Dakota Beacon

They say “Jolly is the fat man,” but perhaps not when he’s being chased (and, I’m sure, caught) like a Frankenstein monster by the Body Cult crazies.  And that is the case today, as it has become fashionable to affront the friendly-fronted.

It seems most anything goes now: bloated houses, bloated egos, bloated libidos, bloated bureaucracies, bloated government – except bloated bellies.  And a perusal of the news makes this clear, with a never-ending stream of stories about obesity this and obesity that.  For example, headlining Drudge the other day was a piece about how fathead officials in Massachusetts propose to ban school bake sales – even before and after school hours – to combat obesity.  This, of course, is just the next step in a progression that has seen localities purge schools of cookies and sodas along with the faith and patriotism that was deemed unhealthful long before. 

We also had the San Francisco Stupidvisors, who run the city (into the ground), who banned toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals. Deliciously, the restaurant chain circumvented the law by charging an extra ten cents for those who want the toy.  I would’ve really rubbed the health Nazis’ noses in it and made it a penny.

Then there was the 2008 proposal by three legislators in Mississippi – said to be the fattest state in the nation – to prohibit portly people from dining in restaurants.  The politicians said they were just trying to make a point with their measure.  I wonder, though, given that the vast majority of gun crime (98% in New York City) is committed by blacks and Hispanics, would these bold statesmen seek to “make a point” by proposing to ban those groups from gun stores?  Oh, that would be discriminatory?  I see.

Although Mississippi Fat Burning never saw its opening day, other Orwellian measures have.  For instance, a Missouri judge was accused of delaying an adoption until the prospective father lost weight, and last year Ohio DCFS seized a boy\ from his parents because he was obese.  This, despite the fact that if the president ate like his wife does, the boy would look like Obama’s son.

The irony here is that the health Nazis would have had the overindulgent Ohio mother’s back if she’d ended her boy’s life in the womb.  But merely increase the chances of shortening his life by feeding him too many Twinkies?  You’re a derelict mother! 

You see, when it’s the matter of a body within a body, it’s the bigger body’s “choice.”  But when it’s a matter of just a bigger body, you have no choice.  My, how the scales of justice tip when you tip the scales.

As for the busybodies – the politicians, gubmint bureaucrats and “public-interest” groups – how do we explain their interest in our health?  They really must care, right?  About you, about me, about all and sundry.  Well, I’d say so but qualify it with a paraphrased Rodney Dangerfield line: “They really care….

About what, I have no idea.”

Of course, there is the “Obesity hurts society” pretext.  The argument is that you fatties are burying our healthcare system with a knife and fork, as you cost it more money with your increased health problems. 

Except that this is nonsense.

A 2011 study found that the obese and smokers actually cost the healthcare system less because they don’t live as long.  And while study leader Pieter Van Baal called the finding a “small surprise,” it’s thoroughly logical.  It’s the nonagenarian requiring frequent hospitalization and nursing-home care who rings up the bills, not the epicurean who collapses on his plate of chicken fried steak and cheese-filled French fries at age 61.  So you want to save ObamaCare?  Get all the different fat groups, copious amounts of sugar and salt and smoke one Al Gore tobacco farm a week.

So are we now left with the notion that the health Nazis really do care?  Well, they do, and about what I do have some idea.  And I’m going to delve into one little understood phenomenon that drives today’s obsession with health.

You’ll note that the people behind control-freak health measures are never Opus Dei or Southern Baptist Conference types; heck, unless it’s a prohibition against pork, they’re not even Muslims.  They are, I’d wager, secularists virtually one and all.

This is no coincidence, but a result of subordinating spiritual health to physical health.  A person of faith may believe that he’s enjoined to treat the temple of the soul well, but he will never elevate that imperative over that of caring for the soul itself.  He realizes that this life, relative to eternity, is as a drop of water in an ocean – and it is that ocean voyage for which he is mainly preparing.  Thus, recognizing the reality of God’s law (morality), he understands that of primary importance is avoiding what has traditionally been labeled sin.

But what about when you don’t believe in an afterlife?  This temporal life is then all you see.

And then staying in it for as long as possible can become the most important thing to you.

In fact, it can become obsession.  

For where the believer may be mindful of Jesus’ words (I’m paraphrasing) “Do not fear that which just destroys the body; fear that which destroys the soul,” the secularist may believe the body is all there is.  This is, I believe, what has bred the Cult of the Body, with all its newly-minted “sins,” such as overeating, failure to exercise, smoking and drinking.  Why, we even call taxes on the last two “sin taxes.” 

So my answer to those who warn of increasing obesity is, “So?”  “But, Duke, don’t you understand?  These people will die younger!”  Other than mentioning that they won’t die nearly as young as aborted babies, again I say, “So?”  We’re all going to die; it’s just a matter of when and how.  And when you realize that relative to the ocean, small, medium and large water drops are indistinguishable, you’ll understand my response.

Returning to a lighter note, I’ll have to now limit my keyboard intake lest this article get too fat.  Before concluding, however, I’ll say that I do have an idea for putting the health Nazis’ designs on a diet.  Since obesity is most prevalent among black women – with 48 percent having, uh, let’s say, generous proportions – cast any and all attacks upon the condition as “racist.”  If this tactic works when the matter is police tests, voter ID, immigration and school suspension, perhaps it’ll work with abdominal distension.

                                                     Contact Selwyn Duke

Many critics have called Massachusetts Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren a "racist" for relating a family story about how her grandfather had "high cheekbones like all Indians do."  But they're wrong.  The comment wasn't "racist."

It was stupid.

In fact, it was childishly stupid.  Really, it reminds one of the copout Bill Clinton disgorged when addressing his marijuana use: "I tried it, but I didn't inhale."  And it should come as no surprise, either — leftists are childish.

As for the "racism" charge, many conservatives take that leaf out of the left's book because, they figure, turnabout is fair play.  If a conservative had uttered Warren's words — stereotyping minority characteristics and using a politically incorrect term — he'd be Derbyshired. 

But there is an irony here: If a bona fide rightist — such as yours truly — had made Warren's comment, it wouldn't necessarily be a sign of sheer stupidity.  After all, I purposely don't use PC terms such as "native American" (unless I'm simply referring to a person native-born); I don't use inclusive language such as "he or she" or "chairperson"; I don't use "African-American" or "gay" (unless I mean "happy”).  But I know I'm being politically incorrect; I do it purposely and accept the consequences.  You see, I consider it a matter of principle because I know that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.

Yet no such thing could be said about Hokumhontas Warren.  She's defined by political correctness yet is still so oblivious to its tenets and prohibitions that she didn't even realize that using the term "Indian" and stereotyping a minority group's looks, even if the generalization is valid, are verboten.  This, despite the fact that Warren had been a professor at Harvard, an institution where Political Correctness 101 figures prominently.  So methinks we're dealing with a pretty dim bulb here. 

Of course, there's no reason to believe that Hokumhontas was actually qualified for her Harvard position in the first place.  Having listed herself as a "native American" in a directory of law professors for the decade prior to her affirmative-action hiring, it's all but certain that she was playing upon the female-minority quota daily double — and benefitted from it.  And all this based on supposedly having had a great-great-great grandmother who was Cherokee, which would account for 1/32^nd of Warren's heritage.

Yet Hokumhontas has an excuse: She didn't emphasize her Indian over her "cowpeople" heritage for career advancement.  Perish the thought!

She did it to increase her prestige in social circles.

Now, the funny thing is that such status actually would give her a certain cachet among her ilk.  Again, leftists are that childish.  Race and ethnicity figure prominently in their world view (don't forget that "progressives" were eugenicists in the early 20^th century).  So they wouldn't necessarily exalt a person because of demonstrated virtue or ability, but ethnicity?  Hey, invite her to the cocktail party.  And give her that Ivy League professorship while you're at it!

If Hokumhontas had been a bit smarter, she would have realized that a cover-up is usually more damaging than the scandal, and she might have issued something akin to the following response:

Look, as Bill Buckley once said, "I long ago accepted the proposition that in a democracy you accept the will of the majority — unless it becomes tyrannical."  And the fact is that we all have to suffer because of the ways in which the system is disadvantageous to us, so there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the ways in which it benefits us.  Thus, we can all change the system if we see fit, but until then I have to operate within it just like everyone else.

Now, this wouldn't have allowed Warren to emerge totally unscathed, but it would have put the issue to bed.  Sure, it's not the virtue displayed by black economics professor Walter Williams, who as a young man turned down a professorship at an Ivy League university because, as he told the interviewer, since he wasn't qualified on paper, it would be obvious he was a quota hire.  But at least it would have seemed honest.

It would never occur to Hokumhontas to make my suggested statement, however.  She genuinely believes in the discriminatory affirmative-action system, first of all, and, besides, even if she didn't, liberals' instinct is seldom to be honest. 

Anyway, I guess if I'm to be thoroughly modern in an age in which even your sex can be whatever you like, I should accept Warren as an Indian.  But, then, I wonder.  Should her birth name perhaps have been Stands with Foot in Mouth?  Or maybe Thieving Donkey?  Did she have a remote ancestor named Chief Stupid Horse?  As for me, don't think I'm going to give Hokumhontas a break anytime soon.  Me smokem’ peace pipe, but me no inhale.

                                                       Contact Selwyn Duke

This past Tuesday I reported on the stabbing of white truck driver Nick Stokes by members of a black motorcycle gang called the Outcasts of Alabama. It’s not merely a scary story but also an unusual one, mostly because of the behavior of law enforcement. The Adamsville, AL police department not only failed to question or detain any of the gangsters, but, outrageously, also told Stokes that they “don’t mess” with the Outcasts.

What isn’t at all unusual about the story is the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover a case of black-on-white crime. In particular, I cited the Birmingham News (BN), whose crime-beat reporter, Carol Robinson, had brusquely dismissed the incident as not newsworthy. After my article was published in American Thinker, however, she finally treated it – no doubt as a result of pressure – but in a manner so incomplete that it reflects a grudging attitude. More on that in a moment.

The BN’s dereliction of duty didn’t escape its readers, some of whom savaged the paper in the comments section under Robinson’s piece. One wrote, “Wow. Birmingham News finally prints this story. Only after being shamed into it by the American Thinker….” Another quipped, “Hey Birmingham news, if you don't watch out someone is gonna start a newspaper around here.” We can only hope.

In an effort at damage control, managing editor Chuck Clark posted a response, saying that they had not purposely ignored the story and that they reported on it “[a]s soon this was brought to our attention today.” This is simply not true.

This isn’t synonymous with saying that Clark is lying. I believe the paper reported on the story as soon as it was brought to his attention, but the fact is that Robinson was tipped off a full week before. She obviously, however, disagreed with her managing editor, who also wrote under her piece, “A road rage incident that results in a stabbing is a news story.”

I confirmed this information this past Tuesday in an interview with the man who apprised Robinson of the Stokes affair, Scott Boyd of the Macon Beacon. Boyd, owner and editor of the paper, was the first to report on the crime and told me that he approached Robinson on Tuesday, April 3^rd, only to be rebuffed. Not only did he find her wholly uninterested, she was completely ignorant of, and unsympathetic about, the situation. About the biker gang she said, “I have been covering crime in Birmingham for 25 years, and I’ve never heard of them.” The icing on the cake was when Boyd said he was amazed at the police’s dereliction of duty, and she brushed him off with, “Well, what do you want me to do about it?”

It appears Robinson doesn’t want to do much, given the nature of her reportage. Consider that while she provides the basic details of the attack on Stokes, she omits the most newsworthy part of the story: the police’s admission that they “don’t mess” with a local band of criminals.

Instead, she is one-sided. She quotes Adamsville Police Chief Bob Carter and writes, “‘It [the crime] was never viewed lightly by the Adamsville Police Department. All I can tell you is in any investigation, there is a search for the truth,’ the chief said. ‘We're trying to get to the bottom of it, and prosecute whoever is guilty of wrongdoing.’” This is fine and dandy, but it’s also damage-control boilerplate. What is striking about the story is Stokes’ claim that a police officer told him, “We don’t mess with those Outcast guys.” They also advised him to let the matter go because the gang could come after him. And I tend to doubt he’s lying.

Now, how can Robinson consider herself an honest reporter when omitting the most newsworthy aspect of the story? Stokes’ claims should have been juxtaposed with the police chief’s. But it seems to me that the reportage just reflects the police investigation: both may be examples of going through the motions, of not wanting to “mess with” something politically incorrect and perhaps dangerous.

As to this dangerousness, Boyd tells me that the one biker who was injured and found at the scene, Laddarious Clay of Birmingham, was sporting a holster on each hip and told the police that he had given the pistols to the other bikers. I guess that was enough to scare the Adamsville Keystone Kops.

Getting back to the BN, I’m sure Robinson didn’t tell managing editor Clark that she was ignoring a newsworthy story, so I take his claims at face value. But it’s also clear that she was less than forthcoming with him, and I informed him about this via email. The question is, will he do anything about it?

If the mainstream media’s history is any guide, we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting. NBC got burned recently because it had an editor who misrepresented George Zimmerman’s 911 phone conversation so as to inflame passions. Dan Rather got burned because he had underlings who peddled forged documents. The New York Times got burned because it coddled affirmative-action hire and plagiarist Jayson Blair. And now the Birmingham News is getting burned, albeit less severely, because it retains a reporter who seems to filter news through a politically correct prism. Sure, none of these media organs prescribed this malpractice, but where does the buck stop? When you lie down with dogs or hire liberals, you get fleas.

You also get lower circulation, dropping stock prices and lost credibility.

Contact Selwyn Duke

(Note: I want to issue two corrections on my initial article. “We don’t mess with those Outcast guys.” is the exact police quotation as related to me by Boyd; the one I used on Tuesday was, apparently, a grapevine-altered version. Second, I was mistaken in my first piece in reporting that Boyd had heard the police utter the comment as well; he tells me that only Stokes did.)

Most of us have heard about how the media won’t report on black-on-white crime. We also may know that authorities sometimes sweep it under the rug due to political pressure, usually with a wink and a nod. But not so in rural Alabama, where the police actually told a white crime victim that they “don’t mess” with a local black motorcycle gang.

The tragic event that led to this shocking admission occurred on March 28, as truck driver Nick Stokes and neighbor Johnathan Cooper were heading out of Birmingham hauling a portable cabin. While rounding a curve, one of Stokes’ tires slipped and kicked up some gravel, which angered a black motorcycle-gang member who was in close proximity. The gangster – part of the notorious “Outcasts of Alabama” – gave chase and tried to force Stokes to pull over to the side of the road. Here’s what happened next, as reported by the Macon Beacon’s Scott Boyd, whose piece has been published online by J. Christian Adams:

The motorcyclist then sped up and pulled in front of Stokes [sic] F-250. He stopped in the middle of the road and forced Stokes to stop. He then jumped off his bike and came around to the passenger side and hit the rear passenger window with his fist but it didn’t break. Stokes then made the quick decision to get out of there and pulled out around the parked motorcycle.

Stokes said he looked back in his rear-view as he pulled away and noticed the biker rolling in the highway. “He either tried to jump in the back of the truck or onto the trailer and somehow slipped.”

Stokes said when he noticed the injured man flailing in the roadway he stopped, worried about leaving the scene of an accident. Stokes said he was getting out of his truck to go check on [the biker] when a woman in a red Jeep pulled alongside and shouted a warning: “You better get out of here – they’ve got guns.” That’s when Stokes looked back down the highway and [saw] some [of] the motorcycle gang – 30 or 40 bikes strong – headed his way. “I jumped back in the truck and took off until I could find a busy intersection and that’s where I stopped.”

Stokes said he and Cooper were immediately surrounded by a gang of black bikers, all with black bandanas covering the bottom half of their faces.

The gang forced him out of the truck and commenced their revenge attack. “After I saw the knife and then felt the stabbings I fell to the ground and played dead – I think that may have saved my life,” he said.

Stokes heard police sirens seconds later, as his friend, Cooper, had called 911 on his cellphone. But despite the authorities having identified the injured gangster as Ladarrious Clay of Birmingham, none of the bikers were detained or even questioned, reports Boyd. Shocking.

And the silence is deafening. Boyd contacted the Birmingham News, only to be told that the incident wasn’t “newsworthy.” In fact, if J. Christian Adams hadn’t published the story at PJ Media, we probably never would have heard about it. The Macon Beacon is so small that it doesn’t even have a website.

As for the relevant law-enforcement agency, the Adamsville Police Department, its public affairs officer had not responded to Boyd’s inquiries as of his press time. Yet it’s not as if they had no answers at all. They told Stokes that there was nothing they could do, as it would be impossible to identify those who actually wielded the knives. And then there was that more shocking admission, made to both Stokes and Boyd by the Adamsville police.

We “don’t mess with the Outcasts of Alabama.”

Wow. Just wow. These guys sound like Barney Fife – without the guts.

We’re used to hearing stories about law enforcement being intimidated by organized crime – in places such as Colombia and Mexico. But in the US? This is yet another example of our descent into Third Worldism.

Stokes also reported the crime to the FBI, which has promised an investigation. The question is, will the agency do anything more than just go through the motions? I don’t know, but three things are for sure. First, if this had been an attack by a white gang on a black victim, the national media would be all over the story. Second, Eric Holder’s DOJ won’t be getting involved like it has in the Trayvon Martin case. And, lastly, we can be sure that Barack Obama won’t get on his soapbox and accuse the Adamsville police of acting stupidly.

Contact Selwyn Duke

There was a time when someone could perhaps justify sitting on the fence on the matter of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. There were those on the left who could chalk doubts about its authenticity up to conspiratorial Internet paranoia. As for the right, there was every reason to worry about being the victims of an Alinsky-style set-up designed to marginalize opponents. In other words, let the other side double-down on an incredible claim, and then, at the most opportune time (October surprise?), provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary and make them look like deluded wackos. So, for a long time, one might have had cause to watch, wait, and let the wheels of investigation render their judgment.

That judgment is in, and the time for waiting is over.

With the results of Maricopa County, AZ, sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” an incredible claim has become an incredible situation: a team of professional investigators, commissioned by a major law-enforcement agency, has determined that the alleged birth certificate produced by the president of the United States is a probable forgery.

Process that for a moment. The regime of the world’s most powerful nation – a republic that prides itself on adherence to the rule of law – is likely peddling a forged document. What say you, citizen?

Note that I didn’t claim the president isn’t natural-born. Rather, I claim nothing, but am only stating a fact: there is now no denying that the birth-certificate matter warrants further investigation, and it is time for other law-enforcement agencies and the media to show due diligence. And I will spell out the possibilities here:

0. The Arizona investigators are correct.
0. They are mistaken.
0. They are lying.

For the record, I don’t believe the last for a moment, but I do want to cover all the bases. And home plate is this: the answer may be number one or two, and it’s incumbent upon us to find out through further investigation. And, for those who dislike Sheriff Arpaio, what if the answer is three? Well, if a major law-enforcement agency is producing fraudulent evidence for the purposes of damaging a sitting president, wouldn’t that warrant investigation, too? The undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out who started the fire.

In response to these facts the left will sometimes mount an argument for why Obama is, in fact, natural-born. But this issue is at the moment secondary. And about it I will merely state that there are only two possibilities. First, if the allegedly forged birth certificate relates to the president’s natural-born status, then it’s clear that the Obama administration is more concerned about that status than are his defenders. And what if it doesn’t relate to whether the president is natural-born?

Then it relates to something else.

You don’t present a forged document for no reason. The undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out what is feeding the fire.

Remember, too, that document forgery is a crime. If you were found benefiting yourself through it, you’d be prosecuted. Should the president be held to a lower standard?

In point of fact, on the part of the media and citizenry, he must be held to a higher one. We’re not talking here about some kid who forged an ID so he could drink at 18 in a bar. This is the most powerful man in the world, who, it appears, may be passing off a forgery for some mysterious – or not so mysterious – purpose. This mystery needs to be solved.

Having said this, I wrote “may” for a good reason. There are those who believe, as writer Cindy Simpson put it, that “perhaps someone purposely tinkered with the birth certificate in order to make it look…suspicious.” Harking back to my first paragraph, such an Alinskyite tactic would give the right just enough rope to hang itself, especially with our black-hooded media. After all, the thinking goes, if this isn’t the case, why would the most powerful man in the world produce such a bush-league forgery?
Yet there is another, more mundane explanation.

Incompetence.

As I and others have noted\, the slackers at the Obama White House are notorious for not even being able to issue press releases with proper spelling and grammar. So would it be shocking that they might be more Inspector Clouseau than James Bond when trying to be the KGB? Having said this, we should proceed with caution, being careful to not overstate our case.

But we should proceed. After all, consider the consequences of allowing a high crime such as the one alleged here to go unanswered. If Obama is willing to fob off a forgery on the American people, what else is he capable of? If he gets away with it, what else will he do? Remember that in every case in history in which a leader amassed more power for himself by gradually undermining his nation’s democratic system, he had millions of enablers. These were the crowds Cicero spoke of that cheered “ambitious scoundrel” Julius Caesar as he paved his way to dictator status. These are the “good men” Edmund Burke referred to who do nothing in the face of evil. Sometimes, of course, they’re simply scared. Other times, they may not want to seem like a nutty Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. Or they may not want to accept that it actually is, so they rationalize and dress the naked emperor with their eyes. After all, when a problem is daunting or scary, the self-delusion that allows one to ignore it can be appealing.

Most people also don’t want conflict; they may fear a constitutional crisis. But know that if Obama is peddling a forged document, it may simply be another example of how we already are in a constitutional crisis. The only question now is whether we’re going to fight the fire or continue to fiddle while the Constitution burns.

This article was first published at American Thinker

© 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

The boy raised his hand, eager to answer the question. "What would you know about it?" exclaimed the teacher dismissively. "You're not our race."

This was not dialogue from a Hollywood movie. According to a woman named Melissa Coon, it was what a teacher at East High School in Kansas City told her 13-year-old son, Allen, when he attempted to answer a question during Black History Month. Coon identifies that teacher as Mrs. Karla Dorsey, who is black; Allen is white.

As has already been reported, Allen was a victim of a vicious racial attack last week in which two older black teens doused him with gasoline and set him alight, saying, "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy." Not surprisingly, Coon has pulled her son out of East High and, concerned about further racial violence, intends to leave the K.C. area.

While this crime is making headlines, Coon states that it was merely the horrible culmination of continual racial harassment her son had to endure at East High. Moreover, after conducting an investigation that included extensive interviews with parents and students, I've learned that Coon's son is not alone. Other white students also report a pattern of racial harassment at the high school at the hands of their peers -- and, shockingly, their teachers.

Two of these victims were the twin 14-year-old daughters (first names withheld upon request) of Karin Wildeisen. Ever since their family relocated from Texas, they had endured racial animosity in the Kansas City school system and inappropriate behavior by staff, which included teachers laughing while boys humiliatingly manhandled the girls and a teacher slapping one of them on the backside. But there was far worse to come.

The twins started coming home and talking about the goings-on in an advanced-English class taught by a teacher Wildeisen identifies as Ms. Veda Monday. Wildeisen said that her daughters told her, "There are four white kids in the class; they are being targeted racially." They said that Monday, who is black, was feeding the class racial material, about which Wildeisen notes, "She's teaching advanced English; she has no reason to be teaching civil rights."

But then there was the straw that broke the camel's back. One day, Monday allegedly showed an explicit film involving portrayals of whites lynching blacks and then, reports ex-Texan Wildeisen, "in front of the class attacked my daughters, telling them that 'everybody from Texas is ignorant rednecks'" and that all white people were "responsible for Jasper because [their] skin is white." This reference is to an atrocity in Jasper, TX, in which three white men murdered a black man in 1998.

Where would a teacher get the idea that all whites are responsible for the Jasper tragedy? It's not hard to figure out. Black liberation theology (BLT) instructs, writes the man some regard as its father, Professor James Cone, that "[a]ll white men are responsible for white oppression." And how common is BLT? Well, Cone's books were required reading at Barack Obama's longtime house of worship in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ.

The end result of this is that Wildeisen, like Melissa Coon, decided to pull her children out of East High. Also like Coon, she intends to leave the area, saying that it and the school are a "powder keg." As for now, her daughters are studying at home via a distance-learning program.

Another white victim is 15-year-old Ashley Miller, whose family had moved to K.C., MO, from Kansas. Subject to racial harassment, she was called names such as "white b****." She also actually shared a class with Allen Coon, and as the only two white students in the room, they became the target of sexual comments. Moreover, she reports the same experience with race-baiting videos as do the Wildeisens: they would be shown, and an onus would be placed on the white students. Her mother Melissa told me that she now fears for her daughter's safety and, you guessed it, is in the process of withdrawing Ashley from East High. And the rest of the pattern is holding, too: the Millers are contemplating leaving the area.

Yet even putting the brutal fire attack aside, Melissa Coon's young boy by far got the worst of it. The tow-headed Allen looks like "the classic all-American white boy," says his mother, and "after the first week [of school] he was nothing but racially harassed." She says that "he was called every racial slur you can imagine," such as "honkey," "cracker," "whitey," and "guero" (a Spanish slang term for whites that can be used in a derogatory way). He was, she reports, pushed into lockers and was jumped in the bathroom. And even before the recent attack, he was sometimes menaced by groups that would follow him part of the way home.

Even more damning, though, is that multiple educators were complicit in the harassment. Mrs. Coon related an incident in which a teacher she identifies as Ms. Carla Kinder called Allen "Casper" and then "got all the students to get involved." Other times, the students would initiate the harassment, and the teachers would pick up the baton. "They would tease him; people would make fun of him, and they'd chime in," said Coon.

Then, as the Wildeisen girls report, as Ashley Miller reports, there were the race-baiting films. Said Mrs. Coon, "They showed a lot of racial movies. And people would make comments -- lots of comments -- especially at him [Allen], during these things."

And this brings us to the fire attack of last week. How is it that two teenagers would douse an innocent boy they don't even know with gasoline and set him alight? Karin Wildeisen has a theory. Referring to Ms. Monday's "English" class, she told me, "I think that the two boys who did this are going to be found in that teacher's class -- or somewhere thereabouts."

It sure seems likely, and what should we say about East High's "teaching" model? Well, imagine repeatedly showing films depicting blacks committing nothing but crimes against whites. Would there be any question about whether it was race-baiting? Even Amos 'n' Andy is frowned upon today.

The fact is that, to paraphrase Lincoln, "if you look for the worst in a group, you're sure to find it." If you display a group's sins to the exclusion of its triumphs ad infinitum, you can make it appear a den of demons. And ever since the advent of video technology, propaganda films have been used the world over to cultivate racial and ethnic hostility. It is Hate 101.

And Indifference 101seems to be a course offering at East High, too. Melissa Coon had been complaining to the school's administration about her son's harassment repeatedly -- only to be ignored and stonewalled -- repeatedly. At one point an administrator told her that her son could have a transfer only to another district school but said that Allen would have "more problems there" and that he should stay at more "racially diverse" East High (which has no more than 20 white students). At another, a vice principal Coon identifies as Ms. Jessica Bassett denied, while shaking and rubbing her hands together nervously, ever having heard about Allen's problems even though they had been brought to her attention on at least five occasions.

And Coon's experience with the local police hasn't been much better. Listening to her testimony I got the feeling that K.C. law enforcement didn't want the arrest and prosecution of two black youths on a hate-crime charge, possibly for fear of the "powder keg." Perhaps this is a job for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. Oh, yeah, Eric Holder.

As for young Allen, he had the presence of mind during the attack to pull his shirt up over his head and smother the flames. The damage was thus limited to mostly first-degree burns, with his nose suffering second-degree and the possibility of scarring at the top of his lip. Yet the emotional scars run far deeper, and he is in therapy. "He has flashbacks," says Mrs. Coon. "He was in a ball crying. ... He said that no one believes him." And she states that her five-year-old will often ask, "Are they going to burn me today, mommy?"

On an East High staff page created by alumni, there is the Giovanni Ruffini quotation, "The teacher is like the candle, which lights others, while consuming itself." What a contrast between the words of the past and the deeds of the present.

Contact Selwyn Duke

Is it a conservative position that only women are qualified to comment on abortion?  A writer named Leann Horrocks certainly seems to think so.

In an American Thinker piece entitled, "Contraception, the New Useful Passion," Horrocks does make some good points about how the left could turn the birth-control issue to its advantage and expand contraception to include even abortion.  Yet she also makes this claim:

"As a woman, I am qualified to state the following very clearly: there is no issue less suited to public discussion than abortion.  Like it or not, it is a personal decision."

Actually, the above proves that, her chromosome configuration notwithstanding, Horrocks is thoroughly unqualified to comment on abortion.  And, as someone who has pondered the matter deeply and sought Truth, I am qualified to state the following very clearly: like it or not, abortion is a decision to murder another person.  Like it or not, it is for this reason a grave evil, a serious moral issue.  And, like it or not, since it is an action that directly harms another, no issue is more suited to public discussion than abortion.

Wherever one stands on the matter, however, there is more wrong with Horrocks' statement than just the implicit misunderstanding about abortion's nature, as bad as that is.  First, the idea that only a certain group defined by race, sex or ethnicity is qualified to comment on a moral issue has never been a conservative argument.

Rather, it is right out of the left's playbook.

And, when taking this position, we are in league with those who state that only blacks are qualified to comment on racial discrimination in the U.S.  If we accept this position, we may as well accept that we Americans aren't fit to comment on human-rights abuses in China because we're not Chinese or on female genital mutilation in the Islamic world because we're not Muslim.  We don't understand the cultures, you see, so we should reserve judgment.  And sexual relativism is just as ridiculous as this cultural relativism, as both overlook a certain universal.

That is to say, just as there is no such thing as "personal" morality, neither is there such thing as the group variety.  To say otherwise is to wax relativistic – as the left will – and implies that morality doesn't really exist; only personal preference does.  Morality, however, if it is anything but a confusing synonym for taste, refers to an absolute, universal and eternal standard for behavior that transcends not only individuals and groups, but man himself. 

In point of fact, the only truly personal issues are those of taste.  This is because while morality originates outside of me and thus cannot truly be mine, my tastes actually are my own.  Thus, if Horrocks were to say that she loves vanilla but hates chocolate, it is a matter of preference, and it would be ridiculous for me to cast her palate as "wrong" and my love of chocolate as "right."  There is no eternal truth stating, "Thou shalt not abide vanilla in thy midst," and I'd be completely out of line if I mobilized for the flavor's prohibition.

Being a universal, however, morality is far different.  To be good, to live a happy life and to derive meaning from it, morality is necessary – for everyone.  Being objective, it can be grasped by everyone.  And because man does not live on bread alone – and because the Truth does set him free – we all have a duty to search for, accept and profess morality.  It is not a flavor of the man or moment.

This is why, mind you, it's silly when leftists (and some conservatives, it appears) dismiss unwelcome truths with the dodge, "Those are your 'values,'" as if we're talking about choosing a topping for a sundae.  If my "values" are correct, then they are not just values but virtues, and then, while I recognize their validity, they aren't exclusively "mine" any more than the air God gave us to breathe.

Now, I'm not fond of throwing around the words "offensive" and "discriminatory" haphazardly as the left does.  But given that morality is needed by and meant for all of us, if anything is offensive and invidiously discriminatory, it's the notion that I have no right to passionately express the truth on a moral issue because I'm of a certain race, ethnicity or sex.  I am a child of God, endowed by the Creator with an intellect designed to apprehend His law and with a divine mandate to do so.  Morality is a gift to which we all have a duty.  And to accept the proposition that racial, ethnic or sexual group identification disqualifies a person from professing it on a given issue is no different than claiming that this identification has a bearing on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, there can be a Machiavellian motivation for claiming that certain groups mustn't say certain things: to grease the skids for an agenda by silencing opposition.  And while I don't accuse Horrocks of this, it is a ploy of the left.  Note that liberals never claim that firearms owners, as the main group affected by gun-control law, are the only ones who should weigh in on it.  The left might now say that I'm ignoring here the victims of gun crime, but it seems there are some victims of abortion who are being ignored as well.  Anyway, the point is that just as many leftists seem to believe that life begins when a child can be taught liberalism, they also seem to believe that freedom of speech begins when you start peddling it.

Now I'll for a moment discuss abortion, men and the micro.  We should note that a man is involved in procreation, and half of an unborn baby's genes come from his father.  Moreover, many accept that the father has zero percent say on whether or not his child will be murdered; however, even more accept that, should the woman decide to have the baby, the man is 50 percent responsible for him.  But this is unjust, as with authority comes responsibility; and with responsibility, authority.

As for the macro, implicit in Horrocks' commentary is something common today: the idea that social issues must be put on the back burner in the name of political expediency.  Now, I do accept that in the midst of a campaign and with politics being "the art of the possible," it's often wise to focus on what resonates with the people.  I also understand that the best way to reorient public opinion toward morality is through culture-shaping institutions in the media, entertainment arena and academia (call it a reverse Gramsci).  The problem, though, is twofold: traditionalists don't have control over those institutions.  Second, there are many today – and some are "conservatives" – who behave as if there is never a time to talk about social issues.

These people simply don't see the obvious connection between the ills they complain about and society's moral state.  But there is a reason why Edmund Burke said, "It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters."  There is a reason John Adams wrote, "Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue]...," and Ben Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  And there is a reason why a multitude of other brilliant thinkers expressed the same sentiment throughout the ages.  Do you really think these men among men just needed a bunch of moderns to come along, shower their sagacity with shades of gray and set them straight?  Do you really suppose that the problems of crony "capitalism," the most corrupt government in our history and the thoroughly immoral crypto-Marxist in the White House have nothing to do with the morality of the electorate?  Can we be one kind of people but have another kind of government? 

As that apocryphal observation goes, “America is great because America is good, and if she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”  No, it does not profit a nation to gain the world but to lose its soul.  And it won't happen, anyway.  Because as our soul withers, along with it so does our world.

Like it or not.

                                                               Contact Selwyn Duke

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Egypt recently that she "would not look to the U.S. Constitution if [she] were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," it was no surprise.  In that the Constitution militates against a nanny state and preserves a status quo, it is by its very nature a conservative document.  This is why liberals hate it so.  And, as the power of the left grows via their control over the culture, their teeth and contempt for the Constitution are displayed ever more (see Obama, Barack et al.).  But what of conservatives?

Some may say that I need not ask; as reflected in the rise of the Tea Party and Ron Paul, constitutionalism is all the rage.  In truth, though, while conservatives generally mean well, most just play at constitutionalism.

"What are you talking about, Duke?" you may ask.  "I believe in constitutional adherence!"  Well, let's conduct a little test.  What do you think about Social Security? 

Because, you know, it is unconstitutional.

This is where most conservatives will say, "Whoa, not so fast!  I paid into that program, and I want my money back!"  In response, I might point out that all but the Dependence Day class pay far too much to government, and we'll never be compensated commensurately.  But okay, sure, I can understand how you would want Uncle Sam to pay you in accordance with the contract made.  That, however, is not the point.  It is rather that constitutionalism is constitutionalism, and just as with freedom of speech or religion, it means nothing unless you adhere to it even when distasteful or inconvenient.

As to this, I remember a conservative poster at a rather well-known rightist website who wrote (I'm paraphrasing), "Constitutionalism is good sometimes."  Now, think about that for a moment.  Bearing in mind that the Constitution is the rulebook by which Americans are meant to govern themselves, imagine if a tennis player said, "Well, following the rules is good sometimes."

This is the attitude of every cheater who has ever lived.

It is also essentially the position taken by liberals.  They adhere to the Constitution sometimes – when it's convenient.  They're gaga over it when it accords with their agenda.  But the problem is that this is synonymous with making up your own rules.  After all, if I did so, I'd make up only rules I liked.  Thus, when I say I'll follow only the constitutional rules I like, I am, in essence, making up my own rules.

So while conservatives are correct when they bemoan the left's trampling of the Constitution, the problem is that they don't have clean hands.  If liberals are the spouse who viciously beats the kids, conservatives are the spouse who looks on, protests for a while, and then eventually becomes inured to the abuse. 

Another example pertains to the contraception mandate that is the big news presently.  Conservatives are protesting that Obama is striking a blow against freedom of religion, and I won't disagree.  What everyone misses, however, is that if we had preserved the right to freedom of association in the 1960s, we wouldn't have to worry about this unprecedented federal intrusion right now. 

I am, of course, talking about the universally held assumption that the government has a right to tell privately owned businesses how they may discriminate.  After all, we're arguing about whether religious entities should get a birth-control exemption, but what right does the government have controlling the contracts between the employers and employees in any business?  If it's the federal government and constitutional rights we're talking about, none whatsoever.

This is where I so often hear "But wait a second; such a model could lead to racial discrimination, and we can't allow that."  This is a very conservative response in that it accords with status quo ideology and social attitudes in our nation, and I've heard it from many conservatives.  But it again misses the point.  Either you believe in following our national rulebook or you don't – "sometimes" means cheating.

Of course, this isn't to say that a constitutionalist who despises unjust discrimination has no recourse.  There are three alternatives, actually:

0. We can devolve anti-discrimination law to the states.
0. We can pass a constitutional amendment giving the feds the power to legislate in this area.
0. We can rely on social pressure (preferable): allow the small percentage of people who would discriminate unjustly to suffer the scorn and ostracism that will likely result.

In other words, if a problem has a solution, that solution can always be effected without constitutional trespass.  Because we lacked discipline and wanted immediate gratification, however, we just took a shortcut – the cheater's route.

And where are we because of it?  We spend billions of dollars on litigation, tearing ourselves apart with specious anti-discrimination lawsuits.  We had a girl sue the BSA because she wanted to be a Boy Scout, and an atheist took legal action because the organization references God in its pledge.  The government will force businesses to hire cross-dressers or Muslims wearing an eighth-century drape, and police and firefighter exams have been dumbed down based on the notion that if groups perform differently on a test, it is by definition discriminatory (of course, this is true, as a test's very purpose is to separate the qualified from the unqualified).  And now, the government feels it has a right to tell religious institutions that if they don't want to be exclusionary and serve only members of their own faith, they must violate their consciences or go out of business.

So there is a reason why we now have ObamaCare and all its demons, the NDAA, and more czars than a Russian history book.  There is a reason why we have Supreme Court justices who have contempt for the document that is supposed to be their guiding light and a president who wipes his feet on the Constitution as he goes where no statist has gone before: they are following a trajectory that the nation was set on a long, long time ago.  They simply represent the latest version of republican decline: anti-constitutionalism 9.0. 

As G.K. Chesterton observed almost 100 years ago, "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.  The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."  When you don't correct mistakes, they lead to other mistakes.  And, should our republic still be limping along 25 years hence (doubtful), the "conservatives" of the day will have been inured to a whole new set of unconstitutional programs and laws.  They will be just a tad like contemporary European conservatives, who accept socialized medicine and abortion, and will be arguing about...well, it doesn't matter.  As long as conservatives continue being conservative instead of proactive and bold, they'll always be the caboose to the liberals' locomotive.  They'll always just be fighting against tomorrow's constitutional trespass – and to preserve today's. 

                                                      Contact Selwyn Duke

Hey, Jackson, is it Samuel L. or Jesse?  Actually, it’s more likely that the actor was channeling Jeremiah Wright.

In a racial-epithet-laced interview with Ebony magazine, the Pulp Fiction star proved that his politics is a fiction and his head is filled with, well, you fill in the blank.  Jackson admitted that he only voted for Barack Obama because of the president’s skin color.  Said the actor, “I voted for Barack because he was black.  ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people – because they look like them.  That’s American politics, pure and simple.  [Obama’s] message didn’t mean **** to me.”

Well, Jackson certainly isn’t alone in his ignoring of Obama’s message.  As for people voting for those who look like them, Sammy, project much?  In 2008, 43 percent of whites overall cast ballots for Obama, which is only 4 points below Jimmy Carter’s share in 1976; moreover, 54 percent of young whites voted for Mr. Hope and Change, a record for a Democratic candidate for the last three decades.  These facts prove that whites can be colorblind and fail to see red just like anyone else.

In contrast, 96 percent of blacks supported Obama in 2008.  Although, few are as honest as Jackson, who clearly is proud that he never lets politics get in the way of his bigotry.  But the actor was just getting warmed up.  Using that word white people are never, ever supposed to write even for illustrative purposes, Jackson then told Ebony:

When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a ******.  Because, what's a ******?  A ****** is scary.  Obama ain't scary at all.  ******* don’t have beers at the White House.  ****** don't let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar.  A ****** would have stopped the meeting right there and said, “Who the **** said that?”  I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ‘cuz he ain't gotta worry about getting re-elected.

Hey, classy guy.  I suppose Jackson would prefer a president such as the character in Idiocracy (warning: profanity).  Although, to be frank, a man who can’t spell communism is far less threatening than one who worships it. 

Speaking of “idiocracy,” the real tragedy here is that America is so degraded that we actually elevate unsophisticated, ignorant buffoons such as Jackson to positions of prominence.  So, no, Sammy, not all Americans vote only for those who look like them – not all are bigoted.  As your success proves, however, not all are exceedingly smart, either.

Ah, the left-wing capacity for rationalization knows no bounds.  While we’re told that even substantive criticism of Barack Obama is driven by the hatefulness the left has dubbed “racism,” a racial attack by three black teenagers on two white men in Philadelphia this past Monday is, somehow, not.

Consider the scenario, and then tell me why we even have “hate-crime” laws.  Wrote Stephanie Farr at Philly.com:

About 8:25 p.m., a cab was stopped at a red light at 15th and Chestnut streets when two 17-year-old boys and a 15-year-old boy approached and started calling the male passenger in the back seat racially derogatory names, police said.

The boys then threw an unknown liquid at the cab before they opened the door, pulled the passenger out and started to pummel him, police said.

The cab driver, Brian Goldman, then exited his vehicle, perhaps to lend assistance, at which point the passenger ran off and the thugs turned their racial wrath on the cabbie.  Despite the three-on-one odds and having suffered some physical injuries, Goldman was able to retrieve a tire iron from his trunk, at which point the brave lads ran off.  They were later apprehended by the police.

And now we have an update: The lowlifes will not be charged with a hate crime.

Writes Farr in a follow-up piece:

The teens, who are black, were not charged with hate crimes because there was no evidence that the assault had been motivated by the race of the victims, who are white, said Tasha Jamerson, D.A. spokeswoman.  Just shouting racial epithets during the commission of a crime doesn't rise to the level of ethnic intimidation, she said.

"They just didn't have that in this case," she said.  "If they had somebody who, two blocks before, heard them say, 'We're going to beat somebody up because they're white, brown or purple,' it might be different."

Yes, certain things might make it different.  One that leaps to mind is if the races of the assailants and the victims had been reversed.  Perhaps Tasha Jamerson would have needed a notarized affidavit stating, “We, the party in the first part, declare that we shall attack the party in the second part driven by egregious racial animus directed toward members of the Caucasoid race.”

But, hey, we can always hope that Obama will weigh in and opine that the D.A. “acted stupidly.”

I’ve written a lot in the past about these hate-crime double standards, but have nothing more to say here.  The story speaks for itself.

Here's a question: how can we expect to have small government if we condemn Congress for not growing it?

It's always a disturbing experience when you're accosted with a picture of Harry Reid, as I was upon logging on to Drudge last Monday afternoon.　 But at least his image bore a fitting caption: "MOST FUTILE EVER."　 I then clicked the link and found myself at The Washington Times – normally a quite sane organ of the media – and learned the meaning of the caption: the Times was lamenting a do-nothing Congress and presented Reid as its poster boy.　 Writes the paper:

Writes Duke, "It's official: conservatives are completely confused about what begets big government."

The paper then expanded on its theme, pointing out that Congress set a record for "legislative futility" according to something called the "futility index."

I'll tell you what's futile: complaining about a loss of freedom while chastising legislators for not spawning enough bills.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but my understanding is that a "bill" that's signed by the president becomes a law.　 I also have this goofy notion that, except for certain housekeeping measures and repeals of old legislation, a law is by definition a removal of a freedom, as it states that there's something you must or must not do.　 Ergo, enslaved as I am by the old math, my figuring informs that the more laws we have, the less free we are.　 It then seems to follow – at least using my white male linear logic – that since we continually enact more laws but hardly ever rescind any, every year the progressives make us progressively less free.　

Thus, when I see "do-nothing" and "Congress" in close proximity, it occurs to me that "do" has many definitions.　 And when government doeth, I think of the definition in the following Lord of the Flies dialogue: "The Chief and Roger....　 They hate you, Ralph. 　They're going to do you."

So if you complain about a do-nothing Congress, I ask, what is it exactly that you want them to "do," whom do you think they'll "do" it to, and what do you think will be done to you?　 Our current Congress passed 80 bills.　 How many more do you want and how many more until we're done for?

The good news is that many of 2011's bills were simply housekeeping measures – such as spending reauthorization acts or extensions of already existing laws – so we probably didn't lose as many freedoms this time around as the bod...er...bill count would indicate.　 Really, though, what does it say about third-millennium America when Uncle Sam disgorges 80 pieces of legislation and we, like good little masochists, bend over and say, "Thank you, sir!　 May I have another?"?

The reality is that we should want a do-nothing Congress.　 In fact, we should want a do-nothing president, do-nothing bureaucrats and hope that our military, police, firefighters and judges have to do little.　 And let's just think about where we'd be today if we actually had a do-nothing government for the last many years.　

First and foremost, we wouldn't have ObamaCare.　 We wouldn't have had the bailouts that transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to rich fat cats and Barack Obama cronies.　 Billions wouldn't have been wasted on Solyndra and numerous other green-energy scam companies.　 We wouldn't have McCain-Feingold, Dodd-Frank or the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.　 We wouldn't have the October 2009 federal hate-crimes bill, which, like all such legislation, is an effort at thought control.　 We wouldn't have No Child Left Behind. 　We'd be free of the new taxes and plethora of regulations that Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus said would make it impossible for him to start his company today.　 There wouldn't be the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gives unelected bureaucrats at the FDA the power to regulate the tobacco industry.　 There wouldn't be the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, which gives Big Brother unprecedented control over the people's ability to grow food.　 And we wouldn't have the National Defense Authorization Act, which empowers the government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial.　 Are we "done" yet?　　

Note that the above examples are just a (very) short list, are virtually all unconstitutional, and all cost us dearly in terms of money, rights or both.　 And how many freedoms did we lose, from No Child Left Behind to Obama's kicking of the Constitution's behind?　 I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it'd probably take Deep Blue or Rain Man to crunch those numbers.　 　

So should we really be lamenting a government that isn't "productive" when the word doesn't quite mean in government what it does elsewhere?　 When an auto company is more productive, you get more cars.　 When a footwear maker is more productive, you get more shoes.　 When yours truly is more productive, you get more sage and scintillating prose.　 And when the state is more productive?

You get fewer freedoms.

This is why congress' legislation count is just like a golf score: the lower, the better

But if the Times really thinks it's like a bowling score, don't blame Dirty Harry Reid for 2011's lack of liberty strikes.　 After all, I can assure you that he aspires to be a very "productive" man.　 And if he and his gang retain the Senate and presidency and regain control of the House, they'll "do" a lot.　 In fact, they may do ya' permanent.　　

One of the simplest rhetorical truths is that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.  Yet, amazingly, we still see experienced conservative politicians with access to advanced polling operations and an array of advisors use the Lexicon of the Left.  And this election cycle is no exception.

I could almost cringe when I hear – as I did repeatedly during Monday’s South Carolina GOP debate – Republicans talk about “capitalism.”  “I believe in capitalism….”  “Barack Obama doesn’t believe in capitalism…..”  Capitalism this and capitalism that – look at me with my plump wallet, walking stick and tony top hat.  Oh, it’s not that I don’t believe in free enterprise; it’s that we shouldn’t use words that conjure up sentiments akin to the preceding rhyme.

And polls inform that this is precisely what “capitalism” does.  For example, Pew Research Center reports, “Slightly more than half (52%) react positively to the word ‘capitalism,’ compared with 37% who say they have a negative reaction.”  According with this is a 2009 Rasmussen poll showing that, shockingly, “only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.”  And the picture looks even worse with certain demographic groups.  Writes Pew, “Fewer than half of young people, women, people with lower incomes and those with less education react positively to ‘capitalism.’”

The shame of this is not just that 37 percent is a large minority to alienate every time you talk economic sense; it’s that it’s not necessary to alienate them at all.  And the reason why is hinted at by another 2009 Rasmussen poll, one finding that “just 35% of American voters believe that a free market economy is the same as a capitalist economy.”  What does this tell us?  It tells us that you could ask if a “free market” were better than socialism and more than 53 percent of Americans would say yes.  It tells us that “capitalism” needs a rebranding.  And the term all of us – especially the candidates – should be using is “economic freedom.”

This is such a no-brainer that it’s shocking how it still eludes presidential hopefuls.  It’s especially so when you consider that Frank Luntz, famed pollster and author of the book Words That Work, has recently been echoing the lexical anti-capitalist message.  Capitalism may put people to work, but the word doesn’t work with the people.

Some may now lament how we have allowed the left to demonize our terminology.  But “capitalism” in the modern sense was never ours – and the left didn’t demonize it. 

They spawned it.   

In point of fact, it was originated by communism’s founding fathers.

The two culprits were French socialists Louis Blanc and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.  True believers both, Blanc claimed that man’s evils were the result of pressures born of competition and gave us the principle “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Karl Marx stole it from Blanc), while the equally radical Proudhon believed that “property is theft.”  Of course, Marx the great imitator then popularized “capitalism.”

And, sadly, conservatives now pick up that red ball and run with it (sometimes for president).  The man on the street popularizes “capitalism” every time he utters the word.  Writers popularize it with their pens.  Talk-show hosts with their mouths.  Presidential candidates do so in their debates.  And every time we popularize the word, we depopularize what it represents.

Understand here the communists’ marketing technique.  Since they wanted to replace economic freedom with their ism (ism denotes “system”), they had to cast the former as just another ism itself, as this makes them seem more interchangeable.  But free enterprise isn’t a system in the sense that communism is because it’s what naturally results when people are afforded freedom: they will produce, sell, buy and consume.  Hence what I have dubbed it: the Natural Economy.  In contrast, what people typically view as a communist government requires a top-down, command-control, million-tentacled state to micromanage people’s lives.  It is what you could call Unintelligent Design.

Yet as far as propaganda triumphs go, the design of the term “capitalism” is anything but.  Since the best known synonym of “capital” is “money,” when you add the ism, it can easily be interpreted as “moneyism.”  Now, do we really want to be stuck defending moneyism?  And why should we accept such a one-dimensional term, anyway?  I mean, sure, the Natural Economy has a monetary system, but it also involves production and consumption.  Yet would we characterize it oh-so narrowly as “productionism” or “consumerism”?  Let’s not be guilty of suckerism.

For too long the side that has defined the vocabulary of our debates has been the left.  Social engineers in academia mint new terms (e.g., African-American) and co-opt old ones (e.g., gender), which are then transmitted to the populace and infused into common usage by the media and entertainment arenas.  And what is the effect?  Well, imagine that a French culture and a German one both vied for primacy within the same borders.  If the Germans could convince the French to adopt their tongue, wouldn’t they already have won half the battle?  Likewise, through the manipulation of language the left greases the skids for culture-war victory – and conservatives reflexively parrot their Libspeak.

Of course, the solution is simple, and we all have a part to play.  The left has sought to turn economic freedom into a dirty concept; we must turn “capitalism” into a dirty word.

Don’t say it.

Don’t write it.

Don’t use it – except to damn it.

If we want economic freedom to live, “capitalism” must die.

In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, “the country will be changed permanently.” She continues: Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die. But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back. She expands on this later in the piece: [W]e ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California. Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. …If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives – one pro-life and one pro-choice – can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.

Coulter is, of course, right – but she only dare hint at the real problem. The fact is that halting illegal migration will do nothing to forestall the socialist electoral shift to which she refers.

Question: Do you really think the demographic earthquake that turned the Golden State blue was mainly the result of illegal migration?

Or do you think that the legal variety might have had something to do with it?

There certainly are a few differences between legal immigration and illegal migration. For instance, we can’t know if someone sneaking into our country is a criminal, a terrorist or is carrying a disease. But the reality is that in most respects illegal migration is not a separate and distinct problem. It

is an exacerbation of the problem.

Because demographically speaking, legal immigration and illegal migration are virtually identical. Most all illegal migrants hail from the Third World and Asia, and – owing to the Immigration Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy’s handiwork) – 85 percent of legal immigrants do as well. I

n other words, yes, adding illegal migrants into the mix will help the statists take their California dreamin’ nationwide more quickly, but it will happen regardless unless we change our suicidal immigration model. So it really doesn’t matter if we “capitulate” on illegal migration or not, because we capitulated on the legalized version of it a long time ago. Now we’re only deciding whether Western civilization in the U.S. will get a death by 100 demographic cuts or 1000.

To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that “Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]….” Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you’re more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators – when they’re licking their chops over how successful they’ve been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center
for American Progress and writes: Recent surges in the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Georgia could make those states potentially friendlier to Democratic candidates as well next year [2012]. Teixeira thinks similar population shifts could make holding on to Pennsylvania, where the president campaigned Wednesday, a little bit easier.

And if you think it’ll be a bit easier in 2012, wait till you see 2022.

And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell’s calling.

The fact is that upon being naturalized, our modern-day immigrants generally vote Democrat by wide margins – irrespective of whether upon arrival they were labeled legal or illegal.

And this isn’t hard to understand. Would you expect a devout Muslim to relinquish his faith upon setting foot on American terra firma? Would you suppose that mere passage across a border could magically transform a committed communist into a fan of free markets? My point is that ideology is much like religion: It is something deep-seated. It becomes part of a person’s self-image and gives his life meaning. And whether or not America is still the land of the free, it’s certainly not the land of the free from harsh realities.

And the reality is this: Most of today’s immigrants’ native lands have socialist-type governments because their peoples support socialist politicians. This is why Democrats import them: so these new arrivals can support socialist politicians here. They’re casting the votes Americans won’t cast.

Unfortunately, though, the closest we come to discussing this is when statists write banal election-analysis pieces. Otherwise, immigration is framed as purely an economic issue. Are immigrants supplanting Americans or merely doing jobs natives won’t? Are they contributing more in taxes than they use in services? In a nutshell, we just argue about money.

But what does it profit a nation to absorb the world but to lose its soul?

The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we’re going to be. For the people make the culture – not the other way around – and the culture makes the government. In just the way that the Islamic invasion of Egypt in the seventh century turned it into a Muslim and Arab land when it had been neither, if you replace America’s population with a Mexican or Muslim one, you no longer have a Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.

It’s the culture, stupid.

But don’t expect a serious discussion about this anytime soon. For we are in the grip of Immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. It really is one of the most effective brainwashing con-jobs in history: Statists have made talk of what ensures their ultimate victory taboo. And Americans have been conditioned to accept as axiomatic a policy that guarantees the destruction of Western civilization in the U.S.

So if to you immigration is just a matter workers and labor costs, hospitals and services, and dollars and cents, then, hey, pesos and dinars can fill a bank account just as well. But if you’re concerned about the entire country having a Golden State electorate and San Francisco values, you cannot separate legal immigration from illegal migration. It’s all or nothing.

To only argue against amnesty is to fight for a half-measure – one that, ultimately, will still leave your children America dreamin’ on a California day.

Contact Selwyn Duke

According to Department of Justice whistleblower J. Christian Adams, AG Eric Holder has a certain something in his wallet.  It is a quotation – and he has carried it for decades.  It essentially says, to quote Adams, “Blackness is more important than anything, and the black US attorney has common cause with the black criminal.”  It’s not surprising that Holder would feel this way about black lawyers and criminals.

Because in his case they’re one and the same.

Holder, the man whose misfeasance led him to drop the infamous Black Panther voter-intimidation case, now may have done what all corrupt men, sooner or later, eventually do.  He has tripped up in his efforts to hide his misdeeds.

The issue stems from the Fast and Furious scandal, which refers to a gun-walking operation in which ATF officials allowed thousands of firearms to make their way to Mexican drug-cartel criminals.  The operation was brought to light after a border-control agent named Brian Terry was murdered last December – and two US-government-supplied weapons were discovered at the scene.  And what was Holder’s involvement?  Writes CBSNews.com:

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

Note, again, that these were “frequent memos.”

Of course, Holder is now trying to massage the issue.  The DOJ’s latest line is, writes CBS News, “Holder misunderstood that question [about when he learned of the operation] from the committee – he did know about Fast and Furious – just not the details.” 

This nonsensical cop-out speaks for itself, so let’s discuss the reality of the matter.  Holder could have lied to the Judiciary Committee.  The other possibility is that he is suffering memory loss and is so incompetent that he didn’t brief himself on a brewing major scandal on which he was going to testify in front of a congressional committee.  I’m betting I know which one is the answer.

The Republicans now want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Holder and his fast-and-furious dance of deception.  And I say, dig long and dig deep.  Because with the amount of dirt in Holder’s closet, you’ll find that Obama has created at least one shovel-ready job.

As for my title, it may seem odd jumping from Holder’s bigotry to his alleged criminality.  But it’s as with powerful 1920s KKK leader D.C. Stephenson, who, while claiming to be a defender of morality and womanhood, ended up brutally raping and killing a lady named Madge Oberholtzer.  Bigotry is a sign of personal corruption – and it usually doesn’t end there.

And I’ll conclude by making a request of our post-racial president’s attorney general.  Mr. Holder, you once said that Americans were “cowards” in the area of race.  Well, then, brave man, do you have the sand to come out of the closet?  Produce that card from your wallet; proudly proclaim the beliefs you’ve long held so dear.  Or is it that, deep down, the color other than red that epitomizes you most is yellow?

Like the three monkeys who see, hear and speak no evil, our authorities seem intent on ignoring the true nature of yet another black-on-white racial attack.  In the New York City subway this past Sunday, 29-year-old Jason Fordell was attacked by a group of black men who taunted him for being white.  Yet NYC police “are unsure” if the incident is a bias crime.

The problem started when Fordell transferred to a crowded 4 train at 42^nd street, where he encountered four black men who began harassing him.  The New York Daily News reports on what transpired next, writing:

"People started saying stupid little comments - cracker this, white boy this, f----t this," Fordell said. "I told them the only reason they were saying this is there was four of them and one of me."

…As the train continued into the Bronx, the confrontation became physical, he said.

"I was in a headlock, punched and kicked on the floor," Fordell said.

Then a passenger decided to join in - declaring, "Oh, I get a few shots, too," before kicking and punching Fordell in the head, according to cops.

…"Everyone on the train was egging them on," said Fordell

Fordell suffered numerous injuries, which included head-bleeding, a badly swollen eye and internal injuries, as evidenced by blood in his urine.  The assailants also stole a bag he was carrying that contained $2900-worth of handmade leather accessories, which Fordell sells at an East Village nightclub.

Despite the epithets hurled by Fordell’s attackers, this crime hasn’t yet been transferred to the NYPD hate-crimes task force because, we’re told, the authorities aren’t sure if it was motivated by bias.  According to a Daily News source, “They have to look at whether that was the motivation before the robbery.”

 Really?  Do the police need evidence that the four sat in a darkened room laughing fiendishly while stating that they were going to attack a white guy because they hate crackers?  I always understood that the mere use of racial language during an attack was enough to classify it as a hate crime (or, at least, it seems to be when a white person is the accused).

And this brings us to yet another reason why I oppose hate-crime legislation.  Not only is it an attempt at thought control, as it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the extra punishment it mandates is for the thoughts expressed through the commission of the crime, but it will never be applied equally.  The government just has too much room to fudge when it’s assigned the role of mind-reader.  And in a politically correct time, it’s not hard to figure out what form that fudging will take.  Hate-crime laws are not designed to punish hate, but, rather, the thoughts, actions and groups the Left hates. 

And, I believe, they pave the way for hate-speech laws.  After all, if people can be punished for saying the “wrong things” within the context of the commission of a crime, how long will it be before they’re punished for saying the “wrong things” beyond that context?

As for the police’s willful blindness, it should surprise no one.  Being human, cops respond to powerful social pressure like anyone else.  Add to this the fear of being labeled bigots, career damage and rioting that could result from actually enforcing the law with minority perpetrators, and it’s easy to see why the thin blue line looks awfully yellow when the matter is black-on-white crime.

If this keeps up, soon we’ll be like Britain.  In that once-proud civilization, the police are so afraid to tackle Muslim criminality that their efforts to cover it up have reached comical proportions.  And it will keep up unless we experience a deep cultural renewal.  This means pulling leftist ideology up by the roots in academia, the media, the entertainment arena and beyond.  Mere political victory won’t change a thing.

                                                               Contact Selwyn Duke