A Democrat, Trashing Affirmative Action?

I don't often read Democrat propaganda in the op-ed pages of the newspapers. However, a piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Virginia Senator James Webb stopped me in my tracks. I thought it was a giant misprint or a mistake. Webb writes that "diversity policies have marginalized many white workers." He talks about the Old South, saying that the vast majority of whites didn't own slaves. He concludes, "Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. . . . Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners." What?! In the age of Obama? All the current regime does is pick winners and losers. Opportunity? That's just a code-word for oppression and an obstacle to equality of outcomes. Webb's piece obviously runs counter to the entire communist agenda that has this country in its grip. According to the current regime, America is a bad nation, which has a lot to be ashamed of and to apologize for. It was founded by white slave-owners. Everybody who is not white is to be preferred, in all respects. White people have been privileged for too long, and it's now payback time. This is the whole Obama philosophy and world view.

So how in the name of Joe Biden can a Democrat U.S. Senator, in a state that went for Obama in the 2008 election, and who is not up for re-election until 2012, so directly challenge one of the central tenets of Obama and his fellow communist revolutionaries? I'm at a loss. Is some mighty challenger emerging already to take on Webb? Does anybody have any ideas?

Check out the Webb piece.

Freedom of "worship"?

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

A purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right to religious freedom. Does this change of language indicate a change of policy? As Catholics, this is an area where we must remain vigilant. These small changes can be used to change our perception of rights and freedoms.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Deja vu all over again!

Writes Walter E. Williams: The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project "How Government Prolonged the Depression" in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR's economic policies added at least seven years to the depression.

No Islamic terrorists around here!?

On May 26, John Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America." In another speech he said: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Now let me get this straight: the people we are fighting in Afghanistan and the people who attacked us in New York, Washington, and Fort Hood were not all devout Muslims who define jihad as Islam's struggle to take over the world and rid it of against all non-muslims (Islam's historical goal from the start). And they are not using terror as their primary weapon. And they are not fighting us for ideological reasons at all, but because...uh, why exactly are they fighting us? If it's not because they believe they are obeying the Koran, then why is it?

Mr. Brennan is either dangeroiusly naive or he is actually working to advance our enemy's cause.