Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Gore Vidal: US Under Obama Could Slide Into Military Dictatorship...

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it




A conversation with Gore Vidal unfolds at his pace. He answers questions imperiously, occasionally playfully, with a piercing, lethal dryness. He is 83 and in a wheelchair (a result of hypothermia suffered in the war, his left knee is made of titanium). But he can walk (“Of course I can”) and after a recent performance of Mother Courage at London’s National Theatre he stood to deliver an anti-war speech to the audience.

How was his friend Fiona Shaw in the title role? “Very good.” Where did they meet? Silence. The US? “Well, it wasn’t Russia.” What’s he writing at the moment? “It’s a little boring to talk about. Most writers seem to do little else but talk about themselves and their work, in majestic terms.” He means self-glorifying? “You’ve stumbled on the phrase,” he says, regally enough. “Continue to use it.”

Vidal is sitting in the Connaught Hotel in Mayfair, where he has been coming to stay for 60 years. He is wearing a brown suit jacket, brown jumper, tracksuit bottoms; his white hair twirled into a Tintin-esque quiff and with his hooded eyes, delicate yet craggy features and arch expression, he looks like Quentin Crisp, but accessorised with a low, lugubrious growl rather than camp lisp.

He points to an apartment opposite the hotel where Churchill stayed during the Second World War, as Downing Street was “getting hammered by the Nazis. The crowds would cheer him from the street, he knew great PR.” In a flash, this memory reminds you of the swathe of history Vidal has experienced with great intimacy: he was friends with JFK, fought in the war, his father Gene, an Olympic decathlete and aeronautics teacher, founded TWA among other airlines and had a relationship with Amelia Earhart. (Vidal first flew and landed a plane when he was 10.) He was a screenwriter for MGM in the dying days of the studio system, toyed with being a politician, he has written 24 novels and is hailed as one of the world’s greatest essayists.

He has crossed every boundary, I say. “Crashed many barriers,” he corrects me.

Last year he famously switched allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama during the Democratic nomination process for president. Now, he reveals, he regrets his change of heart. How’s Obama doing? “Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.” America should leave Afghanistan, he says. “We’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it.” The “War on Terror” was “made up”, Vidal says. “The whole thing was PR, just like ‘weapons of mass destruction’. It has wrecked the airline business, which my father founded in the 1930s. He’d be cutting his wrists. Now when you fly you’re both scared to death and bored to death, a most disagreeable combination.”

His voice strengthens. “One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS [he says that with bristling anger] and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don’t demand honour, that can be lies too. I don’t say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media.” The media is too supine? “Would that it was. They’re busy preparing us for an Iranian war.” He retains some optimism about Obama “because he doesn’t lie. We know the fool from Arizona [as he calls John McCain] is a liar. We never got the real story of how McCain crashed his plane [in 1967 near Hanoi, North Vietnam] and was held captive.”

Vidal originally became pro-Obama because he grew up in “a black city” (meaning Washington), as well as being impressed by Obama’s intelligence. “But he believes the generals. Even Bush knew the way to win a general was to give him another star. Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it’s a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative’ you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They’re not, they’re fascists.”

Another notable Obama mis-step has been on healthcare reform. “He f***ed it up. I don’t know how because the country wanted it. We’ll never see it happen.” As for his wider vision: “Maybe he doesn’t have one, not to imply he is a fraud. He loves quoting Lincoln and there’s a great Lincoln quote from a letter he wrote to one of his generals in the South after the Civil War. ‘I am President of the United States. I have full overall power and never forget it, because I will exercise it’. That’s what Obama needs — a bit of Lincoln’s chill.” Has he met Obama? “No,” he says quietly, “I’ve had my time with presidents.” Vidal raises his fingers to signify a gun and mutters: “Bang bang.” He is referring to the possibility of Obama being assassinated. “Just a mysterious lone gunman lurking in the shadows of the capital,” he says in a wry, dreamy way.

Vidal now believes, as he did originally, Clinton would be the better president. “Hillary knows more about the world and what to do with the generals. History has proven when the girls get involved, they’re good at it. Elizabeth I knew Raleigh would be a good man to give a ship to.”The Republicans will win the next election, Vidal believes; though for him there is little difference between the parties. “Remember the coup d’etat of 2000 when the Supreme Court fixed the selection, not election, of the stupidest man in the country, Mr Bush.”

Vidal says forcefully that he wished he’d never moved back to the US to live in Hollywood, from his clifftop home in Ravello, Italy, in 2000. His partner of 53 years, Howard Austen, who died in 2003, collated a lifetime’s-span of pictures of Vidal, for a new book out this autumn, Gore Vidal: Snapshots in History’s Glare (an oddly clunky title). The cover shows what a beautiful young man Vidal was, although his stare is as hawkish as it is today.

He observes presidential office-holders balefully. “The only one I knew well was Kennedy, but he didn’t impress me as a good president. It’s like asking, ‘What do I think of my brother?’ It’s complicated. I’d known him all my life and I liked him to the end, but he wrecked his chances with the Bay of Pigs and Suez crises, and because everyone was so keen to elect Bobby once Jack had gone, lies started to be told about him — that he was the greatest and the King of Camelot.”

Today religious mania has infected the political bloodstream and America has become corrosively isolationist, he says. “Ask an American what they know about Sweden and they’d say ‘They live well but they’re all alcoholics’. In fact a Scandinavian system could have benefited us many times over.” Instead, America has “no intellectual class” and is “rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realise how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush.”

Vidal adds menacingly: “Don’t ever make the mistake with people like me thinking we are looking for heroes. There aren’t any and if there were, they would be killed immediately. I’m never surprised by bad behaviour. I expect it.”

While materially comfortable, Vidal’s was not a happy childhood. Of his actress and socialite mother Nina, he says: “Give her a glass of vodka and she was as tame as could be. Growing up is going to be difficult if the one person you hate is your mother. I felt trapped. I was close to my grandparents and my father was a saint.” His parents’ many remarriages means that even today he hasn’t met all his step-siblings.

He wrote his first novel, Williwaw, at 19. In 1948, he was blacklisted by the media after writing The City and the Pillar, one of the earliest novels to deal graphically with homosexual desire. “You’ll be amazed to know it is still going strong,” he says. The “JT” it is dedicated to is James “Jimmy” Trimble, Vidal’s first love and, he once said, the love of his life. “That was a slight exaggeration. I said it because there wasn’t any other. In the new book there are wonderful pictures of him from our schooldays. He was a great athlete.” Here his voice softens, and he looks emotional, briefly. “We were both abandoned in our dormitory at St Alban’s [boarding school]. He was killed at the Battle of Iwo Jima [in 1945] because of bad G2 [intelligence].”

Vidal says Trimble’s death didn’t affect him. “No, I was in danger of dying too. A dead man can’t grieve a dead man.” Has love been important to him? “Don’t make the error that schoolteacher idiots make by thinking that gay men’s relationships are like heterosexual ones. They’re not.” He “wouldn’t begin to comment” on how they are different.

In 1956 he was hired by MGM, collaborated on the screenplay for Ben Hur and continued to write novels, most notoriously Myra Breckenridge about a transsexual. It is his satires, essays and memoirs — Live From Golgotha, Palimpsest and most recently, Point to Point Navigation — which have fully rounded our vision of this thorny contrarian, whose originality springs simply, and naturally, from having deliberately unfixed allegiances and an enduring belief in an American republic and railing sadness at how that ideal has been corrupted.

Vidal became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people. The huge loss of life, indeed McVeigh’s act of mass murder, goes unmentioned by Vidal. “He was a true patriot, a Constitution man,” Vidal claims. “And I was torn, my grandfather [the Democrat Senator Thomas Gore] had bought Oklahoma into the Union.” McVeigh claimed he had done it as a protest against tyrannical government. The writer Edmund White took the correspondence as the basis for a play, Terre Haute (the jail McVeigh was incarcerated in before he was executed in 2001), imagining an encounter between the bomber and Vidal charged with desire.

“He’s a filthy, low writer,” Vidal says of White. “He likes to attack his betters, which means he has a big field to go after.” Had he wanted to meet McVeigh? “I am not in the business of meeting people,” Vidal says. “That play implies I am madly in love with McVeigh. I looked at his [White’s] writing and all he writes about is being a fag and how it’s the greatest thing on Earth. He thinks I’m another queen and I’m not. I’m more interested in the Constitution and McVeigh than the loving tryst he saw. It was vulgar fag-ism.”

Vidal says that he hates labels and has said he believes in homosexual acts rather than homosexual people. He claims his relationship with Austen was platonic (though they reputedly met at a legendary New York bath-house). He was once quoted as saying that he’d had sex with a 1,000 men by the time he was 25. It must have been a little strange for Austen, Vidal’s life companion, to source those pictures of Trimble, his first, perhaps only, love.

Vidal puts on a scornful, campy voice. “People ask [of he and Austen], ‘How did you live together so long?’ The only rule was no sex. They can’t believe that. That was when I realised I was dealing with a public too stupid by half. They can’t tell the difference between ‘The Sun rose in the East’ and ‘The Sun is made of yeast’.” Was sex important to Vidal? “It must have been yes.”

He is single now. “I’m not into partnerships,” he says dismissively. I don’t even know what it means.” He “couldn’t care less” about gay marriage. “Does anyone care what Americans think? They’re the worst-educated people in the First World. They don’t have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.” You could have been the first gay president, I say. “No, I would have married and had nine children,” he replies quickly and seriously. “I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.”

Impaired mobility doesn’t bother him — he “rose like a miracle” on stage at the National — and he doesn’t dwell on mortality either. “Either you accept there is such a thing or you’re so dumb that you can’t grasp it.” Is he in good health? “No, of course not. I’m diabetic. It’s odd, I’ve never been fat and I don’t like candy, which most Americans are hooked on.”

There is a trace of thwarted ambition about him. “I would have liked to have been president, but I never had the money. I was a friend of the throne. The only time I envied Jack was when Joe [Kennedy, JFK’s father] was buying him his Senate seat, then the presidency. He didn’t know how lucky he was. Here’s a story I’ve never told. In 1960, after he had spent so much on the presidential campaign, Joe took all nine children to Palm Beach to lecture them. He was really angry. He said, ‘All you read about the Kennedy fortune is untrue. It’s non-existent. We’ve spent so much getting Jack elected and not one of you is living within your income’. They all sat there, shame-faced. Jack was whistling. He used to tap his teeth: they were big teeth, like a xylophone. Joe turned to Jack and he says, ‘Mr President, what’s the solution?’ Jack said, ‘The solution is simple. You all gotta work harder’.” Vidal guffaws heartily.

Hollywood living proved less fun. “If there was a social whirl, you can be sure I would not be part of it.” He does a fabulous impression of Katharine Hepburn complaining about playing the matriarch in Suddenly Last Summer, which he wrote. “I hate this script,” he recalls Hepburn saying . “I’m far too healthy a person to know people like this.” Vidal snorts. “She had Parkinson’s. She shook like a leper in the wind.”

I ask what he wants to do next. “My usual answer to ‘What am I proudest of?’ is my novels, but really I am most proud that, despite enormous temptation, I have never killed anybody and you don’t know how tempted I have been.”

That wasn’t my question, I say. “Well, given that I’m proudest that I haven’t killed anybody, I might be saving something up for someone.” A perfect line: we both laugh.

Is he happy? “What a question,” he sighs and then smiles mischievously. “I’ll respond with a quote from Aeschylus: ‘Call no man happy till he is dead’.”
Read more >>

OFFICIALS BAN KIDS WALKING, BIKING TO SCHOOL...

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- Seventh-grader Adam Marino is getting a firsthand lesson in civil disobedience.

The 12-year-old and his mother, Janette Kaddo Marino, are defying Saratoga Springs school policy by biking to Maple Avenue Middle School on Route 9. The Jackson Street residents pedal more than four miles together each way to the middle school on nice days despite being told not to by school officials and police.

"I guess you can say that we continue to do what we feel is our right," Kaddo Marino said recently. "We feel strongly we have a right to get to school by a mode of transportation we deem appropriate."

Their methods may be unconventional, but the Marinos are part of a growing number of Americans challenging the sedentary habits of today's youths and what they view as overanxious "helicopter" parenting. As fewer children walk and bike to school nationwide, parents have started groups like the "Walking School Bus," which promotes physical activity and fitness in youth by having them walk to school with adults.

Parents and teachers at Niskayuna's Hillside Elementary School implemented the state's first Walking School Bus program. Separately, this week marks the end of the first "Children and Nature: Saratoga -- Come Out and Play," a week of outdoor events in Saratoga Springs coordinated by the local chapter of a national organization that seeks to "reconnect" children and their families to the outdoors.

Riding his 21-speed Giant mountain bike to school benefits Adam Marino's health and the environment, his mother says, and Adam believes it makes him a better student. "It would be really nice if it got changed," he said of the school policy.

The youngster may get his way.

While the school district does not allow elementary school or Maple Avenue students to ride bikes to school, that could change in the coming weeks, Superintendent Janice White said. The Board of Education could vote to amend the policy on Oct. 13, when it is scheduled to discuss a recommendation from a district-formed committee.

"Supervised, parent/guardian bike riding may be permitted at specific sites in the future," White said in an interview Friday. The school has no legal responsibility over what occurs on Route 9, she added.

The biking debate started last spring, when school district officials told Kaddo Marino that Adam was violating school rules by biking to class. Walking to the school also is not permitted.

Kaddo Marino challenged the policy and asked the school board to change it. The district charged a committee to review the rule, which was instituted in 1994.

At the start of school in September, Kaddo Marino thought that she had a nonverbal agreement with school officials to allow her son to ride his bike until a new policy was resolved. But on the night before classes started, school authorities called parents to say that walking and biking to school would not be tolerated.

When the pair stuck with their plan, they were met by school administrators and a state trooper, who emphasized that biking was prohibited, Kaddo Marino said.

In response, members of an advocacy group, Saratoga Healthy Transportation Network, rallied around the mother and son by accompanying them on their rides to school. They go an average of twice a week. Mom rides to the school to join her son coming home.

Route 9 is a state road also called Maple Avenue. The suburban thoroughfare is busy with cars and businesses. It has crosswalks and wide shoulders, but no bike lanes.

The accident rate on the road near the school is less than the statewide average for similar streets, and no bike accidents have been reported in the last three years ending Feb. 1, according to Mark Kennedy, regional traffic engineer at the state Department of Transportation.

At Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake schools, officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride their bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents, spokeswoman Christy Multer said. About six to 10 middle school students ride on nice days, Multer said. They park their bikes in racks, and leave after buses depart.
Read more >>

State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

By JAMES PRICHARD

IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

"I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.

"Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need," Ahmed said in a written statement. "This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus."

Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the agency was following standard procedure in its response. "But we feel this (law) really gets in the way of common sense," Boyd said.

"We want to protect kids, but the law needs to be reasonable," she said. "When the governor learned of this, she acted quickly and called the director personally to ask him to intervene."

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day care regulations.

The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed, Calley said.

"These are just kids that wait for the bus every morning," he said. "This is not a day care."

Snyder, 35, lives in a rural subdivision in Barry County's Irving Township about 25 miles southeast of Grand Rapids. Her tidy, comfortable three-bedroom home is a designated school bus stop. The three neighbor children she watched — plus Snyder's first-grader, Grace — attend school about six miles away in Middleville.

Snyder said she started watching the other children this school year to help her friends; they often baby-sit for each other during evenings and weekends.

After receiving the state agency's letter, she said she called the agency and tried to explain that she wasn't running a day care center or accepting money from her friends.

Under state law, no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Snyder said she stopped watching the other children immediately after receiving the letter, which was well within the four-week period.

"I've lived in this community for 35 years and everyone I know has done some form of this," said Francie Brummel, 42, who would drop off her second-grade son, Colson, before heading to her job as deputy treasurer of the nearby city of Hastings.

Other moms say they regularly deal with similar situations.

Amy Cowan, 34, of Grosse Pointe Farms, a Detroit suburb, said she often takes turns with her sister, neighbor and friend watching each other's children.

"The worst part of this whole thing, with the state of the economy ... two parents have to work," said Cowan, a corporate sales representative with a 5-year-old son and 11-month-old daughter. "When you throw in the fact that the state is getting involved, it gives women a hard time for going back to work.

"I applaud the lady who takes in her neighbors' kids while they're waiting for the bus. She's enabling her peers to go to work and get a paycheck. The state should be thankful for that."

Amy Maciaszek, 42, of McHenry, Ill., who works in direct sales, said she believes the state agency was "trying to be overprotective."

"I think it does take a village and that's the best way," said Maciaszek, who has a 6-year-old boy and twin 3-year-old daughters. "Unfortunately you do have to be careful about that. These mothers are trying to do the right thing."
Read more >>

Dems: No need for Illegals to show I.D...

By Jeffrey Young 
 
Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.

But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.
Read more >>

How We Got to Where We Are (Part 2)

How We Got to Where We Are (Part 2)

In the previous installment of this essay, we saw that the decline of morality in America has been a contributing factor in leading us to where we are today. By rejecting the objective principles governing man’s behavior with God and his fellow man, we have opened ourselves up to a sort of “ethical anarchy” where anything goes if it can be justified, and this anarchy extends to the lawlessness that we now see in our government. Having turned away from both the Bible and the Constitution, our society and our government have opened the door for socialism and the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of bureaucrat and administrator. Concomitant with this turn from morality has been a turn from reason, which will be dealt with below.

The Decline of Reason

Previously, it was noted that this rejection of morality accompanied our culture’s turn from Scottish Common Sense philosophy to the emotionalistic and anti-reason philosophy of the Romantic movement. This is not surprising, since the essence of “common sense” is reason. Reason, as the Founders and those of their generation usually understood it, says that we, as individuals and as a society, are capable of determining ways of ordering both our individual lives and our joint existence together by principles that produce objective benefits. Common sense is basically the distillation of this type of reason. Common sense tells the average man what works and what does not. Common sense tells us, for instance, that working hard and saving your money will help you to have prosperity and freedom in the future, while blowing all your money on lottery tickets is a sure way to the poorhouse and debt slavery. When applied in the realm of politics, common sense generally leads to support for the type of system that our Founders – steeped as they were in the Common Sense of their day – envisioned and set into place when they established our system of government and our Constitution.

Morality is a key component to this common sense. Indeed, one could say that morality and reason go hand in hand. Without one, you don’t really have the other. As seen previously, morality is objective because it is established from biblical standards, rather than from the subjective, mercurial passions of men. God gave us biblical morality, among other reasons, as a way of regulating our interactions with each other. Hence, God simultaneously defined what was both religiously moral and civilly rational.

Through common sense, we can understand that these standards conform to “reason” as it is rightly defined. It is both “moral” and “reasonable” to act on the principle of the Golden Rule, for instance. It is both moral and reasonable not to steal from someone else, not to kill someone else if they aren’t threatening you, not to rail upon someone, and so forth. By refraining from such behaviors, peaceable and civil society is more easily maintained, which allows for prosperity to abound, wealth to be built, families to be strengthened, education to be obtained, and everything else which makes for a healthy civilization. Morality not only informed our relationship with God, individually and as a nation, but also served the public utility of maintaining order and peace in the social system. This connection can be inferred in Paul’s instructions to Titus,

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work….” (Titus 3:1)

While there are times when the Christian (as well as anyone else!) may need to disobey the commands of those above them when those commands would violate the injunctions of Scripture, in general, we are instructed to obey those in authority – which includes the government. This means respecting the rule of law, rather than using righteous indignation to make ourselves into a law unto ourselves. The reason for this, we are told, is that we may be “ready to every good work.” Whether for the spiritual purpose of being servants of God, or the civil purpose of being good and law-abiding citizens, we are to respect the rule of law, and to allow our impulses to be harnessed by morality and reason.

Therefore, by assaulting the twin pillars of American society – religion and reason – Romanticism, Transcendentalism, and the rest of the anti-Common Sense movement of the 19th century laid the groundwork for the increasing lawlessness, immorality, crime, and corruption that our nation saw in the 20th century, and continues to see today. When you reject reason and morality and objective standards, the only thing to fall back on is man’s own ideas and abilities – which leads to the “need” for big government, social engineering, etc.

At this point, we should note that reason and rationalism are not the same thing, though these terms are sometimes confused. Reason is rational, while rationalism, ironically, is not. Reason informs a person through a common sense understanding of what “works” and is beneficial in our interactions with the world. Rationalism, which is as much a philosophical approach as anything else, does not. Rationalism, in fact, rests on the foundation of materialism – the rejection of any supernatural realm and any power greater than man himself. While having originated in the Age of “Enlightenment” along with Scottish Common Sense, rationalism – with its attendant rejection of God and its exaltation of man – didn’t really blossom until the rise of Romanticism. Because Romanticism focused so much on subjectivity and personal intuition, it was the natural soil for a philosophy like rationalism that sought to overturn moral standards derived from religion, and to replace them with manmade, and often personal, principles of right and wrong. As we will see below, the fruits of Romanticism and man’s rationalism – based as they are on the rejection of moral standards imposed from above – have been the rejection of right reason and the increasing illogic of so much of what our society says and does.

For instance, you can see the divide between reasonable people and Romantic people in the way our government operates, and the political and economic assumptions made by the two major camps in the American political scene today: conservatives and leftists. The lack of morality in much of today’s public discourse, the proposed ideas, etc. underscores the lack of reason. Much of what passes as “intellectual” today seems tailor made to destroy, rather than strengthen, public and social solidity.

In the economic realm, this reality is readily apparent. To conservatives, it makes no sense whatsoever that, in a time of deep recession, you would trot out prosperity-destroying initiatives like “Cap and Trade”, massive debt-inducing, wealth redistributionary “stimulus” packages, and the like. To the conservative operating from the underlying premise of common sense and reason, the best way to “stimulate” the economy is for the government to engage in behavior that will encourage individual initiative and investment and enterprise – most specifically, by getting out of the way, by cutting taxes, by letting the productive class in our society have more freedom and more resources with which to produce. Loading up trillions of dollars in debt onto future generations and loading higher and higher taxes on today’s generation are understood, by the individual who operates from reason and common sense, to be very bad ideas that won’t do a thing to help generate prosperity and wealth.

Leftists, on the other hand, genuinely think that such ideas are balderdash – and this is because they operate from Romantic notions of “feeling” and emotion and the sense that “we have to help people.” Unfortunately, by “help people” they generally mean playing to their baser emotions like greed, envy, and resentment. Because they operate from a basis of emotional reaction, the leftist automatically assumes that it will produce some benefit to the poor to destroy the wealth and enterprise of the rich and the middle classes. Even though it won’t produce tangible assistance to the poor, it will make them “feel better” knowing that those who had more than they no longer do. The idea of freeing people to exercise individual initiative to better themselves is scoffed at and derided because the rich and the middle classes might benefit from that freedom too, which defeats the whole purpose of playing upon people’s resentment and using it as an emotional palliative to induce the underclasses to vote for and support the Left.

Common sense and reason also define conservative positions on social issues, as well. Take abortion, for example. Conservatives know that abortion is murder, and therefore is immoral. They know that, when you get right down to it, no argument that tries to draw some arbitrary line in the sand saying that before such-and-such a date, the “fetus” is not a “child” is rational. The growth and development of the child in the womb is a continuum – to put it into technology-speak, it is analog, not digital. There is no “switching on” point where the child suddenly becomes “alive” or “human” or “aware” where the moment before it was not. There is no instant anywhere between the moment that the first bicellular zygote comes into being and the point where the child is born that this being in the womb doesn’t possess humanity. To say that there exists one is simply to make an unprovable, nonsensical argument.

Yet, this is exactly the kind of claim that pro-abortionists make. In doing so, they don’t exercise rational argument, but wishful thinking. They want there to be a point at which the child is not “really” a child, so that they can destroy it, if need be, without being troubled by the moral dilemma of having committed murder. In nearly all cases, the reason for this destruction is simply due to the Romantic claims of individual desire – the child would be inconvenient to the mother’s (or, more likely, the father’s) lifestyle. The father doesn’t want to be burdened with possibly having to marry the mother and provide for the child. Thus, wanting is equated with reality, the emotional “felt-need” with what is right and proper and moral and rational. In a sense, abortion is the ultimate expression of the Romantic-era hyper-individualism that said that what you, personally, feel is what matters most.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigration and border security, conservatives understand that things like “the rule of law” and “national sovereignty” are important, that borders exist for a reason, and that it's important to know who is coming into our country and for what reason. Leftists, on the other hand, think all these things are “racist” and “unfair” and value the “feelings” of law-breakers over the good of the country. On environmental matters, conservatives are rightly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, evaluating the actual facts as we have them, and concluding that there's nothing to warrant the hysteria. Leftists, operating from a starting point of fear and emotion, endlessly run around like Chicken Little, taking each computer-generated armageddon scenario as yet another reason to hyperventilate. The examples of this type of illogic from our government and political system could be elaborated without end. But I will spare you.

The same problem exists in our educational system. Again, there are so many areas that could be discussed that this essay would stretch to book length, so I will address a few issues of general interest to conservatives.

As boring and staid conservatives, we tend to think that education exists for two reasons: to impart to children the knowledge and skills that will enable them to successfully participate in the adult world, and to pass on to them the principles of civic duty, patriotism, and morality that will make them good citizens. As conservatives, we understand that learning to write is more important than learning to recycle, that math is more necessary than “self-esteem building,” and that it’s more essential for kids to learn the fundamentals of our own civilization than it is for them to learn how to worship Allah just like Muslims do, as school kids in California have to do.

Conservatives, operating from the basis of common sense, understand that “sex education” which teaches kids to wait until marriage is going to have a greater effect on teen pregnancy than will instructing them in the use of birth control and encouraging them to experiment. This is because conservatives understand where babies come from, while leftists, apparently, only understand how to terminate those babies should they come. Even in approaches and methodology, conservatives understand vital principles about building character, such as the need for children – especially boys – to learn in a structured and competitive environment. We know that it’s okay, and in fact it is healthy, for little boys to run races and play guns and compete against each other in games where you have winners and losers. We know that the Montessori approach of playing non-competitive musical chairs – you know, where everybody has a seat in the end – produces a society of effeminate men who are weaklings and unable to cope with the realities of a fallen world.

Leftists do not understand any of this. To the leftist, education is about imparting values, to be sure, but that’s just it – it imparts “values,” that catchall phrase that is so broad in scope as to be meaningless in fact. Children are encouraged to build self-esteem instead of knowledge. This goes right back to the Romanticism vs. Common Sense divide. Self-esteem involves, really, the subjection of objective truth and fact to personal intuition. The leftists in our educational establishment are pushing the self-esteem craze off onto our children in the public schools because this is a way to mold these children such that they will perceive the world around them not through the lenses of either objective fact or right and wrong. Rather, our children are being taught to perceive the world in terms of “how does this make me feel?” Because when people compete, there are some winners and some losers, competition is bad. Everybody should “feel” like a winner, even if they’re objectively not.

Facts are bad things, because a “fact” implies right or wrong. Either the sky is blue, or it isn’t. Either 2+2=4, or it doesn’t. Either raising taxes in a recession makes the economy get worse, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground with facts. Facts, ultimately, rest on the same Common Sense basis of objectivity as does biblically-based morality. Some things are right, while some things are wrong, and the leftist, who wants desperately to “feel” good by never being told he or she is “wrong” wants no part of this. The consequences for our children are things like New Math, Values Exploration, Post-Modern Deconstruction, and the like. All are Romantic efforts to undermine objective truth and replace it with subjective feeling and intuitive, self-guided approaches to what seems right to you. While I realize that not every public school is infected with this trend, many are, and the purpose of the educrats in those schools is to produce a generation of Americans who think everything is relative, and that everything is about them and their perpetual, subjectively understood happiness.

This beings me to my third example of the loss of reason in our society: the adolescentization of American culture.

As Americans, we live in a society that glorifies perpetual, carefree youth. The purpose of much of our consumer product sector is to help people look and feel young again. The net effect of our popular culture – television, popular music, and the like – is to help people think young. The ancient Greeks believed that you weren't fully a man until you reached your fortieth year, until then you were just a young pup who was still wet behind the ears. Today, if your forty, you might as well be in the nursing home, or so our entertainment and popular culture would seem to say. There is an old saying that says that “youth is wasted on the young.” Today, we waste our money and lives on everything from gym memberships to plastic surgery trying to stay young. This trend started as far back as the 1920s and the full-blown internalization on the part of the American public of the Romantic trends that had arose in the previous century, when the Roaring Twenties helped to bring on this perpetual youth syndrome. Today, our entertainment, our advertisements, everything is geared towards appealing to our inner teenager.

Now please don't misunderstand, I don't have anything against young people. But all the same, it isn't healthy, as a society, to make adolescence the apex of our aspirations. There was a time when the teenage years were viewed as preparation for adulthood. In fact, throughout most of history, teenagers were generally considered to be, and treated as, slightly smaller adults. In the Middle Ages, most boys were already farming or apprenticing for a trade by the time kids today get their first iPhone. Yet now, we see the exact opposite. Instead of teenagers acting like little adults, we have ostensible adults trying to be overgrown teenagers. This is especially prevalent among the leftist segment of the Baby Boomer generation, you know the type - the ones with the bald heads and graying ponytails, still trying to return to their glory days of smoking pot and loving freely, just like they did at Woodstock.

The impulse for this adolescentization is thoroughly in the Romantic vein. As a whole, our youth today are both more individualistic and immature - and these go hand in hand. If there is anything that marks the modern American teenager or college student, it is a “Me” attitude that places personal happiness, fulfillment, and self-image above everything else. Again, I realize that this doesn't describe every young person today – I can think of many young people, including some of my own family members – to whom this doesn't apply. Nevertheless, this does describe a good segment of our population between the ages of 13 and 25. It is to this that the popular culture, entertainments, advertisements and the rest apply. These are designed to appeal to that “Me” attitude – to the detriment of things like the value of hard work, delayed gratification, and intellectual application. They are most manifestly not done with the intent of encouraging our youth to commit themselves to hard work, morality, intellectual activity, and preparation for adulthood. Instead, everything's about “Me.”

Further, this state of affairs is encouraged by the subjective “ethics” that have replaced objective morals. Many Americans, young and old alike, harbor the childish desire to be free from all restraints, and especially those that might be self-imposed through discipline and self-government. This is why so many of our young tend to be politically leftist (at least until they start having to support themselves via a paycheck). Leftist politics are the epitomé of feeling good. Once free of restrains like the Bible and the Constitution, it's easy to think that the right way to go is to support “free” national health care or more money for “anti-poverty” programs, since when you're young, you're probably not paying for any of this directly through taxes, and you get to feel good about yourself – you get a self-esteem boost by being “caring” and “compassionate” and “making a difference.”

And let's face it – self-esteem and fitting into the peer group are vitally important to the young in our society. Paradoxically, this desire to conform to peer groups is actually an outflowing of Romantic individualism. They conform to the way the peer group thinks and acts – as directed by the “cool” actors and performance artists and whatnot – because of the desire to gratify the individual desire to be accepted and thought highly of. The self-esteem cult that is inculcated in our public schools feeds into this.

These three areas are just a few of many I could point to that are symptoms of our nation's turn from right reason and morality. Because true morality and true reason both have the same Author and the same end, to reject one is to reject both, and to descend into the morass of subjectively-defined “values.” This is what we have done, and if we want to return our nation to where it ought to be, we must grasp once again that link between morality and reason. We cannot allow the rationalistic, atheistic philosophy of our day to deceive us into believing that morality and reason are necessarily antithetical, as so many foolishly think. Instead, we have to stand up and articulate once again the reasonable moral philosophy that guided our founders and the generations that came after them. Then, we have to work on addressing the specific areas and institutions – some political, but some much more deeply rooted than to be dealt with by a mere election or vote – that this Romantic, rationalistic, subjectivistic spirit of our age has infected. It may take a while, but as conservatives, we ought best to have a sense of historical proportion, and understand the need for patience and fortitude in defending and reinstituting our traditions.

Read more >>

The Whys On Obama's Health Care

Oscar Y. Harward

What is so evil with our Liberal Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill? Why does President Obama, and the majority Democrats on Capitol Hill, continue to force their proposed Health Care plan down our throats; a system that they themselves, escape? Why do this majority Liberal Democrats insist on a government run and operated health care system? Why does President Obama, and these Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill, force any Health Care system on the American public? All political polls are now saying NO to the majority Liberal Democrats concerning any currently proposed Health Care plan. Why does President Obama, and the majority Democrats on Capitol Hill, reject a Health Care plan themselves, which they are attempting to force Americans into? Why does this President Obama in the White House, and this majority Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill, refuse to put their own money into the same Health Care system; a plan which these same majority Liberal Democrats are attempting to compel you and I into?

Why do this majority Liberal Democrats insist on providing a taxpayers’ funded Health Care system to illegal immigrants, when the facts support the issue that illegal immigrants are stealing Americans’ identifications by illegal fraud using others’ Social Security card, a Driver Operator License, and/or any other fraudulent documents as official? Why reward illegal immigrants after their thefts from American taxpayers? Americans overwhelmingly support legal immigration, but Americans overwhelmingly say NO to illegal immigration.

There are needs for changes in our Health Care system. Please, let us start with tort reform. Americans overwhelmingly support tort reform. Why does President Obama and the majority Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill reject permitting tort reform legislation?  In each and every state which has approved tort reform, Health Care cost has been reduced. Why does President Obama, and the Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill, fail to support tort reform?

Americans, and specifically the taxpayers, are seeking answers to these questions. Are you Mr. President, and the majority Democrats on Capitol Hill, listening? Are any of you better than any of us? Humble yourselves! Do what is more representative for the people. Do what is right.
Read more >>

Does He lie?

By Charles Krauthammer

You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He . . . well, you judge.

http://www.worth-reading.com/images/obama-liar2.jpg

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future," he solemnly pledged. "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more important, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health-care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, nearly irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.

Read more >>

VIDEO: Community organizers PRAY to president

'Hear our cry. Hear our cry. Deliver us'

A newly publicized video shows leaders of a Chicago-based community organizing group called the Gamaliel Foundation held a rally shortly after President Obama's election and "prayed" to him, seeking his intervention in their difficulties.

"Hear our Cry Obama. Deliver us Obama," the organizers chanted as a single leader recited the organization's perceived problems, based on the philosophies of Saul Alinsky, the radical father of community organizing.

The video has been posted on Breitbart.TV.

The video explains the event took place at a leadership conference just a few weeks after Obama's election in November.

The "leaders" enter a room chanting, "Everybody in, nobody out," apparently referring to health care.  

Then the chanter leads: "We are here for the healing of the nation," to which the crowd responds, "Yes."

"With the prophet Jeremiah we cry out, 'Is there no balm in Gilead?'" continues the chanter. "Is there no physician here. Why then has the health of thy poor people not been restored?"

The crowd responds: "Hear our cry Obama."

The chanter references the "prophet Martin Luther King Jr.," to which the crowd responds, "Here our cry Obama."


"The Truth" by Michael D'Antuono

The chanter then intones: "From health care systems and industries that place profit over people," and the people respond, "Deliver us Obama."

The chanter then references "lobbying efforts" and "freed and fear," to which the crowd responds, "Deliver us Obama."

Officials with the Gamaliel Foundation did not return a message left by WND requesting a comment.

But according to the organization's website, its type of community organizing began in Chicago in 1938.

"Saul Alinsky created the 'Back of the Yards Community Council,'" the site says. "The organization operated in the shadow of Chicago's stock yards. The community was beset with poverty, political corruption, gangs, disease, deteriorating housing and inadequate schools; but most of all it was beset with a sense of powerlessness. The organization successfully engaged people to change the conditions of the community."

The foundation says it was set up in 1968 to support "an African American organization fighting to protect homeowners on Chicago's Westside who had been discriminated against by banks and saving and loan institutions."

It was relaunched in 1986 "as an organizing institute."

WND previously reported when an artist who planned to unveil a portrait of Obama in a Christ-like pose with a crown of thorns upon his brow canceled the event, due to "overwhelming public outrage."

Others, such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, also have been clear in their nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."


Addressing a large crowd behind a podium with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaimed, "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

Farrakhan pointed out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Savior," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

WND also previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" capturing the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.

The site wass topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.

Read more >>

Missiles Bursting In Air - A Dangerous Alternative Lyric

Francis Scott Key, a lawyer, also was a talented lyricist, as the memorable, perhaps immortal, words of our inspiring national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, movingly reveal.  He wrote of reality, having personally seen “bombs bursting in air” and that “the Flag was still there” during the War for Independence.  Are we risking another bursting in air - namely, that of terrorist or other enemy guided missiles?

Upon the eve of Constitution Day - what inglorious timing - knowledgeable experts confirmed rumors that the Barack H. Obama Administration would shelve or discontinue the well-known George W. Bush Administration plans to build a missile-defense system in the Czech Republic and in Poland.   The prior week the Russian Foreign Minister had revealed the Russian Government’s understanding that such a United States decision soon would be forthcoming.  Since then there has been considerable pronouncement, theorizing and speculation, of varying degrees of expertise and objectivity, as to motivations of the Obama Administration, reactions of foreign governments and dangers to the United States.

With respect to any shield in Europe, as distinguished from the Far East and North Korea, American, and numerous other, experts perceive the threat or risk of threat primarily to be guided missiles from Iran.  There also is concern about a Russian-launch possibility although the measure of that concern appears to be substantially less.

In 2002 an informal entity was formed called the Independent Working Group on Post-ABM Treaty Missile Defense and the Space Relationship (“IWG”).   IWG is chaired by Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.  The IWG personnel roster is impressive, including among others former Ambassador Henry F. Cooper and a retired Vice Admiral whose assignments included that of Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare.  The roster also includes a host of prominent scholars and officials from notable organizations:  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University; Heritage Foundation; Claremont Institute; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; American Foreign Policy Council; Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis; George C. Marshall Institute; Institute of the North; University of Virginia Center for National Security Law - and, perhaps to some unexpectedly, Free Congress Foundation.

There already has been, and undoubtedly will be, much activity and commentary among independent experts, diplomats, Members of both Houses of Congress, Federal officials, media and other commentators, possibly military personnel.

Innumerable questions have been, and will be, asked.   Among them ought to be, in no particular order:   How dangerous is the Iranian guided-missile threat?   Is there, or might there be, a Russian or other European and/or Near Eastern guided-missile threat?  What did the United States gain in relations with Russia or any other sovereignty by terminating the program?  What is the likely timetable for development of more extended - for example, inter-continental - missiles?  

Whatever the answers, we do not want reverse lyrics imposed upon us:
“Missiles bursting in air
Give proof through the night
 Our safety is not there.”

The IWG, with continued Free Congress Foundation participation, will persevere in seeking to define reality and causing reality to become policy.     

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
Read more >>

Death of the West: Our Sexual Identity Crisis

By Selwyn Duke

Perhaps you’ve heard the tragic story of David Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his penis charred beyond surgical repair. His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused about the best way to proceed. Then, one day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.

Money was talking about his theory of “gender neutrality,” which states that “gender identity” is learned rather than innate. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; this implies that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that sexual identity. Hearing this, the Reimers hoped they had found their salvation.

They took their boy to Money, who told them that their son’s penis could not be restored and that he stood a much better chance of living a happy life if “sex-reassignment surgery” (in reality, reassigning sex is about as possible as reassigning species) were performed and he was raised as a girl. The Reimers agreed, and the surgery was performed when the boy, who would be named “Brenda,” was 22 months old.

In reality, the kindest way to describe Money’s theory is fanciful. His idea of “gender neutrality” was still in vogue when I was a youth, and “vogue,” in the most frivolous sense, is the correct term. It was always more style than science; it was something that I, even as a teen, knew was bunk. Yet who would listen to people such as me? We were old-fashioned, behind the times. And it didn’t matter that Money was Alfred Kinsey redux and believed pedophilia was lovely if it was for “love.” It didn’t matter that David and his twin brother, Brian, said that Money sexually abused them during photo shoots. He was a “doctor,” a Ph.D. on the cutting edge of a brave new world.

Only, David (“Brenda” at the time) wanted nothing to do with that world. Although he was never told he was a boy, had been surgically altered, was dressed and raised as a girl and was regularly seeing Money for therapy, he resisted his “gender assignment” from the outset. He acted like a boy, played with boys’ toys and objected to seeing Money from the age of seven. It wasn’t going well — and it wouldn’t end well.

At the age of 14, in a rare commendable act of teen rebellion, David threatened suicide if he were forced to continue with Money’s prescriptions. This prompted his parents to finally tell him the truth about his condition. With his eyes opened, he then replaced his estrogen treatments with male hormone therapy, took the name “David,” started living as a boy, underwent reconstructive genital surgery and later married a woman who already had children. Yet the damage had been done. His tormented life which began in such a tragic way came to a tragic end: he did commit suicide, at the age of 38.

Dr. Money, too, is now dead. Yet he died with his ideological boots on; not only did he fail to repent, he fraudulently portrayed David’s case — the one for which he was most famous — as a success for years after its failure was obvious. This, and his refusal to ever own up to the failure, only increased the chances that other children would be thus scarred.

As a testimonial to how quickly fashions pass away, Money’s theory has joined him in the grave. The stake through its heart came in the 1990s, with brain research and an improved understanding of intrauterine development proving conclusively that the sexes are different even within the womb and the skull. These new findings expressing old wisdom were related as revelation, reflecting the idea that nothing is truly valid until vindicated by “science.” So there was no collective mea culpa from the psychological establishment for clouding reality and misleading generations of naïve parents. They just continued without missing a beat, as if it were a matter no more significant than recommending the wrong size shoes for the kids. Worse still, they have now moved on to their next mistake.

We have heard about the curious case of Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who has been competing as a woman. Semenya has become the focus of suspicion (I’ll use masculine pronouns, as I’m convinced this individual is a boy who experienced abnormal intrauterine development) because of his masculine physique, deep voice, development of facial hair, male mannerisms and the fact that he has been winning races by wide margins. As a result, a battery of medical exams to determine his true sex has been conducted, although the results have not been officially released. Yet the real story here is not what investigation may tell us about Semenya. It is what our reaction to Semenya tells us about ourselves.

This is reflected in comments found throughout the Internet. For instance, consider “JimBob” posting under this Daily Mail piece, who said,

“Why is everyone talking about genetics? What about Caster's own mind - if she believes within herself that she's female, then she is.”

Echoing this sentiment here, “Green Is Good” wrote,

“SHE identifies HERself as a female. Done.”

Then, back to the Mail, “Livio” opined,

“This is a clear case of gender identity discrimination. What if she is a man who identifies himself as a woman?”

That’s interesting. What if you’re a lunkhead who identifies himself as intelligent?

Yet it isn’t sufficient to just dismiss this with sarcasm, as this isn’t the rambling of only a few twisted minds.

What these posters are expressing is the handiwork of today’s Dr. Moneys, “transgender” theory. This is the idea that your “gender” can be whatever you want it to be — male, female, both male and female or neither, etc. — that it isn’t limited by biology. If you have a problem with this, bravo, but then you should have a problem with the word “gender” itself. Why? Because its current usage (it used to apply only to words) was originated by people such as Money for the purposes of facilitating the relation of their theories. Understand that while many people use “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” that is not its social sciences definition, which dictates that it refers to social rather than biological differences. Yet people love to use this and other elements of the lexicon of the left. It’s a fascinating phenomenon. If you replace a simple, one-syllable word such as “poor” or “sex” with impressive sounding terms such as “underprivileged” or “gender” for ideological reasons, people, oblivious to the underlying agenda and wishing to sound sophisticated, will glom onto them. You see, simpletons, who are relatively rare, prefer simple words. And the only other group that does is rarer still: true intellectuals. But I digress.

So, returning to Semenya, many people express the shocking idea that his actual sex should have no bearing on whether he should be allowed to compete with women. It’s that modern phenomenon — image is everything, reality is negotiable.

This notion has so taken hold that we’ve recently heard of two stories out of Britain wherein young boys, ages 12 and 9, showed up in school earlier this month as “girls,” sporting girls’ clothing and ponytails and bearing feminine names. And the schools are kowtowing to them, telling other pupils that they’ll be punished if they don’t handle the “sex change” “sensitively.” Yet sensitivity is not for the other children, who are upset and confused. In just the way that David Reimer’s body was mutilated in deference to yesterday’s latest theory, their minds must be mutilated in deference to today’s.

Now, even if someone subscribes to “transgender” theory, it is striking that he would allow a child who is too young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. How did we get to this point?

These parents, like Ron and Janet Reimer before them, are listening to the respected social scientists of their day. These “experts” tell them that there is something called “gender dysphoria,” which is the persistent feeling that one is a member of one sex trapped in the body of the other. It’s enough to convince many parents, such as those of German Tim Petras, who received female hormone “treatments” at age 12 and now goes by the name of Kim. Yet on what basis is this diagnosis really made?

Feelings.

It is truly reflective of this age, where relativism has obviated reason. That is to say, if there are no absolutes, no Truth to use as a yardstick for judging among feelings, the feelings themselves become the ultimate arbiter. Then, of course, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a Fig Newton if it feels like one.

But one of the problems with emotion is that it is by its very nature irrational. And if anyone would defend an emotion-based diagnosis such as “gender dysphoria,” note that it’s brought to us by the same psycho-babblers who have given us something dubbed “body dysmorphia.” This is this persistent feeling that a certain body part, such as an arm or leg (or multiple body parts), doesn’t belong on one’s body. And if you think it isn’t taken seriously, know that doctors have amputated healthy limbs on this basis.

Be shocked — that is, unless you accept “gender dysphoria” as legitimate. Then you’d better be introspective. For what is the difference? Why would you accept the emotion-based diagnosis of gender dysphoria but not the emotion-based one of body dysmorphia? Why are the feelings of those who suffer from the latter invalid but the feelings of those who suffer from the former a credible arbiter? Both groups have persistent feelings that their bodies aren’t as they should be. Both groups cannot bear to live in their bodies as they are. Both groups want to have their bodies altered. And both groups have found “experts” willing to put them under the knife. Sure, it strikes us as the most horrid malpractice when a doctor amputates healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs. But, then, should we view it any less dimly simply because those healthy body parts are between the legs?

Lamentably, today the answer is often yes, and this speaks volumes about our society. That is, we’ve all heard that old stereotype of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied, and I think I know why: we’ve turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group within the scariest of walls — detachment from reality — has now been mainstreamed. You can be a man who thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare say self-image isn’t reality.

And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn’t be — a girl, a legless man or Napoleon — the sane conclusion is that you’re confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one. It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate reality, only obscure it. If a man loses his genitalia in an accident, does he cease to be male? Or, if “gender” is a continuum as today’s Moneys say, is he less male? Did David Reimer cease to be a boy because he was mutilated and given estrogen against his will? Of course, the “experts” would say the answer is no, since he never saw himself as a girl. Again, though, feelings cannot be the arbiters of reality. After all, I may have hypertrichosis like Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy, undergo operations to create a snout, paws and a tail, howl under the moonlight and change my name to Spot. Yet am I sane if I call myself a different species?

So what are we to conclude about “gender” science? Decades ago its “experts” said society could turn your boy into a girl if it felt like it; now they say he can turn himself into a girl if he feels like it. Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Money’s “gender neutrality” theory accorded with his day’s feminist claim that sex roles should be discarded because the sexes are essentially the same? Is it just a coincidence that the current “transgender” theory accords with our day’s homosexual claim that sex roles should be discarded because everyone and his values are essentially different? It is at all possible that these theories have less to do with sound science than the spirit of the age?

We have gone from the proposition that “gender” can be whatever society says it is to the proposition that it can be whatever the individual says it is without ever stopping to wonder if the second idea is just a crank like the first. But most won’t wonder because today we place more faith in doctors than doctrine, and today’s doctors say that eternal common sense and yesterday’s doctors’ nonsense are wrong. Yet the most significant thing that distinguishes them from Dr. John Money is that they are still alive — and their theory is not yet dead.
Read more >>

Congressman: Obama has something to hide

It's not citizenship, but 'there's some other issue there'


Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ar

A congressman who once considered a lawsuit over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he's convinced the president doesn't have a problem with that issue. But there is something else Obama desperately wants to keep concealed, according to Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.,

WND reported earlier when a tempest erupted over a newspaper's report that Franks was considering a lawsuit to challenge Obama's eligibility. Franks explained he had considered a lawsuit before and immediately after the election, but he said he was convinced Obama was born in Hawaii because of newspaper announcements.

Franks, at that time, signed onto a measure in Congress that would subject Obama to a verification process if he chooses to run for another term.

He repeated the explanation in a new interview with the Washington Independent:

Franks confirmed he considered legal action right around the time of the election.

"Information was brought to me that put Mr. Obama's citizenship in question in my mind," he said. "I ... found material, papers in Hawaii, newspapers, that I don't think could have been forged that showed he was indeed born in Hawaii about two years after statehood," he said. 

"That solved the issue for me. I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he continued.

"All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long form birth certificate," he continued.

Because that hasn't happened, he concluded, "There's some other issue there.

"I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."

When Franks was considering a lawsuit, WND confirmed with his spokeswoman the plan had been reviewed but then dropped.

But spokeswoman Bethany Haley pointed out the irony of Obama's campaign on "transparency" and "accountability" and his subsequent refusal to "disclose even the simplest form" proving his ability to meet constitutional requirements of a president. Those demands include the president be a "natural born" citizen.

The plan to which Franks added his name is H.R. 1503 by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The provisions of H.R. 1503 are:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.


"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

The campaign followed a petition that has collected about 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Read more >>

A Tale Of Two Child Sex Crimes

Kevin Jennings has admitted covering up the sodomizing of one of his high school students by an older man.

Thirty-two years after film director Roman Polanski [this link includes vulgar language] fled from America after drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl, he's been arrested in Switzerland. He now faces extradition to the U.S. to get the justice he richly deserves.

According to the victim's testimony to the grand jury, Polanski told her to get into a Jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged him, gave her a Quaalude and champagne and then raped and sodomized her.

He then fled the country to avoid serious prison time. During his time in Europe, he's gotten married, had children and won an Oscar. For 32 years, he's been free after committing a heinous crime against a 13-year-old.

There's another sodomy-related sex crime that – until recently – has been largely unreported in the media. It involves Kevin Jennings, who is Obama's Assistant Secretary in the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the Department of Education.

Jennings is an aggressive gay activist who founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in order to expose children to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle. GLSEN is most famous for its "fistgate" event in Massachusetts.

When Jennings was a school teacher in Massachusetts, a young boy named Brewster came to him about his involvement with an older man. According to Jennings, writing in his 1994 book, One Teacher In 10, "Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated."

At a GLSEN rally in Iowa in 2000, Jennings told the crowd that he also told Brewster: "You know, I hope you knew to use a condom."

Kevin Jennings has admitted covering up the sodomizing of one of his high school students by an older man. By law, Jennings was supposed to have reported this statutory rape of a child to the proper authorities. What did he do? He "counseled" the boy to continue engaging in sex with an older man and to use a condom. And, he's rewarded by President Obama with a key government post.

Roman Polanski raped and sodomized a girl 32 years ago; Kevin Jennings deliberately covered up the sodomizing of a young boy. They are both criminals.

Polanski faces long-denied justice; Jennings is overseeing a multi-million dollar educational program to push the gay agenda on every school in America.

The Traditional Values Coalition has been warning parents about Kevin Jennings for decades. Perhaps they will now listen to us. Jennings should be immediately fired from his post! He too, must pay for his crime.

Read more >>