Sunday, May 31, 2009

The First Pentecost


The Greek traveler stood bewildered in the Jerusalem crowd. What was happening? All about him Jews from many nations milled excitedly and pointed to a group in the center of the square.

The traveler had heard that the Jerusalem holidays were exciting, but he was not prepared for this. The crowd was electrified. What was that group up to? He tried to weave his way closer.

"You are drunk!" someone shouted at the group.

The traveler heard one of them, the big man with the gray-streaked hair, respond: "We are not drunk. We are stunned with joy because we have had an experience like Israel had at Sinai."

The Greek traveler wondered what he meant by that.

"Why not own up?" heckled another. "You've been to the wine bottle once too often."

Then the big man raised his hand for silence. The crowd fell quiet.

"Do not judge by appearances," he began. "Listen to our words. At Sinai, God called Israel to be a community of faith. God called our ancestors there to be a holy nation. That meant they should form a community that would worship God and live a worthy life. God also summoned them to be the light of nations, that is, to be a missionary witness helping all people to know God."

"I think I can agree with your first point," ventured a Pharisee in the crowd, "but I don't really believe God wanted us to be missionaries."

"My friend, you have forgotten the meaning of the story of Jonah," the big man remarked. "He was a preacher told by God to go on a missionary trip to Nineveh. Recall that Jonah resisted the call at first until God overcame him. Jonah was an example of how Israel, too, resisted the call."

"Who is that man?" the traveler asked of no one in particular.

"His name is Peter," a tradesman replied.

"He is their leader," said a woman nearby.

A young woman in the crowd, moved by Peter's sincerity, asked, "How is it you were speaking in a language we all could understand when you burst upon us here in the square? How did you manage to unify all of us who speak so many different tongues?"

"Perhaps I can explain this best to you," Peter answered, "by comparing this to the old story of the Tower of Babel. That was a tower of human pride that resulted in a breakdown in communications. The people at Babel could not understand each other.

"Our Master, Jesus, asked us to spend time in prayer to await his Holy Spirit. We followed his word and meditated for nine days in the Upper Room. Into that tower of prayer this day came the Holy Spirit, whose greatest work is to bring all people to unity in Christ. At Babel, people babbled. Here we speak a message that will unify people in mind and heart."

"Is that why you said you've had an experience like that which Israel had at Sinai?" asked an elderly man.

"Exactly," replied Peter. "The difference is that what happened at Sinai was but a shadow of the promise and reality that has happened here today. It is because of Jesus, who died and rose for us, that it has happened. Because of him and his Spirit, we really can be a community of faith and a light for the nations."

"How can we have this experience?"

"Is there any hope for us?"

"Go on, tell us more."

"As I look out over the vast crowd in this square," answered Peter, "I think of a world full of dead bones. I know that my comrades and I must go into this valley of the dead and bring life. Don't you remember the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones?"

[God] said to me, "Mortal, can these bones live?" I answered, "Lord GOD, you know."

Then he said to me: "Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!…I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin,...and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

The traveler listened to Peter's voice as it carried over the square. It is like a wind, he thought, bearing good news to the world.

On that Pentecost day, Peter asked the people to repent, to change their way of life, to seek a new life in Christ. And they did respond. The Holy Spirit of Jesus moved into the valley of dry bones and brought three thousand to life.

A new Church began!

"Your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams," Peter exclaimed.

That's what happened. The young let loose a flood of heart-expanding ideals across the earth. The old suddenly realized that their dreams of a happier tomorrow were no longer foolish thoughts, but a reality come true.

WRITTEN by Alfred McBride, O.Praem. and posted at AmericanCatholic.org on May 31st, 2009

Friday, May 29, 2009

Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood


Not only should Perez read this particular book, but so should Obama and his male entitlement mooks. Maybe Adam Lambert should give it a gander—and all the rest of the American Idol males, too, for that matter. I’m also certain that it would be advantageous for 99% of evangelical men and all the current boys who make up the Republican Party’s leadership to peruse its contents.

So, what’s the book that’ll cure Perez’s paranormalities and shore up BHO’s sell out mentality? Well, it is not Liberace’s biography or Dr. I. Blow’s new book, How Guys Can Get in Touch with Their Inner Diva, or my 2006 book, 10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People, or another one of Alinsky’s rags.

The book that could possibly (maybe) cure Hilton’s heinously deep weirdness, the effete bent of our culture, the wuss tick in churches, Obama’s many ills, as well as the pusillanimity of GOP politicos is Frank Miniter’s new destined-to-be-bestselling tome, The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide: Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood.

As most of my regular readers know, one of my favorite whipping posts is the metrosexual male imago the man-haters are successfully saddling our sons with. This Puss-in-Boots culture detests men who would be men. That’s why parents and grandparents who loathe what the media and various institutions are trying to do to our boys need Miniter’s new book more than Pelosi needs Jesus and a straight jacket. Frank has penned a manifesto for manhood, a veritable tour de force for testosterone that decisively rebels against the gush of this sassy society.

So what’s so great about Miniter’s book on the lost art of manhood? Here are four things that flick my switch:

• It’s not 400 pages long. Frank cuts to the chase. No long, drawn-out blah, blah, blah fluff trying to fill pages so his publisher won’t sue him for not hitting his contractual word count. As a man, I appreciate that. I’ve got stuff to do. Don’t go wafty on me. Get to the point. And Frank does just that.

• It’s insanely practical. In TUMSG, not only will Miniter hit you with some heavies regarding the philosophic aspects of classic male virtues, but he’ll also lay out: 5 ways to purify water; which survival knife is best; how to survive if you get lost; how to rescue a capsized boater; how to fend off a bear, cougar and alligator attack; how to spot poisonous snakes; how to control arterial bleeding; 10 rules of gun safety; Marine Corps sniper tactics; 10 steps to field dress a deer; fishing strategies for stream, lake and ocean; how to throw a fastball, curve and a change-up; how to run with the bulls of Pamplona; how to choose the perfect candy, flowers and jewelry for your lady; how to judge, cut and smoke a cigar; the differences between certain whiskeys, wines and beers; how to win at poker; the importance of the 10 Commandments; 100 movies and 100 books every dude should see and read; and the 10 most manly deaths—from Davy Crockett to Jesus Christ. And that’s just a fraction of the useful stuff Frank cranks in this politically incorrect, metrosexual maligning manuscript.

• It lauds classic male traits of yesteryear, things like: self confidence, precision, wisdom, humility, bravery, strength, honor, sacrifice and knowledge. You remember those masculine traits, don’t you? Not only does Frank float these old school assets but he also profiles many men who embodied these goodies while here on planet earth.

• He walks his talk. Believe it or not, Frank lives this stuff . . . at least as much as a sinner can. Miniter has floated the Amazon (the river, not the online superstore), run with the bulls of Pamplona, and hunted everything from bear in Russia to elk with the Apache to kudu in the Kalahari. Along the way Frank learned boxing from Floyd Patterson, spelunked into Pompey’s cave, and I hear he can make a wicked martini. FM’s a graduate of the oldest private military academy in the US, a place that still teaches honor and old school gentlemanly conduct and believes, obviously, “that men need this book because the US has lost its code of honor as enumerated by its Founding Fathers.”

Hey parent and/or grandparent, give me your good ear for a sec. The MSM, public schools, pop culture, effeminate branches of evangelicalism and liberal politics have made being a man, in the classic sense of the word, a bad thing. If you want to make certain your son or grandson morphs into a dandy dilatory dipstick then allow him to ogle pop culture, admire our current political clime, and send him to a church that’s filled with dancing wood fairies, a lot of “hugging and sharing,” and more floral displays than an FTD warehouse. They will wring out of him any and all vestiges of that which makes him a man. You might as well stock up on eye-liner, fingernail polish, glitter, James Blunt CDs, and some skinny stretch jeans right now because he’s gonna need ‘em.

However, should you desire that your son become a William Wallace, you must do the following:

Buy Miniter’s book!

In addition, buy my audio books, Raising Boys That Feminists Will Hate and God’s Warriors & Wild Men (www.clashradio.com), and Doug Wilson’s book, Future Men. The aforementioned will provide you and your Y chromosome with all the information and inspiration needed for him to be the provider, protector, hunter and hero God intended him to become.

Also, single ladies, if you have some 21st century metro guy begging to take you out on a date or wanting your hand in marriage, before you plow forward with Mr. Sassy Pants you might want to have him digest Frank’s book as a good acid test to verify whether or not you’re saddling up to a man or a hamster. Let him read it. See if it gives him a tummy ache. If it doesn’t make him run screaming to mommy and he actually cowboys up and begins to embody what this survivor guide espouses—for, let’s say, five years—then go out with him. Unless, of course, you like dating hamsters who weep while watching the movie Twilight.

Great stuff, Frank.

Congrats!

WRITTEN by Doug Giles as "Here's a Book Perez Hilton and Barrack Obama Should Read" at TownHall.com on May 23rd, 2009

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?


Like many Catholics of their generation, Daniel Harrington's family wasn't made up of Bible readers. Harrington recalls two Protestants coming to his house when he was a child. "We'd like to discuss the Bible,"they said, to which his mother replied, "We're Catholics. We don't read the Bible."

Harrington, however, has spent his professional life helping Catholics do just that, not only by teaching scripture for decades but by preaching Sunday after Sunday in the same two parishes for many years. "One of the pastors used to stand at the entrance of the church and tell people they got three college credits for the liturgy," Harrington says of his preaching style.

For Harrington, though, reading the Bible is not just intellectual but spiritual as well. "Immersing oneself in scripture won't necessarily make this or that decision easier for you," he says. "But it does help answer big questions such as: Who am I? What is my goal in life? And how do I get there?"

Harrington admits that Catholics have yet to fully embrace the Bible as their own. "I think religious education perhaps hasn't emphasized the Bible enough," he says. "But the Sunday readings are a great tool for people to learn the Bible. People sometimes don't realize how much Bible they're exposed to."

Harrington sees facilitating that encounter as part of his job. "A preacher has to help people get familiar with the scriptures-and not be afraid of them."

Pope Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth (Ignatius) makes a very strong point that the gospels present Jesus as not simply a human figure but a divine figure as well. And if you read the gospels with sympathy and not fight against them, I think you have to acknowledge that the pope has made a very important theological point.

Can you introduce Jesus through the lens of each one of the four gospels?
They all share a common stock of titles: Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David, Lord, Messiah. Those are foundational. But they each take a distinctive approach to the figure of Jesus.

For Matthew Jesus is a teacher, and so he has Jesus giving five great speeches, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount in Chapters 5 through 7. While Mark wants to show that Jesus is a wise teacher and a powerful healer, in that gospel Jesus is also the suffering Messiah.

For Luke Jesus is the great example. In other words he practices what he preaches. This comes up especially in Luke's narrative of the death of Jesus, in which Luke highlights three things that Jesus taught throughout his career: forgiveness of enemies; giving hope to marginal people, such as the so-called good thief; and trust in God, as in Jesus' last words, "Into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46).

In John, Jesus is the revealer and the revelation of God. He's the Word of God in the sense that he reveals what's on God's mind, but also he's the revelation of God in the sense that if you want to know what God is like, look to the person of Jesus.

What about Paul? How does he present Jesus?
Paul emphasizes almost entirely Jesus' death and Resurrection and their significance. He's interested in the saving effects of Jesus' paschal mystery. Only a few times does he ever quote a teaching of Jesus. And in one case-the teaching about marriage and divorce-Paul seems to give an exception to Jesus' absolute rejection of divorce.

Paul didn't meet Jesus personally. His experience was with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Obviously it was such an overwhelming experience that it changed everything in his life.

What if you only had five passages to introduce Jesus to people - your five favorites from across the gospels?
I'd start with the prologue to John's gospel (1:1-18). It provides the New Testament context for the divinity of Jesus and echoes back to Genesis, which also starts, "In the beginning." I think it's a very important text.

The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 through 7, outlines what the disciple of Jesus should strive for and includes the Beatitudes.

Another would be Mark 8, the confession of Peter. That's a great turning point in Mark's gospel, as it is in all the other gospels.

The prodigal son, only in Luke (15:11-32), would be a representative parable because it emphasizes God's mercy and raises the question of what happened to the older son. We never find out whether he decided to change his mind and go to the party, or whether he just ran away.

And obviously the fifth and final would be the Passion narrative. I like all of the death scenes, but especially the hearing of Jesus before the high priest in Mark 14:62. All through Mark's gospel, when people would give Jesus titles such as Messiah or Son of Man, he would say, "No, no, keep this silent." He only publicly accepts the titles of Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man at his lowest possible moment-that is, when he's been condemned by his own people. The truth is that he can only be understood on the cross.

If you could have been present for any of the gospel stories, which one would it be?
The first chapter of Mark's gospel beginning with verse 21. Mark presents it as a typical day in the ministry of Jesus with teaching, healing, and all sorts of interesting things. It takes place in Capernaum, one of the most beautiful places on earth, beside the Sea of Galilee, a beautiful setting, unspoiled still. Every time I visit there I read the first chapter of Mark.

WRITTEN by the editors of U.S. Catholic as an interview with Daniel Harrington, S.J. and published on May 26th, 2009. The above is an edited version. For the full version, as always, the title is a link to the original article.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Ireland's New Troubles


When the recent news from Ireland appeared, my friend Robert Royal asked me to comment on the physical and sexual abuse scandal swirling around the Christian Brothers and other orders. Initially, I turned it down because it was too intense and conflicted an issue for me, for I owe an immense and un-repayable debt to the brothers. I was born in Ireland, and they educated me for next to nothing and attracted me enough by their kindness and goodness that I tried out their life and rule for a while. Though I left at age twenty I had never seen the slightest indication of abuse anywhere I lived.

How many Irish Christian Brothers abused boys sexually and physically? I don’t know, but maybe something similar to the percentage of U.S. priests who were sexual abusers. That would mean about 97 percent of the brothers remained decent, dedicated men. If the rest of us suffer just reading the reports, how much more do they?

The deeper and more difficult question is: how did superiors and government auditors permit this to happen? The Irish have their own weaknesses and one of them is never to correct moral failings face-to-face. Behind the back, yes, face-to-face, no.

The Christian Brothers in the 1950s, the ones I knew, were good men. Some of them were a bit tough. But as kids we much preferred to get our “biffs” (slap on the hand, sometimes severe) rather than other disciplines, such as staying after school. This was not ideal pedagogy but it was admired by many parents, and often preferred by pupils.

It may be that therein lay the harsher seeds that corrupted some brothers. That and a “warehousing” dictated by tradition and national economic realities: class sizes were often fifty boys. Export that to the locales of the scandals, the “industrial schools” filled with sometimes difficult, though mostly lonely, abandoned boys. Add a few men who stayed there and got tougher and tougher, and gradually got satisfaction from inflicting pain, while the more normal brothers exited to ordinary schools as quickly as they could. This is pure speculative interpretation of the report on my part.

What to do?

I leave the legal consequences to the courts. And though since my days with the brothers, I have taken advanced degrees and practiced both clinical psychology and social policy, I would begin with some simple, spiritual advice. Confess, repent, and start all over again. Plus, ruthless self-examination and examination of the structures that allowed the corruption. The Church deals with corruption repeatedly, which it confronts with both firmness and kindness. St. Paul had to deal with corrupt members in the early Church. We’ve even had corrupt popes (sexually and in lots of other ways, too).

But don’t expect the Irish, especially those on a rant right now, to lead the reform of sexual attitudes and practices in Ireland. They love their license too much and will flay you, as only the Irish can, should you dare criticize them. They are silent on other forms of present serious sexual abuse of children, but refrain from calling them such: the abuse of sexually transmitted diseases, even deadly HIV; the abuse of children born out of wedlock, or much worse, aborted; the abuse of children abandoned by fathers for other women or women leaving husbands for other men. Are these serious sexual abuses? Of course they are, but not in modern Ireland.

Now how to deal with the children who were abused? Monetary compensation is certainly justified, but it can’t fix where the damage is worst, in the hearts and in the later adult sexual capacities of the abused. The likely consequences in their lives: Broken marriages, depressions, anger, abortions and out-of-wedlock births, all of which will tumble on into the future for at least a few generations to come. The only real answer is the kindness and patience they need to heal whatever damage manifests itself. There is no real recompense but the closest to it is love, care, patience, and understanding.

If God is willing and the Irish Christian Brothers are to survive, they have a stinging nettle to grasp. They will first have to establish a reputation for sanctity. Do they have the saints to lead them that way? I hope they do. Our Lord called them to follow Him and their own Calvary certainly has begun. They might start anew with a special dedication to the children and grandchildren of the abused.

But even with that they will suffer much for a long time. Those who hate the Church will see to that. It will take a special courage, humility, and grace to enter the order to serve the abused and their children. But with God nothing is impossible.

There are many to pray for in this debacle: the abused and their families, the innocent brothers, those superiors who lacked sound judgment, and the abusers who have to face a Judge (God) Who said “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” May the Lord forgive them – and all the rest of us, too.

WRITTEN by Patrick Fagan at The Catholic Thing website on May 27th, 2009

R.I.P. Peter Zezel


When the terrible news about Peter Zezel began to break here yesterday afternoon, it was hard for your mind not to wander. Zezel died yesterday from a rare blood disorder at the age of 44. He hadn't played for the Flyers in 2 decades and, no, it does not seem like yesterday - but he was a meaningful player at a meaningful time, one of the faces of an era.

You go back and look at the players on the roster and, my God, they were so young. Mark Howe was the old man on defense, 31. Dave Poulin and Brian Propp were veterans in the group, too, at 27, and Tim Kerr was 26. And then there was this wave of kids: Pelle Eklund and Dave Brown (23), Rick Tocchet, Ron Sutter, Murray Craven and Ron Hextall (22), Zezel and Derrick Smith (21), and Scott Mellanby was 20.

They were just kids, and they went to the Stanley Cup finals in 1987 and took the Edmonton Oilers dynasty to seven games (after losing to the Oilers in five games in the '85 finals). Coach Mike Keenan rode them hard to the finish line and then they were too sore from the whip. Keenan was gone after the next season. The parts began being disassembled. The wilderness years followed for the franchise, followed by Eric Lindros.

But that young group really did make an era its own - and Zezel was there in the middle of it. His death after a decadelong struggle with hemolytic anemia - Zezel was in critical condition with the disease in 2001 - cannot help but remind everyone who was there about that time in the Flyers' history, and about their youthful face.

"I'm personally very, very sad today with the news of Peter's passing," said Ed Snider, the Flyers' chairman. "I spoke to him last week when I first learned he was having problems. He was hopeful, as was I and all of those who loved him. Peter was a good friend of mine and this is a real tragedy. He was a wonderful young man and a great member of the Flyers organization. We are all saddened by his passing and we want to send our condolences to his loved ones."

Zezel was a good enough athlete to have played professional soccer in Canada, and was known for being able to kick the puck to teammates. He and Keenan seemed to clash at times, as they all did, but Keenan would reacquire Zezel twice more after they both left the Flyers.

"I remember Peter coming to the Flyers in 1985 along with Rick Tocchet, Derrick Smith and Scott Mellanby," Propp said last night in an e-mail. "Peter was the most sensitive of the bunch.

"Peter was great on faceoffs and a very good passer. He wasn't as aggressive as the others but was solid on his skates. We had a strong leadership group on our team in those years and Peter matured into a very reliable two-way player. Mike Keenan was always on him, which bothered Peter, but as he got older he learned from it and became one of Mike's players wherever Mike went.

"Peter was very good with the fans and would take time to talk to all of them for as long as they wanted to talk. Peter has run hockey camps in Toronto for children the past few years and given back to the community. We will miss him."

And here is the trivia question: The guy for whom the Flyers traded Zezel was Mike Bullard.

Women wept at the news. He was not the Flyers' best player, but his female legions would indicate he might have been their best-looking. Zezel was an honest, two-way center who showed scoring flashes but was not able to sustain them for his career.

The end of that career told you plenty about the man, too: Zezel retired so he could be close to a niece who was dying of cancer in Toronto rather than play out the string for another few months in Anaheim.

WRITTEN by Rich Hoffman at Philly.com on May 27th, 2009

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Christian Plight in the Middle East


Pope Benedict XVI’s recently concluded visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, highlighted the demographic and political decline of Christian communities in the region. Nearly a century ago Christians accounted for 20 percent of the region’s population — today they number less than 5 percent. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Christian social and political growth is taking place. Elsewhere in the region, a dwindling Christian population is getting close to extinction as a result of Muslim intimidation and violence and, lack of economic opportunities leading to ever increasing emigration.

Significantly, in preparation for the Pope’s visit, few commentators reminded us that the Middle East was once the heart of Christianity, that cities such as Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were once major Christian centers and, that the modern states of Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey were once part of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Jihad out of Arabia by the Prophet Muhammad’s successors forced the vast majority of Christian and Jewish populations to choose between conversion to Islam or becoming a dhimmis (a tolerated, heavily taxed and humiliated second-class citizen — manifesting itself in, for example, the invalidation of their court testimony against a Muslim’s and, the restriction against building church spires that exceeds the height of a mosque). This process of Islamization took root and through the centuries millions of Christians converted to Islam by the sword and/or for economic survival. Christian communities that survived intact were usually mountain dwellers, specifically the Lebanese Christians.

In modern times, Christianity became a small minority in the region where they once constituted an absolute majority. In the 19th century, the arrival of western Christian missionaries revived, in small measure, Christian community life. American missionaries built universities in Cairo, Beirut and in Turkey. Catholic and Lutheran schools (grade and high schools) revived education among native Christians but not much reverse conversion occurred. The fear of death on account of apostasy prevented large scale Muslim conversion to Christianity.

The rise of Arab nationalism gave Christians a role to play in various Arab States. Christians seeking to be accepted as equals by the Muslim majority championed various universalist movements. Men like Michel Aflaq founded the Ba’ath Party, an Arab national socialist party that drew its inspiration from European dictatorships such as Germany and Italy. Khalid Bakdash, established the communist party in Syria and Lebanon, and George Habash formed the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist Palestinian terrorist organization.

The participation of Arab Christians began to diminish in the 1970s following the Six-Day War, when Israel defeated the much superior forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq with contingents from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria and Yemen. Simultaneously, there was a meteoric rise of Islamism fueled by Saudi Wahhabi petrodollars. Millions of Egyptians and Levantines pouring into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in pursuit of job opportunities became Wahhabi devotees.

The resulting decline of Arab nationalism affected a change in the Arab psyche; an intense anti-Western attitude arose among the masses and the elites alike. Arab Muslims wanted an authentic Arab answer to their political, social and economic plight, and Islamism became the answer. The success of the Iranian revolution also stimulated a Sunni-Islamist response. National identities retreated as religious consciousness advanced. The importation of ideas from the west during earlier decades, which pushed modernization and enlightenment in the Arab world, was gradually replaced by religious values centered on Islamic spirituality and conservatism. Political Islam became a force that attracted the young and educated.

Back in 1991, this writer interviewed Bethlehem’s legendary Christian mayor Elias Freij, who noted that 40,000 Christians had departed the area. He said, “Go to Santiago, Chile, that is where you will find the Christians of Bethlehem.” When asked why, he replied that “It was difficult for Christians here.” Privately however Christians in the Bethlehem-Beth Sahor-Beth Jala triangle, plead with westerners to let the world know about their oppression at the hands of Fatah gangs. Palestinian Authority (PA) officials intimidate Christians into selling desired properties at undervalued prices. Christian girls are victims of harassment, rape and forced conversion, and Christian-owned businesses are often torched by PA-sanctioned gangs for non-payment of protection money.

Arab-Palestinian Christians are afraid to complain to the foreign press for fear of retribution in the form of rape of their daughters or wives, murder and beatings. Often times, they are required to make anti-Israel proclamations as an offering of loyalty to the Palestinian cause.

The persecution of Christians is pervasive throughout the region. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is likely to take over control of the government following the upcoming June elections and eventually modify the secular nature of the state that was created by the French ostensibly to accommodate Christians in the Levant. And in Egypt, Coptic Christians, about 10 percent of Egypt’s 75 million, are feeling the brunt of the increasingly radicalized Muslim population which has drastically curtailed Christian employment in government, and reduced their once dominant role in the Egyptian economy. Muslim violence against Christians in Egypt is ignored by the Mubarak regime. Churches are torched and young Christian girls are raped and forcibly converted to Islam. Relatives who go to the police end up being beaten and having to serve time in prison.

Six years ago, the Christian population of Iraq was about 1.5 million. The deliberate murder of Christians by their Muslim neighbors and various jihadi groups has caused them to flee, reducing by half the current number of Iraqi Christians

The apparent triumph of radical Islam in the Arab Middle East bodes ill for the remaining Christian minorities. Pope Benedict’s visit to the region should prompt the Holy See to launch a worldwide campaign that demands tolerance, religious freedom and human rights for all minorities in the Muslim world. The Pope must put aside political correctness and multiculturalism, and rally the Christian world including the European Union and the United States, to demand reciprocity from the Muslim world. If Christianity is not allowed to exist freely in the Arab-Muslim world, then Muslims minorities should not be able to erect mosques, and enjoy full equality in the democratic west.

WRITTEN by Joseph Puder for The Bulletin on May 26th, 2009. As always, the title of this item is a link to the original article

On a Wheel and a Prayer


With St. Christopher riding shotgun, faithful motorists hope to have a safer journey.

With the fluctuating price of gas this past year and the growing economic crisis, the most common prayer uttered from behind the wheel these days is probably a plea for relief from the expense of filling up. While many families are suffering from job losses and other financial woes, I remember another, more serious supplication shared by my family at the beginning of any family road trip.

After my father would pack the trunk of our Volkswagon Beetle (later a VW Rabbit-no spacious minivan or SUV for this family of four!), we would take our places in the car: Dad behind the wheel; Mom riding shotgun, map in hand; and my sister and I in the cramped back seat. As we pulled out of our suburban Milwaukee neighborhood and headed toward the freeway, my parents would remind us to pray for a safe trip. Then they would lead us in an Our Father and a Hail Mary, punctuated by, "St. Christopher, be our guide," a nod to the patron saint of travel.

Then, and only then, did the radio go on, the car bingo games come out, and the pestering of "How long till we get there?" begin.

I later learned that the church had dropped St. Christopher's July 25 feast day from the liturgical calendar in 1969 out of concern that his story was based primarily in legend, although local and personal veneration is still allowed. It seems the tale of an 18-foot giant, perhaps with the face of a dog, portaging people across a dangerous river and later martyred, didn't pass the histor­icity test.

But the image of St. Christopher (literally "Christ-bearer") carrying people to safety still resonates, even in a century in which travel is so much safer that many of us don't even think about the danger involved in leaving our homes. The brisk sale of St. Christopher medals and statues attest to the desire for some totem to the gods to protect us while traveling. A bobblehead dashboard Jesus, who promises to be your "co-pilot through the valley of gridlock," is a more modern, kitschy version. Even Icon brand motorcycle jackets-most likely not purchased primarily by devout Catholics-often feature a St. Christopher medallion in an inside pocket.

I don't have a Jesus or St. Christopher statue in my car, but for years I have carried a St. Christopher medal in my passport wallet for overseas trips. Better safe than sorry.

Now that Hummers are out and hybrids are in, Americans may be spending less time on the road, whether out of economic necessity or concern for the earth. Unfortunately I am not one of them.

After five years of somewhat sanctimonious non-car ownership and reliance on public transportation, I purchased a used Toyota Camry, which I now drive a total of almost 100 miles round-trip, two or three times a week, to my job. I have become an über-commuter, joining the average American who spends more than an entire work week in his or her car each year.

Although it's easy to go on auto-pilot while driving the same route every day, I am occasionally graced with even more time to contemplate my new driving habits while I'm stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic caused by summertime construction or a lane-closing accident.

The latter reminds me of the sobering reality that I am maneuvering a several-thousand-pound machine. With some 6 million car accidents a year in the United States and a car-related fatality every 13 minutes, getting in the car is still one of the more dangerous things people do each day.

And in times of danger, we Catholics turn to our faith and to prayer. In the 1950s a Catholic priest founded the Sacred Heart Auto League to encourage "prayerful and careful" driving. Membership is free, but for a small donation you can receive a dashboard statue or visor clip to remind you to keep it under the speed limit and to be courteous to the guy who cuts you off.

A few years ago the Vatican also encouraged Catholics to take the high road with its "10 Commandments of Driving" in "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road."

While the media had a field day with this quirky story, it's hard to argue with the church's advice to avoid road rage, help victims of accidents, and avoid drinking and driving. And though some may have chuckled at the recommendation to start each trip with a sign of the cross, it didn't seem odd to those of us who ask for God's guidance before putting the keys in the ignition.

I still do. Sometimes it's just a quick, "God, let me be safe" or "Be with me on this trip." Like many Catholics, I also pray when an ambulance passes by or when I see a disabled car or an accident. Both my sister and I and our families still start each long road trip with an Our Father and a Hail Mary.

St. Christopher, be our guide.

WRITTEN by Heidi Schlumpf at USCatholic.org on May 24th, 2009

Monday, May 25, 2009

Tribute to America's War Heroes


More than most nations, America has been, from its start, a hero-loving place. Maybe part of the reason is that at our founding we were a Protestant nation and not a Catholic one, and so we made "saints" of civil and political figures.

George Washington was our first national hero, known everywhere, famous to children. When he died, we had our first true national mourning, with cities and states re-enacting his funeral. There was the genius cluster that surrounded him, and invented us—Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton.

Through much of the 20th century our famous heroes were in sports (Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, the Babe, Joltin' Joe) the arts (Clark Gable, Robert Frost) business and philanthropy (from Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates) and religion (Billy Graham). Nobody does fame like America, and they were famous.

The category of military hero—warrior—fell off a bit, in part because of the bad reputation of war. Some emerged of heroic size — Gens. Pershing and Patton, Eisenhower and Marshall. But somewhere in the 1960s I think we decided, or the makers of our culture decided, that to celebrate great warriors was to encourage war. And we always have too much of that. So they made a lot of movies depicting soldiers as victims and officers as brutish. This was especially true in the Vietnam era and the years that followed. Maybe a correction was in order: It's good to remember war is hell. But when we removed the warrior, we removed something intensely human, something ancestral and stirring, something celebrated naturally throughout the long history of man. Also it was ungrateful: They put themselves in harm's way for us.

For Memorial Day, then, three warriors, two previously celebrated but not so known now by the young.

Alvin York was born in 1887 into a Tennessee farming family that didn't have much, but nobody else did, so it wasn't so bad. He was the third of 11 children and had an average life for that time and place. Then World War I came. He experienced a crisis of conscience over whether to fight. His mother's Evangelical church tugged him toward more or less pacifist thinking, but he got a draft notice in 1917, joined the Army, went overseas, read and reread his Bible, and concluded that warfare was sometimes justified.

In the battle of the Argonne in October 1918, the allies were attempting to break German lines when York and his men came upon well-hidden machine guns on high ground. As he later put it, "The Germans got us, and they got us right smart . . . and I'm telling you they were shooting straight." American soldiers "just went down like the long grass before the mowing machine at home."

But Cpl. York and his men went behind the German lines, overran a unit, and captured the enemy. Suddenly there was new machine-gun fire from a ridge, and six Americans went down. York was in command, exposed but cool, and he began to shoot. "All I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting. . . . All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to." A German officer tried to empty his gun into York while York fired. He failed but York succeeded, the Germans surrendered, and York and his small band marched 132 German prisoners back to the American lines.

His Medal of Honor citation called him fearless, daring and heroic.

Warriors are funny people. They're often naturally peaceable, and often do great good when they return. York went home to Tennessee, married, founded an agricultural institute (it's still operating as an award-winning public high school) and a Bible school. They made a movie about him in 1941, the great Howard Hawks film "Sergeant York." If you are in Manhattan this week, you may walk down York Avenue on the Upper East Side. It was named for him. He died in Nashville in 1964 at 77.

Once, 25 years ago, my father (U.S. Army, replacement troops, Italy, 1945) visited Washington, a town he'd never been to. There was a lot to see: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial. But he just wanted to see one thing, Audie Murphy's grave.

Audie Leon Murphy was born in 1924 or 1926 (more on that in a moment) the sixth of 12 children of a Texas sharecropper. It was all hardscrabble for him: father left, mother died, no education, working in the fields from adolescence on. He was good with a hunting rifle: he said that when he wasn't, his family didn't eat, so yeah, he had to be good. He tried to join the Army after Pearl Harbor, was turned away as underage, came back the next year claiming to be 18 (he was probably 16) and went on to a busy war, seeing action as an infantryman in Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. Then came southern France, where the Germans made the mistake of shooting Audie Murphy's best friend, Lattie Tipton. Murphy wiped out the machine gun crew that did it.

On Jan. 26, 1945, Lt. Murphy was engaged in a battle in which his unit took heavy fire and he was wounded. He ordered his men back. From his Medal of Honor citation: "Behind him . . . one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back."

Murphy returned to Texas a legend. He was also 5-foot-7, having grown two inches while away. He became an actor (44 films, mostly Westerns) and businessman. He died in a plane crash in 1971 and was buried with full honors at Arlington, but he did a warrior-like thing. He asked that the gold leaf normally put on the gravestone of a Medal of Honor recipient not be used. He wanted a plain GI headstone. Some worried this might make his grave harder to find. My father found it, and he was not alone. Audie Murphy's grave is the most visited site at Arlington with the exception of John F. Kennedy's eternal flame.

I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century challenges. I mentioned that Chuck (pictured above) had been shot down over Vietnam on his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general.

When I said "2,488 days," a number of people in the audience went "Oh!" I heard it up on the podium. They didn't know because he doesn't talk about it, and when asked to, he treats it like nothing, a long night at a bad inn. Warriors always do that. They all deserve the "Oh!"

WRITTEN by Peggy Noonan originally as "Those Who Make Us Say 'Oh'!" for the Wall Street Journal on May 23rd, 2009

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Obama and the 'Real' Catholics


Passionate debates over doctrine, identity, and the boundaries of “communion” have been a staple of the American religious landscape for centuries: Trinitarians vs. Unitarians in 19th-century New England; Modernists vs. Fundamentalists in early 20th-century Presbyterianism; Missouri Synod Lutherans vs. Wisconsin Synod Lutherans vs. Other Sorts of Lutherans down to today. Yet never in our history has a president of the United States, in the exercise of his public office, intervened in such disputes in order to secure a political advantage.

Until yesterday (Saturday, May 16th), at the University of Notre Dame.

The principal themes of President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement address were entirely predictable; indeed, in some offices I know, betting pools were forming last week on how many of the Catholic Left hot buttons Obama would hit. In the event, he hit for the cycle several times over, mentioning “common ground”; tolerance and reconciliation amid diversity; Father Hesburgh; respect for those with whose moral judgments we disagree; problem-solving over ideology; Father Hesburgh; saving God’s creation from climate change; pulling together; Father Hesburgh; open hearts; open minds; fair-minded words; Father Hesburgh. None of this was surprising, and most of it was said with the president’s usual smooth eloquence.

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.”

The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

Cardinal Bernardin gave a moving and powerful testimony to Christian faith in his gallant response to the cancer that finally killed him. Prior to that last, great witness, however, the late archbishop of Chicago was best known publicly for his advocacy of a “consistent ethic of life,” in which the abortion issue was linked to the abolition of capital punishment and nuclear arms control. And whatever Bernardin’s intentions in formulating what came to be known popularly as the “seamless garment” approach to public policy, the net effect of the consistent ethic of life was to validate politically the intellectual mischief of Mario Cuomo’s notorious 1984 Notre Dame speech and to give two generations of Catholic politicians a virtual pass on the abortion question by allowing them to argue that, hey, I’m batting .667 on the consistent ethic of life.

The U.S. bishops abandoned the “seamless garment” metaphor in 1998, substituting the image of the “foundations of the house of freedom” to explain the priority to be given the life issues in the Church’s address to public policy — and in the consciences of Catholic politicians. The foundations of the house of freedom, the bishops argued, are the moral truths about the human person that we can know by reason. Those truths are embodied in law in what we call civil rights. Thus, the life issues are the great civil-rights issues of the moment. This powerful argument did not, however, sit well with Catholics comfortable with the Cuomo Compromise (“I’m personally opposed, but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society”), for these good liberals and progressives had long prided themselves on being — like Father Hesburgh — champions of civil rights.

So the “seamless garment” went underground for a decade, only to be dusted off by Douglas Kmiec and others in the 2008 campaign; there, a variant form of the consistent ethic was used to argue that Barack Obama was the real pro-life candidate on offer. As casuistry, this was risible. But it worked well enough that Catholic Obama-supporters on the Notre Dame board saw their chances and took ‘em, arranging for the president to come to Notre Dame to complete the seamless garment’s dust-off and give it a new lease on life by presenting the late Cardinal Bernardin — “a kind and good man . . . a saintly man” — as the very model of a real Catholic in America. Not the kind of Catholic who would ever criticize Notre Dame for bestowing an honorary doctorate of laws on a man determined to enshrine in law what the Catholic Church regards as a fundamental injustice. Not the kind of man who would suggest that, with the life issues, we’re living through the moral equivalent of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, with Barack Obama unhappily choosing to play the role of Stephen A. Douglas. Not a man, in other words, like Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, Cardinal Bernardin’s successor, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and one of the most articulate critics of Notre Dame’s decision to honor a president who manifestly does not share what Notre Dame claims is its institutional commitment to the Church’s defense of life.

Whether or not President Obama knew precisely what he was doing — and I’m inclined to think that this politically savvy White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals knew exactly what they were doing — is irrelevant. In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America — not the bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend, who in sorrow declined to attend Notre Dame’s commencement; not the 80-some bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s decision to invite the president to receive an honorary degree; not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which explicitly and unambiguously instructed Catholic institutions not to do what Notre Dame did. He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies.

At the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1849, the U.S. bishops petitioned the Holy See to grant the archbishop of Baltimore the title of Primate of the Catholic Church in the United States (as, for example, the archbishops of Québec City and Mexico City are the “Primates” of their respective countries). The Holy See declined and, ever since, the archbishops of Baltimore have had to settle for being the ordinaries of the “premier” see in American Catholicism. Barack Obama at Notre Dame was not so modest. Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism.

What the bishops of the United States have to say about this usurpation of their authority will be very interesting to see. Whether Obama’s Catholic acolytes will recognize a genuine threat to religious freedom in what they are already celebrating as their Notre Dame victory over the pro-life yahoos and reactionaries will also be instructive.

WRITTEN by George Weigel for the National Review and published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center on May 18th, 2009. As always, the title of this posting is a link to the original article

Saturday, May 23, 2009

'Disparate Impact' in Police Promotional Testing


Those of us who have chosen policing as a way of life have a keen understanding of how difficult it is to get promoted to higher rank. There is a lot on the line: prestige, money, and often our future retirement income. It isn’t unusual for an officer to spend 25 years and not be promoted—either by choice, circumstance, or the competitiveness of the process.

If one chooses to enter the race it means countless hours away from family to study the material required. So, imagine if you were a white or Hispanic officer and you came out first on a promotional examination and the test was thrown out by your city because not enough African-American officers would be promoted. What if the situation was reversed and the test was thrown out because not enough white officers would be promoted? Either way, it’s a tough pill to swallow, but this is exactly what happened to a group of white and Hispanic firefighters in the City of New Haven, Connecticut because of something called “disparate impact.”

The case is presently before the United States Supreme Court and could have far-reaching implications for police hiring and promotion. It is not the intent of this article to take a side on the issue of reverse discrimination—my intent is to explain the facts of the case before the court so the reader will be informed about disparate impact, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ricci v. Destefano
In April of 2009 the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a reverse discrimination case (Ricci v Destefano) filed by white and Hispanic firefighters from the City of New Haven, Connecticut. Between November and December of 2003, promotional examinations were administered for the position of Fire Captain. The testing process consisted of a written examination and oral examination, each of which was weighted at fifty percent of a candidate’s total score. Final tests results were that 14 of the 15 highest scores were white applicants and the other a Hispanic. No black candidates were within the top 15. Note that out of the 41 applicants for fire captain, a number of black candidates passed the exam but did not score high enough to be promoted under the City of New Haven’s promotional examination process.

According to articles in the Hartford Courant and New Haven Register the city charter “expressly required that each vacancy be filed from among the top three scores; and promotions must be based on merit as determined by the competitive examinations.” The charter expressly prohibits “favoring any candidate based on his or her race.” City officials—indicating that the test results violated the disparate impact provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—threw out the results of the examinations because no black candidates scored high enough to be considered for promotion.

In 2004, the higher-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters filed a lawsuit claiming reverse discrimination. The case made its way through the Commission on Human Rights to the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, which found for the city. Then in 2007 the firefighters appealed to the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals which denied the appeal. The attorney for the firefighters then appealed to the United States Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.

In April and May of this year the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case and their decision is pending. A central issue in the case is whether the test results reflected a significant disparate impact against African-American applicants or whether white applicant was the subject of discrimination due to their race.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
In 1971, The United States Supreme Court in Griggs v Duke Power Company (U.S. 424, 431-2) found that Tile VII prohibits not only overt discrimination, but also practices that may be fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. Examples of practices that may be subject to disparate impact include written examinations, interviews, height/weight, and education requirements. According to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(1) “the plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group“. There are different methodologies of measuring adverse impact and whether or not the testing method resulted in “significant adverse impact” to a protected class. The EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria finds an adverse impact if members of a protected class are selected at a rate less than eighty percent (80 percent) or four-fifths of that of another group. Another method is to use standard deviations—if the difference between the number of members of the protected class selected and the numbers that would be anticipated in a random selection system is more than two or three standard deviations.

So, it’s going to be very interesting what the United States Supreme Court ultimately decides in the New Haven firefighters’ case. Regardless of how the court decides in the case it certainly will be a benchmark for all future police examinations—both entry level and promotional. This is troubling because in every examination process I administer I meet with candidates and tell them, “Everyone has an equal chance walking in the door.” What I mean by this is that the testing process will be fair, objective, and valid. I have no control over what a town, city, or court does with the results of the testing process. As that famous American philosopher Yogi Berra said, “The future isn’t what is used to be.”

WRITTEN by Larry F. Jetmore at PoliceOne.com on May 21st, 2009

Friday, May 22, 2009

Dick Cheney's Compelling Witness


An extraordinary scene played out Thursday with what amounted to a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between a popular sitting president and an unpopular former vice president. The former veep won, hands down.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute had been scheduled for weeks before President Obama quite obviously tried to drown out Mr. Cheney by speaking on the same topic beginning exactly two minutes before Mr. Cheney was scheduled to take the AEI podium. In his 50-minute jeremiad, Mr. Obama repeatedly took nasty shots at Mr. Cheney and the administration he served, questioning not just the preceding administration's judgment, but also its motives and integrity.

Against Mr. Obama's insults, rhetoric and studied poses at his teleprompter, the former vice president answered with forceful words married to an understated tone of utter seriousness, with no electronic aids.

Mr. Obama accused the Bush administration of jettisoning the principles of the Constitution "for expedience sake." He accused his critics of "political posturing." And he said that "our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford."

Mr. Cheney responded that neither values nor the law had been set aside. He said that carefully selected CIA agents had been "especially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful, legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it."

Those interrogations, Mr. Cheney said, "prevented the violent death of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocent people." The former vice president complained, rightly, that memos about the interrogations that Mr. Obama released provided "less than half the truth" because they were "carefully redacted to leave out references to ... specific terrorist plots that were averted." Yet: "For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the methods of the questions, but not the content of the answers."

The chattering classes have been blasting Mr. Cheney for weeks for speaking out so forcefully on these issues on behalf of positions the chatterers say are deeply unpopular. However, they can't accuse him of self-serving ambition. As he noted, he spoke "as a private citizen - a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek."

The remarkable sight of such a harshly criticized former leader standing so unbowed brings to mind some words from poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson: Mr. Cheney is exhibiting "some sense of duty, something of a faith, some reverence for the laws ourselves have made ... some civic manhood firm against the crowd."

The crowd ought to heed Mr. Cheney and rally behind him. By defending our intelligence officers, he defended America.

WRITTEN as a Washington Times editorial on May 22nd, 2009

Thursday, May 21, 2009

How to Deprogram a Liberal in One Year or Less


So what do you do when you realize that everything you've ever thought and believed no longer worked for you? Where do you go when the bubble of progressive politics bursts in your face and you're left in the leftist place on earth? It seems that the choices are as follows: either you cling to your beliefs even more zealously and attack anyone who dares to disagree. Or, if you're like me, you embark on a journey of discovery and recovery.

I wrote another piece recently for American Thinker, a letter of amends to conservatives. In it I described why I transformed from a Berkeley leftist to a talk radio loving conservative the last 1 1/2 years. I realized the Democratic Party wasn't what I thought, that it had mutated into something mean and rough, and that I had probably been living in a fantasy world all along. I very much appreciated the outpouring of support, wisdom, and forgiveness from American Thinker readers.

Many said something to the effect of: Robin, congrats, but what in the world took you so long? So let me explain. I wasn't just your garden variety liberal who voted Democrat and that was about it. I was a true believer. A zealot. Like many leftists who had abandoned Judeo-Christian religion, I worshipped at the altar of liberalism. For instance, I never missed watching the Democratic National Convention. I watched every speech, with tissue box handy. (What kind of a freak was I anyway?) The Democratic Party symbolized hope, love, compassion, promise, everything that was good and holy in the world. I gave money, my time, my heart, my soul. I cried with joy when Democrats won; I was distraught when they lost.

I was programmed from birth to be a devout liberal. My dad, a hard working first generation Russian Jew, would lecture me on a regular basis, "The Democrats are the party of the little people. The Republicans are the party of the rich guy." He would also get a little weepy when he watched the DNC (so that must be where I got it from). One of our rare moments of bonding was reading the newspapers together on opposite ends of the couch, interrupting each other with stories about the bad Republicans and the heroic Democrats.

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism. In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find. I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate," at numerous marches.

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left. I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do. In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party. Literally. There are only Democrats running against other Democrats. I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats' line was a mile long. The Republican's was free and clear. After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted. I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism. I walked around in a confused state for weeks. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity. So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist? And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone? Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it. The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda. Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books. In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand. I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage. I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued. I found many others: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year. I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense. For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage. Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people. But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values. If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains? If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto? Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today.

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking. I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense. Take the anti war stance of the left. Noble and sanctimonious and all that. But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you; to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws; to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust. How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over). And how ludicrous to admire Chavez, Castro and all things socialist, when the closest experience you've had to standing on a bread line is queuing up for goat cheese/arugula pizza at Whole Foods.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that? I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion. But when I started actually reading about it, especially Dr. Phyllis Chesler's illuminating books and web site, I realized extremist Muslims were advocating some seriously scary stuff, like destroying Israel and the West. I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation. It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you. While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists. The emergence of evil always offers warnings signs, and we ignore them at our peril.

Though exhausted from lack of sleep, I also started waking up. I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them. I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is. Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous. But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child. An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.

So it took about a year, but my deprogramming has been successful. I'm comfortable in my own skin, feel more alive than I have in years, and am excited by all I'm learning and becoming. Now when I listen to Sean Hannity's theme song, "Let Freedom Ring," I get a little misty eyed (some things never change). I only hope and pray (yes I'm doing that more too) that the US survives when the Democrats are done "changing" it. But if this lifelong left winger from Berkeley can wake up, hopefully others will also do so before it's too late.

WRITTEN by Robin of Berkeley at AmericanThinker.com on May 21st, 2009

'American Idol' Sign of Brewing Culture War


Every year prior to this one in the McCullough house we've engaged in a little ritual. It goes something like this.

The Lovely Bride asks me who I think will win, and my answer is always the same.

"The most original one will..."

And every year I have been correct until this year, where about midway through the season it was obvious that the most original, theatrical, and possibly more vocally talented singer might not win.

Guess Google Pics count for something after all...

But NO ONE should have been surprised at tonight's results.

And that haters who are already screaming "homophobia" need to shut up!

Look at the math people.

In the final three of this year Danny Gokey, Kris Allen, and Adam Lambert were more or less evenly split with 30%, 31%, & 32% respectively.

Voting patterns on Idol are an interesting cultural phenomenon because I do think they tell us something about the culture at large. The fact that Allison did not squeak into the top three was very telling this year. But it also probably shows that fewer Latinos watch and/or vote for Idol than some other groups. And since no African American has made it into the top three since Fantasia several years ago draw your own judgments about the power of black households as well.

And before you dismiss that last assumption consider that African Americans are the only ethnic population in the country that is shrinking.

Tonight's finalists were gracious to each other and in the end the more talented all-around musician, singer, songwriter, player of multiple instruments edged out across the board the guy with the more flamboyant flair and gifted vocal range.

Consider also that Danny Gokey and Kris Allen were both born-again Christians. One entered the competition as married contestant (Kris) who was even openly advised by Simon in the early rounds to "keep that marriage thing" under wraps if he wished to get the single girl vote. Kris did the opposite and openly expressed his love and appreciation for his bride. Danny entered the competition with the most heart wrenching story of all attempting to win the competition as a sign of dedication to his recently deceased wife. His song choices throughout the competition said it all.

In the end the fact that there were so many more Gokey voters that preferred the IMAGE of what Kris was as a person, artist, and musician to what Adam was discovered engaging in seemed to be the issue that decided the matter.

Americans were not ready for on-stage open bisexuality to be the icon of the American pop culture scene... at least not yet. Katy Perry eat your heart out.

And I for one...

Was on some level...

Reassured.

There will be more debate in the days to come. And my rule still generally holds true - originality will usually trump the field.

This year, in the largest vote ever cast, America instead voted for tradition...

Now if we could just get those who focus on public policy to do the same!

WRITTEN by Kevin McCullough in his blog at TownHall.com on May 20th, 2009

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Why Nancy Pelosi Should Step Down


The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:

The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation. America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?

Would you?

This Isn't About Politics. It's About National Security

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political - she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.

But this isn't about politics. It's about national security.

At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques - specifically waterboarding - on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."

In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'"

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?

If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.
Pelosi on the CIA: "They Mislead Us All The Time"

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her - misled Congress - and not just once, but routinely.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.

And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.

Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?

And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?

Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is: The Left's attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.

America was terrified. As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn't know where and we didn't know when.

If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated
If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 - just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet - then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks - in other words, the Bush Administration policy - is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance. She didn't know, so she claims. That's why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Shame on her.
Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe
Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety.

She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them.

And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.

America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi's contempt for those who defend her.

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich in his newsletter Volume 4, No. 20 dated May 20th, 2009

The Two-State 'Solution' Mirage


"I wonder what he meant by that."

With that level of skepticism in mind, all shrewd diplomats and observers of diplomacy look beneath the surface language and actions of diplomacy to the underlying realities that will shape negotiations. Because, as professor Angelo M. Codevilla explains, effective diplomacy is, at its core, a "verbal representation of a persuasive reality ... indubitable reality itself convinces - sometimes even without verbal expression, or through non-verbal expression." As we enter this new round of U.S.-Israeli-Arab negotiations, one needs to keep firmly in mind the political realities that will either undergird or undermine the talks.

In the lead-up to the current round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, the constantly repeated background theme has been that now is the vital moment to actually bring into being an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

As I discussed in this space last week, Mr. Obama is under extraordinary pressure - both from Arab leaders and commentators and his own White House staff - to be personally responsible for the talks' success or failure.

And, in turn, Mr. Netanyahu, is coming under even greater pressure to comply with the United States' proposed path to a "peace accord," the foundation of which is a two-state solution. That is to say, two sovereign nations side by side: Israel and a Palestinian state.

The Arab states have never been more united in preparing the diplomatic groundwork for these talks. In advance of this weeks Washington talks, the Arab states have let it be known that they will "reward" Israel with "confidence-building measures" as Nader Dahabi, Jordan's prime minster, said last weekend at a World Economic Forum in Jordan - should Israel cooperates in the negotiations.

But the premise of Arab cooperation includes adherence to the key provisions of the Saudi-sponsored plan: the right of Palestinian refugee return to Israel, and return to the pre-1967 war Israeli borders.

Now comes reality on to the stage to darken the dreams of would be peace makers. As shrewd old Talleyrand also once said: "I know where there is more wisdom than is found in Napoleon, Voltaire, or all the ministers present and to come - in public opinion." So consider this dismal data from the authoritative polling of the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report tabulated the response to the key question No. 60: Which statement comes closest to your opinion? (1) A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of, or, (2) the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists?

The specific percentages are as follows, with the key results being, by 77 percent to 16 percent, that Palestinians don't believe they can live side-by-side with Israel, while by 61 percent to 31 percent Israelis do believe they can live side-by-side with a Palestinian state. Note that all the Arab states are very negative, and all the Western states (plus Israel) are quite positive for a two-state solution.

Keep in mind, also, that after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a Sinai peace treaty with Israel, in October 1981 he was assassinated during a military parade in Cairo. A fatwa authorizing the assassination had been issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the United States for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It would take an unusually courageous leader to sign a peace treaty and his own death warrant in one document. And lest there be any doubt as to acceptability of a peace treaty without a right of refugee return (which would turn Israel into a majority Muslim, rather than Jewish state), consider the writing this week in the Los Angeles Times of Mustafa Barghothi member of the Palestinian parliament, a candidate for president in 2005, and currently secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative:

"Palestinians in the occupied territories have no standing to sign away the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to get Israel to the negotiating table. To tell the truth, we don't believe that Israel can be a true democracy and an exclusivist Jewish state at the same time."

So long as fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority, there can be no successful peace based on a two-state solution. That is the reality that no diplomacy can change.

WRITTEN by Tony Blankley at The Washington Times on May 19th, 2009

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Live Free or Die


When I took my high school civics course, the teacher omitted one of the most important lessons: There’s no “free” lunch, and the biggest prices for free lunches come when they are served up by government. Those free lunches are seductive and hard to turn down, but the price is paid in growing increments of your freedom.

Mark Steyn, author of the classic America Alone, and a writer whose column appears in The Bulletin, makes this point brilliantly in a lecture prepared for Hillsdale College and reprinted in its publication, Imprimis. He writes that when he first moved to New Hampshire, he thought its motto, “Live free or die!” was formulated right before a battle to fire the troops up. Then he found that Gen. John Stark, a hero of the American Revolution, made that statement decades after battle in a letter explaining why he could not attend a dinner.

Due to health problems, he could not attend the 32nd reunion of the Battle of Bennington, but in his letter he formulated the motto, “Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils.” The shorter version survived to become the state motto of New Hampshire.

Mr. Steyn said he found that was even more impressive and important coming at such a time long after battle. He reasoned it is easy to be prepared to battle for freedom in extreme times, but it is equally important to be so prepared at all other times: “It’s a bold statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but if you choose not to, your society will soon die.”

In the same vein, he says everyone assumes his book America Alone is about radical Islam. He writes people assume it’s about “firebreathing imams, the excitable young men jumping up and down in the street doing the old ‘Death to the Great Satan’ dance. It’s not. It’s about us. It’s about a possibly terminal manifestation of an old civilizational temptation: Indolence, as Machiavelli understood, is the greatest enemy of a republic.”

You might say that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and indolence is the formula for loss of that freedom.

Mr. Steyn discusses what can kill our republic, and it is an enemy within … our own indolence and our lack of commitment to the motto “Live free or die!” He does this in an article in one of my favorite publications, Imprimis (April 2009). It’s a free, monthly publication but 10 times as valuable as most of the mainstream media such as The New York Times. (Call 800-437-2268 for a free subscription.)

Mr. Steyn started figuring this out when he ran into trouble in Canada with their so-called “human rights” commissions that accused his writings of being Islamophobic. He said he could not understand how, in this matter, the progressive left was making common cause with radical Islam. But then he realized what the two groups have in common overrides any seeming superficial differences:

Big government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities and exploit his potential.”

In most of the developed West, the citizen is losing his autonomy. The state is slowly taking over all of the responsibilities of the citizen — health care, child care, care of the elderly, etc. — “to the point where it’s effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct.”

Europe’s addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare and a dependence on mass immigration is leading to its extinction. Now the U.S. is starting down the same road. President Barack Obama is giving the U.S. what has virtually destroyed Europe. He’s giving us big government, big taxes, unprecedented budgets, unsustainable deficits and national debt, and a welfare explosion with health care on the way and universal college education at government expense.

There are many problems with the European/Obama approach. The math just doesn’t add up. It is unsustainable. In Sweden, state spending amounts to 54 percent of GDP. In America we’re already up to 40 percent and, in four years, we’ll be approaching Sweden.

Incidentally, after the greatest, most undisciplined spending splurge in American history, President Obama recently said our spending, deficits and debt is unsustainable. He runs up more debt than all 43 previous presidents combined. And only then the Messiah Obama has figured out our spending is unsustainable. Now, all he has to figure out is who is responsible for all that spending — none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

But Mr. Steyn argues it’s not just the spending, the deficits, the debt, the out-of-control budgets and the financial statement of the nation that is the worst part of the problem. He said even if someone would write a check for all that spending, the damage would still be done: “Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That’s the stage Europe’s at.”

We’re in a deep financial hole, losing our financial health, but more importantly, we’re in the process of surrendering our freedom and liberty to a big brother state. As government expands, freedom contracts. Big government provides a certain comfort to citizens, but it comes at an unacceptable price of loss of freedom.

Mr. Steyn points to the George Mason University survey of freedom in the U.S. The five least free states are Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey and the least free state, New York. Like the U.S., New York is in a financial hole and doesn’t know how to get out of it. So what does Gov. David Paterson of New York do to get out of the hole? He comes up with the biggest tax increase in New York history. He’s adopting the Obama strategy of assuming you can spend your way out of excessive spending by more spending.

Stage One: Your Worries Disappear With Your Freedom

There are various stages to Machiavelli’s “indolence.” The first stage comes when the government comes out with every program needed to make all your worries disappear — about your mortgage, your health, care of the elderly and everything else. As government moves in, there are strings attached. Once it gives banks or car companies money, it gets involved with many aspects of their business. The same for citizens.

Once it provides health care, it reasons if it controls your health care, it should have a say in all the things that determine your health. For example, in Britain, the obese are not entitled to hip and knee replacements. There are all kinds of such rules and all kinds of inconsistencies in such rules about life style choices and right to care. But as Mr. Steyn explains it, “Tyranny is always whimsical.”

Stage Two: Government’s Gifts Come With Strings Attached

What we’ve just described is that government’s beneficence comes with commands. In Britain, to save the planet, there is an extra tax on each trip beyond one a citizen makes. This really sounds like the way the Soviet’s controlled movement through requirements of exit visas. Now the British are doing that with exit taxes. In stage two, the state starts regulating your behavior.

There’s more and more of this regulation of behavior as citizens become wards of the state, with provision of their health, their education, their housing, etc.

Stage Three: Once Transformed To Wards Of The State, Government Regulates What You Think

Stage three comes when having made citizens wards of the state; there is an attempt to regulate not only what you do, but also what they think. In Canada, the government keeps foreign newspapers, foreign television operators and foreign bookstores out of Canada. And then it assumes that it has a right to police the ideas disseminated by the local newspapers, broadcasters and bookstores they allow to operate.

Stage Four: Big Brother Tells You What Not To Think

Then comes stage four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as “hatred.” In Britain, an author interviewed on BBC politely expressed concerns about gay adoption. He was investigated by Scotland Yard’s Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. Mr. Steyn gives other examples that include the arrest and jailing of a Daily Telegraph columnist for a joke in a speech.

Mr. Steyn summarizes how government expansion leads to freedom contraction in places like England, Canada and even the U.S. He writes:

“The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of ‘stimulus’ (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you’re a child in a government nursery, why shouldn’t Nanny tell you what to do? And then — Stage Three — what to think? And — Stage Four — what you’re forbidden to think …”

Stage Five: The Descent Into Torpor And Triviality: The End Of Excellence And Achievement

And then comes Stage Five, the final stage. That’s where Europe is. It is producing nothing of excellence. No great science or great art. That’s still found in America. Europe isn’t even producing enough families to maintain its population. It is shrinking in population, productivity, power and seems on its way to extinction. Charles Murray, author of In Our Hands, explains this development: “Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor. When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome.”

Mr. Steyn explains it this way: When the state “gives” you everything, it’s not surprising that citizens stop functioning as adults and life becomes an extended adolescence. Gerald Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”

Now in Europe, the reality is that a government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s where Europe is. The European model welfare state is unsustainable, but government can’t get its citizens to cut back. These countries can’t fix the situation they’re in and are heading for collapse.

America can still avoid the fate of Europe and get off the track it is on. Mr. Steyn writes: “They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea — of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest — or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it’s subtler and less tangible.”

Gen. Stark was right when he said, “Live free or die.” We have to decide whether or not we want to live free or continue on the path we’re now on to big government and shrinking liberty and freedom. The free lunch may seem delicious, but it is the most poisonous food a free society serves up. Those free lunches are toxic to freedom.

WRITTEN by Herb Denenberg at The Bulletin, Philadelphia's family newspaper, on May 19th, 2009