingers to get with the program. It wasn’t. Instead, the new president spoke humbly to those whose votes he said he had not yet “earned.” He promised to be our president too — to listen with a heightened attentiveness especially when we disagree, which, to be certain, will be often.

Does he mean it? Here’s hoping so. What is so unnerving is that even now, after the longest presidential campaign in American history, in a country whose deep divisions should lend themselves to the media vetting of candidates from both sides, Obama remains an enigma.

The mainstream press, with its Watergate-bred self-image, its Sixties-driven J-school mission of sculpting rather than reporting news, and its intoxication by the historic moment, became Obama’s palace guard — determined to get him to the palace. Basic information about him remains unexplored: the circumstances of his birth, his immersion in a radical environment, his affiliation with a socialist political party in the mid-Nineties, his fringe opposition to medical care for infants who survive attempted abortions, and so on.

Is he the quietly effective radical strongly suggested by his hard-edged record and his confederation with anti-American revolutionaries? Or is he the centrist healer of his aspirational, inspirational rhetoric? We don’t know for sure. That’s why many of us opposed him, even against a deeply flawed (albeit personally heroic) Republican, the slim prospect of whose victory was as much a source of anxiety as enthusiasm.

Is Obama a Leftist revolutionary? He denies ideological mooring, insisting he is a pragmatist. That should bring some comfort, but it doesn’t really. In his formative community-organizer days, our new president mastered the groundbreaking work of Saul Alinsky, who made pragmatism the clarion call of a systematized, disciplined radicalism.

Alinsky, too, rejected ideological dogmatism. He taught that the successful radical is the wolf in sheep’s clothing: burrowing into the institutions of Western capitalism, altering their character from within, seducing the society with a high-minded summons to “social justice,” “participatory democracy,” and, yes, “change.” Is Obama following this stealthy roadmap? If that is his intention, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done so more perfectly.

On the other hand, people I know and respect, including some who knew Obama when he initially made history as The Harvard Law Review’s first black editor, insist that he is most decidedly not a radical. They say he is just what he now purports to be: a consensus builder whose “progressive” leanings are undeniable but do not render him deaf to persuasive arguments from the other side. On this accounting, the Ayers, Klonskys and Khalidis in his closet are to be understood not as kindred spirits but merely as voices of the hard Left that a confident Obama can hear out, and occasionally even collaborate with, while maintaining his safe, pragmatic distance.

Which is right? We don’t know, or at least I certainly don’t know. But I admit to worrying. A few days ago, as the contest wended toward the finish line with the outcome no longer much in doubt, Obama asserted that he sensed a “righteous wind” at his back. Some sloughed this off as campaign cant. Others among us, having studied Obama’s background, couldn’t help but hear Chairman Mao.

Is that paranoia or well-informed dread? Alas, the jury is still out, and that shouldn’t be. We ought to know the manner of man we are installing in the world’s most powerful office before the installation takes place.

Yet for one night, I was impressed. Impressed most by the dignity with which he bore the weight of his historic achievement: satisfied but not gloating, victorious but magnanimous, gratified by what he has accomplished and what it so obviously means to African Americans, but mindful of the enormous burdens he has assumed and the duties he now owes to all Americans, including the loyal opposition.

Emphasis here on loyal. President-Elect Obama correctly but no less honorably said he still needed to earn our support. For our part, we need to offer our support earnestly.

He is our president now, the president of our beloved nation. Too many have given their lives for this union, and too many are risking their lives for America even now, for us to shrink from honoring their sacrifice. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight President Obama when we think he is wrong. In fact, it means we must fight him. Fighting him when he is wrong will make him a better president, which in turn will make our country stronger. That’s the opposition part, and the freedom to oppose is our nation’s greatest strength.

Still, the loyal part means we must support our president when we think he is right. We must meet him when he reaches out to us. We must try to guide him toward what we believe is best for national security and prosperity. Just as we demand that President Obama put America first, we must be Americans first ourselves.

Our country has had an election. Our side got trounced. We’ve strayed far from our principles. We’ve too often failed to make our case even when it was right there for the making. If the best we have to offer America is Democrat-lite, Americans can’t be blamed for deciding they’d just as soon have the real thing. If we operate in stealth and incoherence, abdicating our duty to convince our fellow citizens of the rightness of measures taken for our security, they can’t be blamed for suspecting we are in the wrong.

It is on us to fix these things. They urgently need fixing if we are to offer the country something worthy.

For the moment, however, let’s accept defeat with the same purposeful grace President Obama exhibited in victory. And as power once again shifts peacefully from one hand to the next, from one party to the other, let’s remember how blessed we are to live in the greatest nation in human history.

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the FDD’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

From King to Obama, by way of Chicago

By John Kass
Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com
November 5, 2008


(Tribune photo by Zbigniew Bzdak / November 4, 2008)

President-elect Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, and Vice President-elect Joe Biden celebrate their campaign victory with the crowd of supporters in Grant Park during Obama's election night rally in Chicago.


Chicago is the city where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was hit in the head with a brick.

Chicago is the city where Barack Obama rose to become president of the United States.

What happened to King took place 42 years ago in Marquette Park on the Southwest Side. Obama was elected on Tuesday, and he spoke to a diverse crowd of tens of thousands in Grant Park downtown.

There is a span of just more than 11 miles between the two parks. So if you had sturdy shoes, you could walk it in a long afternoon. But these are measurements of time and stride, and they are not enough.

In Marquette Park on Aug. 5, 1966, King led an open-housing march and was struck by angry, fearful whites who did not want black people living in their neighborhood.

"I've been in many demonstrations all across the South," a shaken King said after the brick knocked him to the ground, after a knife, hurled by another white, missed him but lodged in the neck of a white man marching with King. "But I can say that I have never seen—even in Mississippi and Alabama—mobs as hostile and hate-filled as I've seen in Chicago. I think the people from Mississippi ought to come to Chicago to learn how to hate."

And now, people from Mississippi will come to Chicago to learn how the first African-American president began his political career.

My cousin Jim Ekonomou was 10 years old and in Marquette Park that day in August, hoping to play baseball, out with his glove, looking for a pickup game, oblivious as King led the marchers west along 67th Street.

"Looking back, it was all about fear, and the marchers came and the crowds gathered and they started throwing things—cherry bombs, firecrackers, rocks—and screaming," Jim recalled. "I was just a little kid, and it was frightening to see the anger.

"It was just so strange, because our heroes were African-American ballplayers, like Ernie Banks and Bob Gibson, and everyone was screaming. You could see neighbors up on their porches with their shotguns in their laps.

"And now? I live in the suburbs; we have African-American neighbors; my kids are fascinated by Obama. I'm fascinated," Jim said. "You look back on it, if anybody looks back on it now, at all that fear then on all sides, if they can remember what it was really like, and you think, how far have we come?"

In Marquette Park the other day, as election workers prepared to open the polls, the afternoon was yellow and the trees were gold and it was warm. The Lithuanians and Irish who once lived nearby were gone. So was the American Nazi Party, which once had offices near the park where it stoked the hate.

Instead, Mexican teenagers were playing soccer in a pickup game on a field, the ball skittering over leaves on the grass, the forwards up, the defense heading the ball to midfield, as Lithuanians and Polish immigrants used to play during their Sunday family picnics, kicking the ball in their street shoes years ago.

But the boys playing soccer the other day didn't know about King and the brick.

"Who?" said a man named Hector, standing at the edge, watching the game in a black-and-gold hoodie with the hood up. "Who?"

At the lagoon, African-American men were fishing, as men have always fished that lagoon, with worms, bobbers and beer. They remember their parents telling them about that day.

"The difference is, black people can fish here now," said Mark Rachman, 41, fishing on the bank with his infant daughter in a stroller next to him. "There was a time we couldn't fish here. They'd kill you if you fished here. Now we're diverse. White people fish, Mexicans, African-Americans. We all fish."

The man next to him gave his name only as Tom. He had a black baseball hat on and a thin mustache and a worn-out paper cup of red worms on the sidewalk.

"The patterns don't change for people or fish," Tom said. "You still have the crappie and the bluegill here on this end, and up on the other end you'll find pike, and by the bridge is where you get largemouth bass. So Dr. King got hit by a brick and we're fishing and Obama can be president. But do people's hearts really change?"

There is a legitimate distance between the next president and many of us. Obama's policies will invariably feed the federal leviathan and shrink the scope of individual liberties envisioned by our founders.

Those who say opposition to Obama is primarily about race are like the haters in old Marquette Park, hurling their own fearful bricks.

No matter what side you're on, we should pray our thanks and ask for guidance for this young president-elect. After all the racial pain this country has inflicted upon itself, Tuesday shows us we can heal. A black man becomes president in a nation that once held slaves, and speaks to a city that loves him, the same city where Dr. King was struck to the ground.

The distance between then and now can't be measured in years or miles. But it can be measured by the heart. The heart of America. The heart of Chicago.

jskass@tribune.com

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Today's Tune: Marah - Round Eye Blues (Live)

(Click on title to play video)

Last night I closed my eyes
And watched the tracers fly
Through the jungle trees
Like fireflies on a windy night
Pulled up and onward by the breeze

I can still hear the far off tin-canny sounds
Of their machine guns come unwound
And I was shakin’ like Little Richard
And I was sweatin’ like ol’ James Brown

Over by my window sill
The moon was still
On my cigarettes and wine
Sometimes there’s where I pray to Jesus
Sometimes there’s where I pray to die

But I could still sense the circling danger
Of those invisible bastards of a piss-hot day
I was shakin’ with ol’ Proud Mary
I was sittin’ on the dock of the bay

Take the hits boys take the hits
Don’t smoke your bible and don’t lose your wits
Because the sky is filled with shrapnel
And your eyes are filled with tears

Hold your breath boys hold your breath
Finger your trigger and welcome death
Because the chopper’s filled with your gut-shot friends
Your hearts are filled with fear

Fables tell of men who fell
With swords dangling from their chest
The old guys down at the taproom swear
The Japs could kill you best

But late at night I could still hear the cries
Of three black guys I seen take it in the face
I think about them sweet Motown girls they left behind
And the assholes that took their place

Take the hits boys take the hits
Don’t smoke your bottle and don’t lose your wits
Because the sky is filled with shrapnel
And your eyes are filled with tears

Hold your breath boys hold your breath
Finger your trigger and welcome death
Because the chopper’s filled with your gut-shot friends
Your hearts are filled with fear

Reagan and Us: The Conservative Fight Ahead

Political Hay

By Jeffrey Lord on 11.4.08 @ 6:09AM
The American Spectator
http://www.spectator.org/

The story, as I once read it, goes like this.

January 20, 1961.

A car rolls along an Illinois highway, the radio tuned to the inaugural of John F. Kennedy and the start of the Kennedy-Johnson years. A mesmerized, adoring media has the full glare of its attention focused on the return of Democrats to power after an eight-year absence from the White House.

In the front passenger seat of the car, working quietly, sits a man scribbling intently on a speech he will be delivering shortly to a small group of listeners. There will be no national spotlight focusing on what the man has to say this day. There will be no cheering thousands, much less millions to hear his words. Yet the man concentrates on his speech anyway, honing and honing again the thoughts he has been shaping now for almost a decade. Shaping, sharpening, thinking them through to match them with the reality of what he has learned in his life, a life that itself began on a distant, wintry Illinois morning.

His thoughts as he has lately been expressing them, he knows, have made him unpopular in certain quarters. Unlike the accolades for the new president, the man has been the target of a dismissive yet barely restrained anger. He was, it was sneered, strident. Divisive. A voice, said union leaders of this man who was himself a union leader, of right-wing extremism. Those were the more polite criticisms in what was becoming a rising chorus of name calling that, to the extent anyone was paying attention, was long on volume and short on truth.

Later that year, in St. Paul, Minnesota, to ride in the Winter Carnival parade and speak at a high school assembly of a few hundred kids a resolution would be passed by the local teachers union. Educators! They would demand he not be allowed to speak because he was, they said, a "controversial personality." He would speak anyway, a teacher quietly coming up to him to apologize and admitting that although afraid to admit it to his peers, the teacher agreed with what he had to say.

Still later this year the man would receive a phone call he would never forget. It was a strange call. For years the man had dealt directly with the people who sponsored his speaking engagements along with the weekly television show, a show of theatrical dramas, the man hosted on Sunday nights on one of America's three television networks. Yet this time he found himself speaking instead to an executive from an advertising agency. The ad executive was making an odd inquiry. He wanted to know if the man would be willing to continue his speaking tours but limit his subject to commercial pitches for the products of his sponsors. Would he be willing to stop making talks with titles like "Encroaching Government Controls"? The man said, well, no. He was, as ever, unfailingly polite, but he could not agree to stop talking about these issues. Twenty-four hours later, the man's show was canceled.

Abruptly, Ronald Reagan, the host of General Electric Theater, was out of a job.

**********

SOMETIMES I WONDER if there will ever be a real appreciation of Ronald Reagan's sheer courage as he pursued the hard reality of advocating conservative principles. There were, that winter of 1961, no talk radio hosts to defend him or give him a platform for his views. There was no one who understood as he did, who could take the time to educate on the principles at stake, much less defend him as he lost his job for speaking so publicly of his beliefs. There were no think tanks to back him up or provide him with the material he used to present challenging specifics on taxes or jobs or national security or schools or health. There was most certainly no television network that would even consider giving his views a fair shake or even dare to acknowledge there was even a serious "other side" to the issues of the day.

There was, in short, no one out there but Reagan himself and a small handful of others who were willing to make the case for conservatism, popularity be damned, whenever and wherever they could make it. Goldwater had his Senate seat, Buckley his magazine, Regnery his book publishing company, but it was a pretty thin crowd. And with liberals riding herd with control of the White House as well as Congress, there was, as he found out with his dismissal from his job, an understandable wariness of the new people in power.

As the returns from the 2008 election finally pour in tonight, Ronald Reagan's lonely car ride across the Illinois prairie in the winter of 1961 is something conservatives need to remember. Whatever happens this election night it will be necessary for conservatives not just to continue Reagan's journey but to understand the principles he spoke about are in fact timeless. Were they Reagan's principles? Yes. Hard won and hard learned they were, too. What gets lost all too frequently in our political dialogue is that Reagan's principles were in fact conservative principles. They were around long before Reagan himself, if not articulated as well or as thoroughly.

The Opposition -- what has become modern liberalism -- cannot permanently succeed. Will not succeed. Ever. Why? Because conservatism is to the political world what gravity is to the physical world. It is timeless, constantly at work, manifesting itself always in visible realities. (Why do you think Rush is a more valuable media property than Dan Rather?) Were he here today Reagan would instantly understand the political shell game that is once again in progress. You can just see him listening with that patient smile as the 2008 Obama model of liberalism insists that various social miseries have emerged because of the actions of evil oil companies or a bad president or some other collection of men and women somewhere. You can just see the slight shaking of his head, the twinkle in his eyes as he hears an insistence that if only good and really smart people (like, well, liberals) were in charge, all would be right with the world. Remembering that House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to insist to him that people who made $50,000 were rich and should have their taxes raised, he would know what's afoot as the 2008 liberals drop the definition of who is rich from $250,000 to $200,000 to $150,000 to $120,000. Then he would say with a friendly smile: "Well, there you go again."

**********

IN THE BATTLE BETWEEN collectivism and individual liberty, Reagan taught that individual liberty will always -- always -- win. It is a victory that, yes, may come slowly. But triumph it will in the end. This is why there is no Berlin Wall or Soviet Union to debate in 2008. Keep your eye on the ball.

American political life is understandably viewed by many in the four-year bites of presidential terms. Yet Reagan knew that history is a river not a block of ice frozen in time. Economics and national security were at issue when the Constitution was written in 1787 -- and they remain an issue today. The difference, of course, is that 200-plus years of American history (actually, much more than that of world history) is supposed to teach to even the dull-minded, not to mention those who style themselves as The Smart People, what works and what decidedly does not.

One may wish to take a giant leap and fly straight to the moon unaided, but since Newton understood the significance of a falling apple an understanding of gravity has taken hold with most humans. To quote Milton Friedman citing F.A. Hayek, "the validity of Hayek's central insight -- that coordination of men's activities through central direction and through voluntary cooperation are roads going in very different directions…central direction to poverty for the ordinary man, voluntary cooperation a road to plenty" is what can surely be termed the reality of political gravity.

Yet in spite of the astounding reality of progress inherent with conservatism, the so-called "smart people" -- liberal intellectuals and politicians aplenty -- keep returning to the idea that gravity (the success of free enterprise, competition, private property, limited government and, in national security, what Reagan called "peace through strength") simply does not exist. Marching backwards they always believe they are looking forward. Like Charlie Brown, they believe that THIS time Lucy will let them actually kick the football.

What this says as Americans go to vote this day is something Ronald Reagan had come to understand to his core: the battle for freedom, as his friend Friedman also said, must be won over and over again. For Reagan, fearlessly clear of thought and eye, that battle was being fought whether he was speeding unnoticed across the American heartland in January of 1961 or being sworn in as president himself twenty years to the day in 1981.


SO NOW IS IT with conservatives today. Ronald Reagan is enshrined in history. But conservative principles are alive and well. If there is to be an Obama presidency by the end of this night it will be our turn to fight the latest chapter in the ongoing battle for freedom. Will it be easy? Of course not. The spirit of bullying intolerance that cost Ronald Reagan his job in 1961 is at large yet again, this time threatening to shut down talk radio or throwing reporters off of Obama's plane or using government to investigate Joe the Plumber. There are new generations who have been conned into believing that there is no such thing as political gravity. That if only the right people are in charge of the newest and best notions of central planning and appeasement all will be well. Some hear the name "Reagan" and make no connection between his career's worth of teachings and the results produced by the Barney Frank's of the world, the disasters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They genuinely do not understand that having the government take from Peter to subsidize Paul -- all in the name of spreading the wealth and ending poverty and being fair -- produces at its end nothing more than a vast jungle of special interest groups, fat-cat lobbyists, welfare and, yes, poverty and lost homes. Worse still, some conservatives have simply fled the field of battle altogether.

We begin again. Watching, if the polls are correct, for an Obama-era to lift off with the same moral superiority of that January day in 1961, yet inescapably headed down the same path that always ends in some version of the same way: with a government run economy in ruins and some national security nightmare stalking us all.

And if the polls are wrong? If we awake on Wednesday to President-elect McCain? It will still be time for conservatives to re-ground the Republican Party in First Principles. Conservatism is not in trouble -- the Republican Party is. Too many of its leaders at the ballot box or in its conservative journals have lost sight of the blindingly obvious: Ronald Reagan was not just a winning personality whose time has come and gone. He was in fact the living embodiment of a set of timeless principles that are not only the gravity of this political world we live in but its oxygen as well.

To borrow his once famous query: If not now, when? If not us, who?


Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania.

The Ghosts in Grant Park

Obama plans a party where his radical friends once ran wild.

Daniel J. Flynn
http://www.city-journal.org/
3 November 2008

Tuesday night, Barack Obama holds what he hopes will be his victory celebration in his adopted hometown’s Grant Park. The Associated Press explains: “Grant Park is the place Chicagoans have long gathered to party, protest, and pray,” noting visits by Franklin Roosevelt, the Queen of England, and Pope John Paul II. If the park is a natural place for a party celebrating Chicago’s favorite son, it’s also an unwelcome reminder of two of the Windy City’s black sheep, who nearly derailed his presidential ambitions.

Should Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, by now the most infamous Chicago Friends of Obama, attend the Grant Park victory celebration, their lives will have come full circle. In October 1969, Grant Park served as a rallying point for several events during the radical leftist group Weatherman’s “Days of Rage”—four days of planned chaos in the Windy City. Born into wealth and privilege, Ayers and Dohrn marginalized themselves by voicing insane rhetoric exalting parricide and Charles Manson, committing acts of terrorism against the police, banks, and government, and remaining fugitives from the law throughout the 1970s. Now, 28 years after emerging from hiding, Ayers and Dohrn amazingly have a friend and political ally poised to win the presidency—one who hails from the same Chicago they once terrorized.

The Days of Rage scheme was 1969’s unimaginative sequel to 1968’s protests at the Democratic National Convention. It used the same set (the streets of Chicago), featured the same villain (Mayor Richard J. Daley), and recycled the same script (youth rising up against the Man). Like most sequels, it didn’t receive the favorable reviews that the original did. Bit players at the Democratic National Convention—where Ayers flung slingshot marbles at police—won leading roles in the Days of Rage. The stars of the 1968 installment, the Chicago Eight, largely balked at a repeat performance. Tom Hayden, who gave a pep talk at the opening night of the Days of Rage, was an exception. But even Hayden later cringed at what he had witnessed. “They looked exactly like the people we were accused of being: helmeted, with heavy jackets, clubs, NLF flags, circled around a fire of park benches exactly like a primitive, neophyte army.” Fred Hampton, a Chicago Black Panther leader later shot to death by police, famously ridiculed the rioting Weathermen as “anarchistic, opportunistic, adventuristic, and Custeristic”—the most apt description of the Days of Rage anyone ever offered.


Members of the Weatherman, Chicago 1969

Bill Ayers, in his Fugitive Days memoir, recalls his cohorts loading up with “steel pipes and slingshots, chains, clubs, mace, and rolls of pennies to add weight to a punch.” But the opposition carried guns. After Dohrn had led Weatherwomen on a topless raid of a high school and Ayers and the Weathermen had bizarrely started fistfights in working-class neighborhoods to enhance the group’s street credibility, Weatherman leaders insisted that thousands of revolutionary youth would descend upon Chicago as a result of their agitprop. They didn’t. A mere 300 materialized the first night in Lincoln Park. “We weren’t only outnumbered and outgunned, we might just be out of our minds,” Ayers remembers thinking. “My stomach sank. Where were all the revolutionary youth?” Armed with clubs and protected by motorcycle helmets, Weathermen stormed into Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood trashing cars, smashing windows, and terrorizing residents. Ayers gleefully recalls attacking a police car with its occupants still inside: “We swarmed over and around that car, smashing windows, slashing tires, trashing lights and fenders—it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. I leapt from the trunk to the roof to the cheers of friends, jumped up and down several times until it caved in slightly, and then slid off easily and kept moving, glancing back to see a broken shell with two cops hunkered down in the front seat.”

“We are born in 1969 in America behind enemy lines,” Dohrn explained to a crowd of 70 Weatherwomen in Grant Park the following day. “We are here to teach the people the lesson of what it means to be a ‘good German.’” Telling the crowd that she was in Chicago to “bring the war home,” Dohrn led a charge of women into police lines. One of her followers bit a policeman’s hand; another spat in a cop’s face. The police confiscated metal pipes and chains from the crudely armed women. Dohrn, the unquestioned leader, was arrested in Grant Park for battery, mob action, and resisting arrest.

Dohrn’s arrest catalyzed her decision to go underground. Her last public hurrah came a few months after the Days of Rage, at Weatherman’s “War Council” in Flint, Michigan, where she offered an embarrassing hosanna to the Manson Family: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!” Thereafter, Dohrn’s extremism would be delivered via audiotape rather than in person.


Richard Elrod lies on his back with a broken neck after being assaulted during the Days of Rage riots in Chicago.

The nihilistic violence of the Days of Rage led to shootings of rioters, hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, several hundred arrests, and the crippling of Richard Elrod, an aide to Mayor Daley. “Elrod is now paralyzed—hopefully for life,” Weatherman’s New Left Notes gloated. “He won’t be so quick to play pig next time.” “We had injured hundreds of pigs,” bragged Susan Stern. “Greatest of all, one of Richard Daley’s chief counsels . . . was paralyzed from the waist down.” So proud of crippling the Daley aide was Weatherman that it published a sadistic parody of Bob Dylan’s “Lay, Lady, Lay” called “Lay, Elrod, Lay”: “Lay Elrod lay / Lay in the street for a while / Stay Elrod stay / Stay in your bed for a while. . . . Play Elrod play / Play with your toes for a while.” Lamely unimaginative, the song nevertheless reveals Weatherman’s hateful contempt for workaday Americans.

The coda of Days of Rage played itself out in Grant Park, where Weatherman appropriately faced its mirror image. As a remnant of radicals attempted to gather, the American Nazi Party taunted them from across the park. What started with blazes, bangs, and crashes ended in a whimper. Weatherman went home and then went into hiding. A spree of Days of Rage indictments transformed Weatherman into Weather Underground.

During the Days of Rage, besieged Weathermen retreated to the friendly confines of Chicago-area campuses as respite from police clashes. Ayers, who in the mid-sixties had become involved with an experimental school in Ann Arbor where, as writer Thomas Powers observed, “no one ever learned to read,” had attained office in Students for a Democratic Society after boasting of not having read a book in a year. By the 1980s, he and Dohrn, finding the political climate no more welcoming than Mayor Daley’s police, again found sanctuary on campuses. Ayers became an education professor at the University of Illinois–Chicago, while Dohrn, even more strangely, became a law professor at Northwestern despite having led a group that bombed police stations, jails, and a judge’s home. “Kill all the rich people,” Ayers counseled young people in the sixties. “Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” But in the eighties and nineties, Ayers—whose father had chaired Illinois’ Consolidated Edison and provided his wayward son with an allowance, even during his radical days—used his rich father’s good name to help resurrect his own bad one.


(Chicago Tribune photo by Frank Hanes / December 3, 1980)

Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers wait for the elevator at the Criminal Courts Building after turning themselves in to authorities in Chicago.


The long, strange trip of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn that started in Chicago during the Days of Rage ends Tuesday night at the Grant Park coronation ceremony of their friend, Barack Obama. Ayers and Dohrn were present at the beginning of Obama’s political career, hosting a 1995 fundraiser for Obama’s state senate candidacy from their home. Obama and Ayers spoke at the same events (one organized by Michelle Obama), served on the same Woods Fund charitable board, and promoted one another’s work—with Obama even singling out an Ayers book for acclaim in the Chicago Tribune: “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system,” he appraised, “and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.” Significantly, after Ayers secured a $50 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation in 1995, Obama served on the board, including as chairman, of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and dispensed large sums of money to Ayers-affiliated projects.

As if to put an exclamation point on the couples’ transformation from pariahs into paragons, even Richard M. Daley—son of Richard J. Daley, devil figure for Weatherman four decades ago—embraced Ayers and funneled city education projects his way. “He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally,” Mayor Daley said of Ayers to the New York Times. “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.” Daley describes the former Weatherman merely as an “educator,” but it’s worth recalling that Ayers applies the “educator” label not just to his work as a professor, but also to his earlier attempts at explosive instruction: “Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate.”

If the projected 1 million people in Grant Park Tuesday night optimistically look to a future of change they can believe in, two attendees may be thinking of their Grant Park past. Haunted during this entire campaign by the living ghosts of has-been bombers, Barack Obama can’t escape the specter of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, even at his victory party.

- Daniel J. Flynn is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left (Crown Forum, 2008) and blogs at http://www.flynnfiles.com/.

BE STILTED, MY BEATING HEART

Steyn on America
http://www.marksteyn.com/
Sunday, 02 November 2008
HAPPY WARRIOR
from National Review
http://www.nationalerview.com

It’s a bit late in the day to say what I’m looking for in a candidate. So let me say what I’m looking for in a voter. It was nicely summed up by Marc Ambinder in The Atlantic Monthly, contrasting McCain and Obama back at the end of primary season as they clinched their respective nominations:

The enormous crowd in the Xcel center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain’s speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers.

And God bless ‘em: Three stilted cheers for the stilted cheerers. There, surely, is the republican ideal: a land whose citizenry declines to offer anything more generous than stilted cheers for whichever of their fellows presumes to lead them. Alas, we stingy stilted cheerers are a dying breed, and, if present polls are any indication, on November 4th Americans will be looking for a leader they can exalt with more full-throated hosannas. Two and a third centuries after the Declaration of Independence, the monarchical strain in American politics is stronger than ever: Not for us a citizen-executive promising a chicken in every pot; we seek a benign sovereign promising hope in every pot – presumably a specialty item hand-crafted by some Vermonty artisan type.

The old kings – the ones we got rid of back in 1776 – were believed by their touch to be able to cure scrofula. I remember as a schoolboy relishing the onomatopoeic pleasures of the word and my history textbook’s accompanying pictures of medieval unfortunates with lurid pustulating necks. Yet a mere glide of the fingers by English monarchs from Edward the Confessor to Queen Anne, and sufferers were instantly transformed – at least until King George I decided ixnay on the hand-lay and declared the racket “too Catholic”. An attempted French restoration of the practice by King Charles X at his coronation in 1824 was greeted with widespread derision.

Ah, “widespread derision”. That’s right up there with “stilted cheers” as a leading indicator of a well-adjusted citizenry. Yet, in the early 21st century, the benign sovereign can heal not merely a minor skin condition of his scurvier subjects but the entire planet. The speech which so moved Marc Ambinder was one Senator Obama largely devoted to the significance of himself: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

“Heal” is the operative word here. Barack is not one of those warrior kings who cures sick children on weekend breaks from slaughtering foreigners, but rather the apotheosis of a therapeutic culture: He will “heal” the planet and thereby bring “closure” to the Bush era. The other day I found myself stuck in traffic behind one of his Hopemobiles - that’s to say, a van whose rear bore a giant poster in vaguely Soviet realist style of the Great Healer captioned not by his name but only by his message: “HOPE”. Smaller placards dotted around it fleshed out his policy platform: “KIDS’ FUTURE? VOTE DEMOCRATIC.” “HOPE NOT FEAR? VOTE DEMOCRATIC.” I felt a sudden desire to order up a gross of bumper stickers bearing the slogan “FEAR HOPE”.

“One of the objects of a mature political philosophy,” wrote Michael Knox Beran in City Journal this summer, “is to reconcile people to the painful limitations of their condition. The American Founders recognized this, as did the English statesmen who presided at the Revolution of 1688: they rejected utopianism.” Ha! More fool them. Senator Obama promises to “remake this great nation”, which frankly sounds a little cheeseparing and parochial next to his wife’s pledge that an Obama administration will start building “the world as it should be”. It’s not precisely clear what that will involve, but it seems likely to be expensive.

As to his qualifications for remaking the world, my favorite moment of the campaign was when he got briefly touchy about having his minimal “qualifications” for the Presidency compared with Sarah Palin’s. The Senator huffily pointed that he has too got executive experience. Unlike the Governor, he’s never run a state or a town or a business, but, as he put it, for two years he’s been running a successful presidential campaign. In effect, Barack was acknowledging that his principal talent is for self-promotion. It requires some chutzpah to offer your skill at being Barack Obama as your main qualification for the job. The man who modified the title of Sammy Davis Jr’s autobiography for his campaign motto – “Yes, we can!” – might have done better to cut straight to one of Sammy’s signature songs: “I Gotta Be Me.” L’etat, c’est moi.

If Americans vote in accordance with their pollsters, these next four, eight (twelve? twenty?) years seem likely to be tough for us stilted cheerers. I doubt he’ll be lowering ocean levels. But, unlike King Canute, who at least arranged a useful demonstration to apprise the sycophants of his limitations in that respect, King Barack is in no hurry to disabuse his followers. So he’ll probably set up some cockamamie bureaucratic regulation designed hypothetically to lower ocean levels over the course of the next century or two. After all, there’s no point electing a megastar leader without mega-government to go along with it. You might think this is all profoundly unbecoming to a republic of free-born citizens. But these days that’s a concept you can barely raise a roomful of stilted cheers for.

The One We Were Waiting For

I am rereading Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson.

By Rev. George W. Rutler
http://www.nationalreview.com
November 03, 2008, 1:30 p.m.

In 1907, the English convert Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson wrote The Lord of the World, in which he predicted inter-city air travel in “velors” (anticipating Zeppelins and war planes), electric billboards, globalized finance, rapid communications, atomic bombs, and the world progress of Marxism and world war. While abortion was beyond the pale even in this dystopia, he did foresee legalized euthanasia.

Benson was a brilliant neurotic, given to pulpit hysteria and remarkable narcissism. I was relieved years ago to learn that Father Martindale, whom I much admired, wrote his biography of Benson only under obedience to his Jesuit superiors. Still, notwithstanding his eccentricities, Benson was far more than a curiosity in his own land. He had a phenomenal impact on preaching and writing even in New York, where he loved to ride trains with the engineer in the locomotive.

He knew his book would be volatile, so he wrote in a preface: “I am perfectly aware that this is a terribly sensational book, and open to innumerable criticisms on that account, as well as on many others. But I did not know how else to express the principles I desired (and which I passionately believe to be true) except by producing their lines to a sensational point. I have tried, however, not to scream unduly loud, and to retain, so far as possible, reverence and consideration for the opinions of other people. Whether I have succeeded in that attempt is quite another matter.”

He writes of a young political figure from the American midwest, with enormous financial resources, who offers himself as a pacific healer of divisions between Eastern and Western world cultures. Julian Felsenburgh’s rise to power is inexplicable in terms of any accomplishment. He is serenely self-confident, cool to the point of coldness, and capable of reducing crowds to sobbing and fainting by his prepared speeches; he persuades all nations — which had not heard of him until recently — to make him “president” of the world. He proposes benevolence through a world religion with himself at the center. Westminster Abbey is converted into a shrine for a statue of Man, for “Man is God.” Felsenburgh would be the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Saviour of the World. In the media, editors proclaim with increasing hysteria:

“Not peace but a sword,” said, CHRIST; and bitterly true have those words proved to be. “Not a sword but peace” is the retort, articulate at last, from those who have renounced CHRIST’S claims or have never accepted them. The Supernatural is dead; rather, we now know that it never yet has been alive. What remains is to work out this new lesson, to bring every action, word and thought to the bar of Love and Justice. Every code must be reversed; every barrier thrown down; party must unite with party, country with country, and continent with continent. Man has groaned long enough. but at length he understands himself and is at peace.

The new world religion would be a humanitarian compact based on pacifism, pantheism, and the eradication of poverty through redistribution of wealth. The one obstacle to this was Christianity, which Benson makes synonymous with Catholicism (both because of his own ecclesiology and his prediction of the collapse of Protestantism as a significant force). Felsenburgh uses compromised Catholics and compliant priests to persuade timid Catholics, and they set up ritual parallels to Catholicism, rather the way the Theantrophistes and others tried in the French Revolution. In one scene a modernist priest offers the services of such to Felsenburgh’s minions in Whitehall: “We number about two hundred in London. I will leave a pamphlet with you, if I may, stating our objects, our constitution, and so on. It seemed to us that here was a matter in which our past experience might be of service to the Government.”

Felsenburgh betrays his pacifism by destroying Rome and virtually the entire Church on earth, save for one last pope and a dozen bishops, who witness the end of the world in the Holy Land, the Pontiff holding the Blessed Sacrament in this Armageddon as Felsenburgh, the anti-Christ no longer disguised, approaches. Under a red sky, with the Pope chanting “Tantum Ergo,” we are left to imagine for ourselves the next scene.

The book was so depressing that Benson wrote a cheerful sequel, The Dawn of All, which reverses the satanic scenes of Felsenburgh’s world. It is faintly ridiculous, with the Pope catering parties with orchestras for all races and tongues giving him homage in the Vatican. Benson likes a good party done well.

In 1992, a lecturer at the Catholic University of Milan specifically cited Benson and The Lord of the World. in describing the dangers of utopianism. He said of the fictitious Felsenburgh: “The anti-Christ is represented as the great carrier of peace in a similar new world order.” That speaker has a moral voice now, but no vote in the United States, since he has his own few acres of the world as Pope Benedict XVI.

— Fr. George W. Rutler is a Catholic priest in New York.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Dangerous Illusions—Shadow World by Robert Chandler

Americans are slumbering in a cave of indifference and complacency, unaware of the reality outside

By William Kevin Stoos
http://www.canadafreepress.com/
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Shadow World
By Robert Chandler
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc., An Eagle Publishing Company
Pub. Date: August 2008
ISBN-13:
9781596985612
Sales Rank: 82,545
600pp


“This is the way the country ends…not with a bang but a whimper.” Had T.S. Eliot read Shadow World, he might well have written this tag line for Robert Chandler’s comprehensive, thought-provoking expose of the three major threats facing the American Republic which Chandler so masterfully documents.

While Americans live comfortable lives insulated partly by luck, the vigilance of our law enforcement authorities, and the sacrifice of our soldiers engaging enemies in foreign lands, forces seen and unseen are mounting against our country. Some are external; some internal, but all are engaged in a war against our country, its core values and our way of life. While we are captivated by Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, vacuous pop stars, and reality TV, as the War in Iraq drops to fifth place on the list of things that most concern us, we are oblivious to the fact that forces bent on the destruction of our Republic are shaping our future. Like the chained man in Plato’s cave who watches the dim shadows dancing on the walls and thinks them reality, we are being deceived. We see the shadows and think they are real; when in fact the world outside the cave is far different. There are indeed things out there—people, countries, movements—that we have reason to fear, if we only knew it. But it is easier to remain in the cave watching the shadows, and there is comfort in not facing reality.

Chandler’s use of Plato’s allegory works well. Americans are slumbering in a cave of indifference and complacency, unaware of the reality outside. Chandler’s book grabs you by the collar, wakes you up and drags you into the sunlight. Shadow World is a comprehensive analysis of the three major threats facing America today: A powerful consortium of countries (Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela–“The Quadrangle”) whose common goal is to reduce the economic, political, and military influence of the United States—the sole superpower after the purported collapse of the Soviet Union—and change the world from a unipolar to a multipolar world in which the United States is weakened or even neutralized; The Islamic Salafist/Wahhabist movement financed by our purported “ally” Saudi Arabia, motivated by a seething hatred of the United States and liberal western democracy and whose goal is to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate ruled by mullahs who want to revert to the good old days when the Prophet ruled by the sword, everyone studied the Koran and non-believers (Christians and Jews ) converted on pain of death; and a Socialist Fifth Column—a “progressive” (socialist-marxist-communist) movement within our own country, influenced not by classical Marxist-Leninist doctrine, but rather by revisionist Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci held that powerful liberal Christian democracies such as ours cannot be overcome directly by open revolution but only by attacking the country from within--subverting and replacing its values, institutions, and most of all, its religious traditions with secular humanism and, in time, a socialist state. Shadow World is the bible on the subject of the threats to America and its standing in the world. Unless we read the bible, we may well go out with a whimper. Worse yet, we will not even see it coming.

The Unholy Quadrangle

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, one superpower was left standing. But now we face an alliance formed by sometime enemies/allies by convenience, Russia and China. Along with their surrogates, Iran and Venezuela, they seek to weaken the United States and change the world balance of power in ways we do not want. While George Bush gushed about his relationship with Putin, “looked into his heart” and saw a democratic idealist, in truth Putin stacked all levels of Russian government with communist cronies from his old KGB days, had his enemies (reporters, critics, and wealthy industrialists alike) killed, tried or banished, took control of powerful industries, passed laws making it a crime to “publicly slander public officials,” and parlayed his resources and political power in ways that would make the Czars blush with envy. But to the world, Putin is a democrat, and we delude ourselves into thinking that Russia will somehow turn into a benign western-style liberal democracy. We see the shadows of democracy and good will when the reality is something far different. Chandler drills deep and painstakingly analyzes how Putin and Russia seek hegemony over the region and the world, using its pipeline to Europe and billions of petrodollars and foreign investments to finance Russia’s historical dreams of conquest. Chandler’s treatment of the unseen but growing Chinese threat is equally sobering. We grant China favored nation status, feebly protest its repression of religion and free speech and look the other way while China buys the United States piece by piece. While we treat the world’s largest country and fastest-growing economy as a partner in progress, and watch the shadows of hope dance on the wall, the reality is far different. Chandler goes to great lengths to expose the true threat—the reality outside the cave: China is growing the greatest economy on earth, building its military into the strongest in the world, spreading money and influence in Africa and South America, and arming our enemies. Even more alarming, as Chandler notes, is the fact that a recent poll of Chinese citizens revealed that a majority consider the United States not as a friend, but as China’s number one enemy.

While we naively treat China as a friend and partner, captivated by the dimly lit images of friendship and cooperation, the brutal reality is that China is our greatest competitor. Our sanguine thoughts of friendship and cooperation are sadly delusional—and not reciprocated. Shadow World offers a keen insight into the Chinese efforts in the world today to undermine our country and supplant us as the world’s superpower. The Chinese and Russians have found willing allies in their campaign to change the polarity of the world’s balance of power. Iran (our second greatest Islamic enemy) , itching to step into the vacuum created when a Democrat president keeps his or her promise to pull out of Iraq—is encouraged and financed by both Russian and China who have invested millions into the country, to design reactors, supply weapons and build infrastructure. That the United States cannot count on Russia or China to dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons should come as no surprise; as Chandler points out, they are strategic partners, joined at the hip. They seek to build a powerful surrogate in the region which will fill the vacuum created by our departure, ensuring influence, access to oil, and the ability to strangle the world economy.

The implications of a nuclear capable Iran, flush with billions in oil revenues, bent on the destruction of Israel (our eternal ally), armed by China and Russia, and able to choke the world the gas pump, are simply too frightening to imagine. In our own back yard, Chandler chronicles the rising threat of Hugo Chavez, a surrogate of the Chinese government, who seeks to export terror, revolution and socialism throughout the region in ways that Fidel only dreamed. The man who would be the next Castro is not merely the next Castro—but Castro on steroids-- more dangerous, more ruthless, and infinitely richer—controlling huge oil reserves that enable him to finance his hemispheric subversion. Also joined at the hip with China, whose influence is increasing throughout the region, Chavez boasts of his desire to destroy America. Chandler’s book explores the depths of Chavez’ influence in the region, his desire for hegemony in the South American continent and his ties to Russia and China which few have studied as extensively as Chandler. No American should doubt that Russia and China seek world domination and are actively seeking to extend their influence into our own hemisphere. Chandler’s treatment of the unholy quadrangle is an eye opener and a unique study of the truth outside the cave. It would be a mistake to dismiss Russia as a second-rate power defanged by the break up of the Soviet Union, to regard China as a friend and partner, or to assume that Iran and Venezuela are simply third world countries run by crazy dictators. The harsh reality is that we face a powerful cabal of nations intent on doing us in, and Chandler exposes the true nature of the threat.

Saudi Arabia and Worldwide Jihad

Building on his own knowledge of geopolitics, his extensive study of the historical roots of Islam and the basis for the intense hatred of the West which is shared by a dangerous segment of Muslim jihadists bent on our destruction, Chandler has penned an expose on radical Islam that all Americans must heed. Radical Islam is here, now and in our own back yard. And the threat did not end with 9/11. Shadow World traces the historical, political and religious bases of radical Islam–Salafism/Wahhabism, and how it has spread from the Mideast to our shores. He details how our ostensible “ally”—Saudi Arabia (arguably our greatest enemy, contrary to the slick public relations campaign by the Saudi family to convince us otherwise) has financed the spread of radical, western--liberal –democracy-hating Salafism/Wahhabism across the Mid East, Europe, and into the United States. Ironically they finance their vitriolic anti-western propaganda with petrodollars sent by the billions from Americans who refuse to allow drilling in ANWAR and never stop to ask why nineteen of the twenty-one terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudis. Chandler exposes the threat to our country from the Saudi-financed spread of radical Islam, and reveals how the Saudis finance mosques and madrassas, and use their billions to influence public education in United States.

Our so called friends preach hatred of the United States, Israel, and all non-believers and actively indoctrinate millions of young Muslims who will grow up hating the West–supplying recruits for the next generation of jihadists bent on destroying our civilization. While the Saudis pretend to be our friend, pay lip service to helping the United States track down terrorists and their sources of financing, they finance terrorism through a myriad of non-profits and innocuous-sounding businesses. Awash in billions of petrodollars, insulated from terrorism as protectors of the two holiest places in Islam, the Saudis are at once a terrorist state and “ally” of the United States. Deceived by the illusion of friendship and cooperation, Americans do not see the reality outside the cave—that the world’s richest country with the largest oil reserves, is actively financing jihad against America while we suppose them to be a staunch ally in the region. As Chandler warns, the Saudis are financiers, active participants and “cheerleaders” for radical Islam. While the Saudis and the jihadists they train dream of a caliphate that stretches across Europe and some day across North America, we finance those dreams and buy their bullets. Chandler warns of the dangers lurking right here at home, where terrorists cells planted years ago await further instructions from a shadowy enemy controlling a large terrorist network sworn to destroy this country. If we do not listen to experts like Chandler then in a sense, we deserve what is coming.

The Fifth Column—Gramsci Socialists and Their Useful Idiots

No one knows exactly the origin of the term “fifth column,” but Chandler cites several historical examples of “fifth columns”–dedicated, clandestine--waiting in the wings to wreak havoc on the enemy. They wait to rise up, working behind the scenes, lying in wait, ready to attack or sabotage or weaken the structure of a city, a country or a society. Not by frontal assaults do fifth columns prove their worth, but by intrigue, subtle maneuvering, and deception. Chandler’s book exposes the uncomfortable but indisputable fact that there is an active “progressive” (socialist) fifth column in the United States. It is well-financed, discreet, motivated, and, one might say—legitimate, or respectable, at least to all outward appearances. It is a group of fellow travelers, “progressives,” “marxist-leninist-communists, “ spelled in small type, and their “useful idiots” (as Lenin would say) including some well meaning protestors, activists and decent Americans who have no idea that they are being manipulated by more sinister forces. As Chandler teaches, these are not your classical “rise up and throw off your chains,” violent revolutionary Marxists. Socialism has become more subtle, more sophisticated, more urbane. It has long since evolved from defeating capitalism through violent confrontation to gnawing at its innards through subtle conversion or subversion if you will, of the host society.

Gradually, socialists realized that liberal western democracies with a strong religious grounding and tied together with common beliefs, traditions, and values—culture--could not be attacked from without. The sinews of religious tradition, especially, were simply too strong to overcome. In fact, modern day socialist thinkers believed that religious values were the biggest obstacle to the spread of socialism. For socialism to succeed it had to transform society from the inside out; it could never conquer a strong democracy such as the United States by force of arms, violent overthrow, or even by direct assault on the culture. If socialism were to succeed at all, it must work from within, transform, and eventually replace, the values, customs and beliefs which bind together a strong society. In short, it could only attack and defeat a country like the United States slowly, imperceptibly, comprehensively, and above all, culturally–by convincing us to abandon that which made us great in first place. Norman Thomas, co-founder of the ACLU held that: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” As Chandler’s book illustrates, this eerily prophetic statement is being played out before our eyes in the United States.

Shadow World reminds us–and most Americans need reminding–that socialism did not dry up and blow away with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact it morphed, and adapted, because old-fashioned Marxist Leninist doctrine had proved an historical failure. Classical Marxist doctrine could not bring down a strong democracy with strong religious roots. In time, socialists adopted the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian socialist, who lived a short but influential life--a portion of it in spent as a political prisoner under Mussolini. Gramsci’s prison writings found fertile soil in the minds of modern day American socialists who run innocuous sounding “charities,” political cover organizations, labor unions, and church groups; organizations like ACORN, the ACLU or National Lawyers Guild, or big money radicals like George Soros. Chandler tells how Gramsci’s writings have influenced thousands of untouchable and now-tenured “progressive” [sic-socialist] college professors across the country (“teachers of destruction” in the book) who were radicalized in the 1960s, and now seek to influence thousands of young Americans who will carry the banner of Gramsci socialism into the next century. Intent on changing America by attacking its fundamental beliefs, economy, values, religions, concepts of marriage, attitudes about human life, and even its national sovereignty; intent on turning it into something it was not, they seek to transform the United States into a secular humanist, socialist state, whose sovereignty and constitutional rights are gradually ceded to international organizations like the United Nations, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court. As Shadow World illustrates, Gramscian theory–that capitalist democracies may be defeated by controlling mass media, mass organizations and public education and transforming society gradually from within--is being implemented by the fifth column American progressive movement today.

Chandler’s work will not be popular among certain presidential candidates, socialist politicians, or left-wing, big money power brokers such as Soros who spent millions of his personal fortune trying single-handedly to defeat George Bush in the last election. It will not be popular with socialist-progressive think tanks and “policy institutes” like the Institute for Policy Studies whose agendas subvert our country’s interests and home and abroad and seek to erode and subordinate our individual rights to the power of the State, in the name of the common good. Chandler names names, details their organizational structures, their agendas, and the people who run them. As Chandler warns, not everything in our country is what it appears to be. Gramsci socialism—which works from within to erode our freedoms, change our values, and subordinate our national sovereignty–is subtly transforming our country every day.

Chandler exposes the shadowy progressive-socialist movement in the United States to the harsh sunlight outside the cave. One has only to consider the incessant attack on our religious traditions, the ACLU’s endless legal assault on the Boy Scouts, the movement to redefine the concept of marriage, the rise of the culture of death, to know Chandler is right. One has only to consider the incessant criticism of the United States whenever it fails to consult the United Nations on any foreign policy decision, the pervasive political correctness that stifles dissent, the shouting down of any college speaker who espouse any views to the right of radical, the propagation of class warfare, and the movement to redistribute wealth, to know that our society is inching slowly, irreversibly down the path of secular humanism and socialism. The sinews of common religion, traditions, values, language and political institutions that strengthened us and made us the world’s greatest superpower, gave us the strongest economy in the world and made us a beacon of liberty and hope are fraying. Chandler’s book tells us why, and outlines perhaps the greatest threat to our society—the one from within.

One has only to look at post Christian Europe, where few attend church, marriage is considered irrelevant, euthanasia is widely accepted, and the countries of Europe have ceded their national sovereignty. One has only to consider that France prevailed upon one third of the signatories of the European Constitution to drop their references to “God,” or “Christ,” or a “Supreme Being,” in their own constitutions and agree to a new European Constitution which grants sovereignty to a European secular humanist government. One only has to see the paralyzing fear of their own Muslim populations which renders Europe unwilling to fight terrorism and afraid that a simple cartoon will set off religious riots, to know that the Gramsci socialists have won in Europe. And one has only to observe the decline of that once great European culture to know we are next.

Chandler’s years of research, investigation and documentation of the threats to our society have resulted in the most comprehensive work to date on the real threats facing this country in the world today. And he should know whereof he speaks. Chandler’s credentials are impeccable and make him uniquely qualified to warn us. Dr. Chandler, who holds a doctorate in political science from George Washington University, is not merely an intellectual with an opinion on foreign affairs like so many talking heads in the mass media. A retired Vietnam veteran and Air Force Colonel, Dr. Chandler has extensive experience in intelligence analysis, defense strategy, and nuclear weapons deployment which few can boast. He has served at the highest levels of the Defense Department, the Strategic Air Command, and NATO Europe, and received the Defense Department’s Meritorious Service Medal. He has advised the White House; the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice; and the Central Intelligence Agency. During the Cold War he served as strategic analyst in the Air Force “Skunk Works” Strategy Division and as a nuclear weapons planner. Dr. Chandler has written numerous articles and several books, including
The U.S. Propaganda Campaign in Vietnam (1981); and Tomorrow’s War, Today’s Decision on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Few posses his depth of experience and knowledge, or are as uniquely qualified to warn us of the dangers facing this country. And we need to listen to such voices. Whether they be geopolitical, religious, or cultural, our adversaries are real—not illusions—and bound by a common desire: to challenge our power, subvert out culture, undermine our values and destroy the country as we know it.

In the end, we can awaken from our slumber, walk into the light and confront the truth behind the threats outside our cozy cave. We can remain strong militarily; resolve to fight the War on Terror that will last for generations—but about which no one wants to hear. We can expose and confront the creeping socialism that pervades our society and which seeks to wear down our resolve by the grist of constant attacks our every institution—until one day we surrender our freedoms our values, and our sovereignty. If we listen to Robert Chandler and confront the threats that face us, we can save ourselves and our country.

Most of us “lives in being” will never know how America will look fifty or a hundred years from now. We should care for the sake of ourselves, but most importantly for the sake of our children and grandchildren. If we do not heed Chandler’s warnings, then America may look like a far different place. Whether the change comes from the geopolitical forces arrayed against us, the jihadists, or our own internal socialist movement; whether we become a second rate world power subordinated to the United Nations or the will of a new superpower, whether our kids learn religion only from textbooks and churches and synagogues become museums, whether our grandchildren speak Farsi and bow to Mecca five times today as required by the government, or whether we become the United Socialist States of America—all because we refused to see the light and take control of our own destiny--is still within our power to determine. If our freedom, our power, our wealth, and national identity become a distant memory because we failed to keep the faith with past generations who fought to preserve this great country, then don’t blame Robert Chandler.

Because we were warned.

The author of Stoos Views is a freelance writer whose feature articles on politics, religion, bioethics, and current events have appeared in The Catholic Digest, The Adventist Review, Liguorian, The Carmelite Digest, The Bread of Life (regular contributing writer), The Annals of St. Anne, The Catholic Medical Association Ethics Journal (Linacre Quarterly), The Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, Social Justice Review, Companion, Leaves, The Family Digest, The Nature Conservancy Magazine. During the early 1980s he wrote a conservative political column for William Loeb’s Manchester Union Leader. He is a practicing attorney who lives with his wife and children in Wynstone, South Dakota. His passion for writing is exceeded only by his passion for his family and concern for the direction that our country is heading.

William Kevin Stoos most recent columns

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Comrade Obama?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.vdare.com/
October 30, 2008


If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?
A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "u quoque!" retort: "You, too!"——the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?
Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it—to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

- Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.

Family Tradition: The Legacy of Ol’ Hank

By BILL FRISKICS-WARREN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
November 2, 2008


Henry Schofield

The Williams family around 1950, with from left, Audrey, Lycrecia, Hank Jr. and Hank Sr.



NASHVILLE- In the opening scenes of the 1964 biopic “Your Cheatin’ Heart,” Hank Williams hawks patent medicine, swills whiskey and throws a few punches. Moments later, at a church social, Hank — played by George Hamilton — makes a pass at his future wife and busts a guitar over the head of a heckler. Overripe with swagger and excess, Mr. Hamilton’s performance comes off as a clumsy composite of James Dean, Jerry Lee Lewis and John Wayne.

Though cartoonish, the movie underscores the enduring challenge in deciphering this country music pioneer. More than five decades after his death, in 1953, of an overdose of morphine on his way to play a show, Hank Williams lives on in myth that is so fraught with melodrama — the liquor and pills, heartache and gloom — and so calcified by decades of redaction and hype that it’s almost impossible to tell the singer of “Lost Highway” from his songs.

But two recent projects help recast him in a revealing new light, without whitewashing the intemperance and scandal. The first, an exhibition at the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum here, features family artifacts that have never been displayed in public before. The second, a CD box-set called “The Unreleased Recordings,” is the first installment of unearthed radio transcriptions to be issued by Time Life. Far from presenting this archetypical singer-songwriter as ghostly or morose, the exhibition and box-set leave the impression of a devout man who, despite debilitating health and personal problems, loved his family and liked nothing so much as a good prank.

“You talk about pulling practical jokes — him and the band, that’s all they did,” said Hank Williams Jr., 59, in an interview at his customized R.V. here this summer. (He also owns several residences.) “We’re talking about a bunch of 20-year-old guys,” he continued, referring to his father’s band, the Drifting Cowboys. “He would sign autographs and they would come up behind him with a stink bomb.”

The exhibition, “Family Tradition: The Williams Family Legacy,” depicts the lives of three generations, from Hank and his wife, Audrey, to Hank Jr.’s five children, and features items like the 1944 Martin D-28 guitar on which Williams wrote many of his hits. The Scotch-taped scrapbooks that Hank’s mother kept during his rise to fame are presented alongside touch-screen recreations of their contents. There are candid family photos from the late 1940s, home movies of a trip to Disneyland and a snapshot, taken decades later, of a young Hank Williams III taking a bath with his half-sisters Holly and Hilary. (All three now sing professionally.) The singer Jett Williams, Hank Sr.’s daughter from his brief affair with Bobbie Jett, is also a subject of the exhibition.

Originally preserved on 16-inch acetate discs, the 143 transcriptions included in “The Unreleased Recordings” — the first 54 of which were released last week — nearly double Hank Williams’s recorded output. The music was rescued from a Dumpster in the late 1980s by an employee of WSM-AM, the Nashville radio station on which the songs were originally broadcast, on an early morning program sponsored by Mother’s Best Flour Company, in 1951. The decision about what should be done with the transcriptions was delayed by protracted litigation over the Williams estate. The recordings greatly expand what we know of Williams’s persona and repertory. We hear him not only exulting in the pleasures of making music, but also clowning with his band and crooning old hymns like “Softly and Tenderly” and Victorian parlor ballads like “The Blind Child’s Prayer.”

“What the Mother’s Best Flour shows reveal is that Hank was a fully fleshed-out man, with a silly sense of humor, deep religious faith and a sentimental side that comes off as borderline cheesy today,” said Brenda Colladay, curator of the Grand Ole Opry Museum in Nashville. “This isn’t the tortured, tragic genius who died in the back seat of a Cadillac. This is the Hank who can’t quite believe he is playing on WSM radio, has a closet full of custom suits, a string of hit records and a beautiful blond wife sitting next to him as he steers that Cadillac toward his dream house.”

In one touching between-song segment, Williams promises young Bocephus — his nickname for Hank Jr. — that he’ll be home for breakfast to “sop biscuits” with him. Williams had just reached new heights in popularity, including appearances on national television programs like “The Perry Como Show” and being billed above Bob Hope and Milton Berle on the touring Hadacol Caravan. Nevertheless, the eagerness in his voice at the prospect of being home with his family is palpable.

Hank Jr. was only 3 1/2 when his father died, and he remembers little of their time together. Nearly eight years his senior, Hank Jr.’s half-sister Lycrecia Williams Hoover has more firsthand memories of what Williams was like.

“Of the two of us, I always considered myself the luckiest one because I got to do things with Daddy,” said Ms. Hoover, 67, a dignified woman with intense blue eyes. A stay-at-home mom much of her life, Ms. Hoover, who today works part time in a beauty shop, spoke from the patio of her home in rural Bon Aqua, Tenn., about 40 miles from Nashville.

“Daddy was a fun person,” she said. “He would take me bowling a lot. He would go horseback riding and fishing with me. I just feel like Hank Jr. missed out on so much.”

Audrey Williams’s daughter from an earlier marriage, Ms. Hoover wasn’t enthusiastic about the prospect of another retrospective about her stepfather when representatives of the museum in Nashville contacted her about the project. She doesn’t shy away from talking about her parents’ “fussing and fighting,” or about Hank’s darker side or drinking. She was, however, wary of yet another tabloid treatment of the Williams legacy.

“They said, ‘We promise you this is not going to be like the others,’ ” she said.

Particularly welcome, Ms. Hoover said, is the museum’s depiction, through telegrams and other documents, of her mother’s career as a businesswoman. Audrey married Hank in 1944, at a gas station near Andalusia, Ala. After playing a critical role in helping her husband start his career, Audrey, a performer who has often been portrayed as conniving and shrill, went on to become a successful song publisher and movie producer. In 1964 she was a founder of Aud-Lee Attractions, Nashville’s oldest privately owned talent agency (now called Buddy Lee Attractions).

“Had it not been for Mother, I just don’t think Daddy would have gotten to Nashville, unless somebody else could of got a hold of him and pushed,” Ms. Hoover said. “Daddy, he liked to entertain. He was a genius, but Mother was the mastermind behind getting him where he needed to be.”

Carolyn Tate, the curator, with Michael McCall, of the Family Tradition exhibition, stresses the importance of putting Audrey’s accomplishments in historical context. “She was a single mom in the mid-’50s,” Ms. Tate said. “She was left to run a business and raise children and to deal with a lot of legal issues.”

Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum

Hank Jr. with his mother, Audrey.


Despite her business acumen, Audrey died bankrupt, in 1975, after years of struggling with addiction to alcohol and other drugs. “After Daddy passed away, Mother blamed herself,” Ms. Hoover said. “She loved him and felt like she should have been able to keep him from drinking. Later, little by little, she began to drink, until she became an alcoholic too.” Audrey and Hank Williams divorced in July 1952, less than six months before Hank’s death.

The exhibition also plots lesser-known points in the trajectory of Hank Jr.’s career. Initially cast as his father’s imitator, Hank Jr. transformed himself into a raucous country-rocker, fusing his father’s blues-steeped honky-tonk with disparate influences to create a new Southern hybrid.

“To see me, at 13 and 14 years old with the wavy jellyroll hair and the white Stratocaster, it all comes together,” said Hank Jr., who was born Randall Hank Williams, recalling his days leading a combo called Rockin’ Randall and the Rockets. “I’d go out on the road and be Hank Williams Sr. and come back home and be Rockin’ Randall. That’s how I would do it — two worlds. And guess what? Rockin’ Randall consumed the other guy. My cloning days were over.”

Hank Jr.’s son, Hank Williams III (born Shelton Hank Williams), 35, has felt the burden of his birthright too. In his case, this has meant pressure to differentiate himself not just from his father but also from his grandfather, to whom he bears an uncanny physical and vocal resemblance.

“I’m almost following in the same footsteps as my dad, but instead of Skynyrd, I’ve been into Pantera and David Allan Coe and bands like that,” he said of his assortment of country, punk and heavy metal. “The energy’s just different.”

The most emblematic items in the exhibition from Hank III’s career are his duct-taped cowboy boots. Hank III, whose album “Damn Right, Rebel Proud” (Curb Records) was released on Oct. 21, estimates that before loaning them to the museum, he had worn them for as many as 4,000 consecutive performances.

Cropping up again and again in the exhibition is the struggle of Williams family members to define themselves as inheritors of Hank Sr.’s legacy while also striving to preserve some semblance of normality. Most telling is a photo from the late ’50s in which Ms. Hoover and her brother and mother are playing in the snow in front of their ranch-style home in Nashville.

“People don’t understand that part — a kid with his sister and his mother,” Hank Jr. said, referring to the scene in the photo.

“It’s real normal, yeah, until this big bus comes by with all these tourists, and as this little bitty kid I think, ‘Why are they stopping there?’ And then it hits you. That’s why they’re stopping there.”