RFFM.ORG

Durbin will be vulnerable in 2008: Perfect opportunity for Oberweis

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

The Republican Party has certainly seen better times in Illinois.  In recent years, the split between liberal and conservative Republicans has left the GOP in a state of disarray.  However, I believe in 2008 a Republican would have an excellent opportunity to defeat U.S. Senator Dick Durbin in the general election.

Durbin, one of the most partisan members of the United States Senate, has been laying low in recent months.  His mean-spirited comments, which drew a comparison between U.S. troops and Nazis, damaged the senior Senator from Illinois and some speculate he has been told by Democratic advisors not to give any more ammunition to a possible future political opponent.  Surprisingly, no one from the Republican Party has come forward to challenge Durbin for his seat and, once again, the Illinois GOP may be throwing away an excellent opportunity.

Though I have had concerns about the qualifications of businessman Jim Oberweis in his past attempts to seek public office, I believe he would have a reasonable chance to beat Durbin in a head to head contest.  I also believe if Oberweis were to face a liberal challenger in a Republican primary, he would have the support of the GOP's conservative base.  That is, of course, if other social conservatives demonstrated political discipline by staying out of the race.  Oberweis would be served well by the fact he claims to be pro-life and against homosexual "marriage."   He obviously convinced enough of the Party's base to finish second in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary and I could see how social conservatives could close ranks and unify behind an Oberweis senatorial campaign.

Yes, Jim Oberweis could be the first Republican member of the United States Senate from Illinois since the election of Peter Fitzgerald in 1998.  Sadly, the political rumor mill is telling a very different story that could lead to more disaster for the Illinois GOP.  It is said Oberweis is well under way in his plans to run for the seat of former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.  Hastert has yet to officially announce his retirement, but conventional wisdom says it will only be a matter of time before that decision is made.  If Oberweis does decide to seek Hastert's seat, the Republican Party will again shoot itself in the foot.

It is well known State Senator Chris Lauzen has had plans for Hastert's seat and is expected to make an announcement regarding a decision some time this month.  If Oberweis challenges Lauzen in the primary and, as expected, a liberal enters that race, we can expect to see more fracturing of the Party and an eventual defeat at the polls for Republicans in the 2008 general election in the 14th Congressional District.

Liberals and Democrats would be more than happy to see Lauzen and Oberweis both enter the race for Hastert's seat.  The divide and conquer strategy that has worked so well against socially conservative members of the GOP would, once again, come in play.  Oberweis has to be aware of this fact.  It happened to him during his last political run and history would only be repeating itself.

I refuse to believe Oberweis would be so cynical as to purposely sabotage the fortunes of his own Party.  Most members of the Illinois Republican Party's conservative base believe Lauzen deserves a clear shot at Hastert's seat--if it does become available.  That is why one would indeed have to question Oberweis' motives if he decides to enter that race.

As previously stated, there is a simple solution to this political puzzle.  Oberweis should run for the U.S. Senate--if he runs for any office at all.  But no one says common sense is the motivating factor in the world of politics and, once again, this may be proved in Illinois Republican politics.

"It's The White Guys Fault" - Part 4 Africa's Problems

"It's The White Guys Fault" - Part 4 Africa's Problems

by Bill Zettler

Guest Commentary

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

In the first three articles in this series "It's The White Guys Fault," I looked at how the media reflexively assigns blame to white guys, how the issue of historical slavery is misrepresented as a white guy monopoly and how European colonialism has been beneficial to some countries.  In this last article of the series, I will review the plight of Africa and the elitist opinion that we have not done and are not doing enough to help.

Contrary to what Bono and other elitist Hollywood types say in the media, the number one cause of poverty in Africa is corrupt African politicians, not lack of contributions from the United States and other G8 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Russia, Canada and Japan).

For example, over $400 billion in international aid has been donated to Africa since 1960 and if you listen to rock stars and politicians even more is needed.  The problem with this "feel good" program is it has been an utter failure.  The per capita income of Africans in 2005 was less than it was in 1965 adjusted for inflation.  Despite 400 billion "feel good" dollars, poor Africans are indeed poorer than they were two generations ago.

So who benefited from this $400 billion largess?  First were the African politicians, the predatory Princes of thugocracy who have drained and continue to drain billions from Western aid programs for their personal Swiss bank accounts.  Secondly were the elitists from the U.N., Oxfam, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other NGO's (non-governmental organizations) who sent thousands of highly educated, highly compensated, mostly useless minions to supposedly help, but actually hinder, the poorest of the poor Africans.  There were high salaries, expensive airplane tickets, first-class hotels and generous benefits and pensions to those thousands who "felt good," but "did no good."  So is the overall lack of progress in Africa since the 1960's a donation problem or an African political problem?

How about in Darfur where 10,000 people a month are dying of starvation and violence, in spite of thousands of tons of foodstuffs in Western warehouses waiting to be delivered.  The Islamic regime in Khartoum refuses to allow delivery.  So is poverty and starvation in the Sudan a donation problem or an African political problem?

And in Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe recently began Operation "Clear Out the Trash" which razed the homes of 250,000 Zimbabweans making them homeless and hungry.  The police commissioner of Harare called these homeless victims a "crawling mass of maggots."  This starving nation, that now needs to import food, was once Africa's largest food exporter.  But that was before Mugabe took office 15 years ago, declaring himself President for life.  So is homelessness and poverty in Zimbabwe a donation problem or an African political problem?

In Ethiopia the ruling tribes continue to ethnically cleanse other tribes by moving them from their ancestral homes to the inhospitable desert.  This black on black Apartheid has resulted in at least 400,000 deaths, ten times the number attributable to the white on black Apartheid of South Africa.  So is the ethnic cleansing in Ethiopia and the resulting starvation and poverty a donation problem or an African political problem?

Then, there is Nigeria's religious violence and its corrupt government officials stealing oil revenues.  And we have the Congo with three million civil war dead and counting.  Are these donation problems or African political problems?

Explain to me how you would relieve hunger and poverty in countries that are, in effect, at war with their own people.  Who exactly would you give food to?  And, if you gave it to the ruling party, how much of it do you think would reach the poor and needy?  When we gave food to the Ethiopian government in the 1980's, they sold it and bought weapons and used them to kill other Ethiopians.  No, giving aid to corrupt regimes just entrenches them further.  Replacing corrupt regimes with democratic regimes, by whatever means necessary, is what needs to be done to save Africa's poor starving masses.

A good first step is for Bono and other media elites to spend less time making advertisements admonishing Western countries and more time addressing the black on black political issues that are, by far, the largest cause of poverty in Africa.  If an African leader is genocidal and corrupt, then criticize him and get him out of there--just like you would an American or European politician.  Do what Dr. King urged everyone to do: "judge people by the content of their character not by the color of their skin."  No free pass, just because they are not white.

In the end, free elections in Zimbabwe and guns for Darfurans would do more to eliminate African hunger and poverty than 100 rock 'n roll concerts.

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org

* The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of RFFM.org's management.

Giuliani candidacy should be unacceptable to pro-life Republicans

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

Since former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially threw his hat into the ring as a candidate seeking the Presidency of the United States, the conservative media has been more than kind to his candidacy.

A number of recent polls indicate the former federal prosecutor currently leads an ever-growing field of Republicans seeking their Party's nomination.  Many conservatives seem to be in denial when it comes to Giuliani's liberal social leanings, including his position on abortion, homosexual "marriage," and gun control.

For example, one of Giuliani's strongest supporters seems to be Sean Hannity of FOX News.  In one interview with Hannity, when queried about the abortion issue, Giuliani, a skillful politician, did all he could to portray his pro-abortion views in the most favorable light.  But, as expected, Giuliani did not and could not tell Hannity he believed in the sanctity of life because the truth is the popular New Yorker supports abortion rights, even though he addressed the issue with the skill of an experienced tactician.

Unfortunately, Hannity and some other conservatives in the media seem willing to accept Giuliani's shortcomings regarding social issues simply because he could potentially defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in a heads-up election.  Conservatives must not fall into such a trap.  Positive reactions to a Giuliani candidacy by conservatives is troubling for those who believe that over-turning Roe v. Wade may be one U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointment away.

During Bush's last term as president, he may have an opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court Justice, and, hopefully, Bush will follow his past pattern of choosing a strict constructionist for confirmation to the high court.  But if conservative members of the media begin to support candidates of either Party for their electability--rather than their position on the issue of life--it could lead to a disaster of great proportions.

There is much more at stake regarding the upcoming fight for the White House.  With the appointments of U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito, the pro-life movement is closer than it ever has been to reversing the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.  If the nation's next president is a pro-abortion Republican, it would virtually guarantee Roe v. Wade will stand as law into the foreseeable future.

However, with the Democrats now controlling the U.S. Senate, the battle to confirm a Bush nominee would be heated, to say the least.  But, if Bush nominated a bullet-proof jurist reminiscent of the Roberts' nomination, the Senate would be obligated to fill its mandate regarding Bush's choice.  The same can be said for a pro-life president who might follow Bush.

However, if Giuliani wins the GOP's presidential nomination, it would set a precedent which might stand for years to come.  Currently, there are many Republicans who believe the Party should take a turn to the left on social issues.  A victory by Giuliani in the primary and a subsequent win in the presidential election would doom Republican social conservatives to the back of the Party's political bus.

Indeed, if the next president of the United States is not pro-life and is a Republican to boot, it would skew the political debate over the issue of abortion.  The pro-life movement would, essentially, no longer have a political home, and the hopes that abortion would one day become a dark and distant memory of America's past would be dashed.

Social conservatives in the media must stand behind presidential nominees who embrace the sanctity of life.  Sacrificing these values is not worth the price of victory.

"It's The White Guys Fault" - Part 3 Colonialism

"It's The White Guys Fault" - Part 3 Colonialism

by Bill Zettler     In the third article of a four part series, Bill Zettler describes how Eastern Europeans have been unfairly blamed for cultural genocide in colonial times.  Zettler also gives examples of how cruelty and inhumanity were common practices in many lands--far before the arrival of Europeans.  Though Zettler does not excuse the behavior of some European colonialists, he puts the issue into proper perspective and context.

Guest Commentary 

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

In the first two columns of this four part series, "It's The White Guys Fault," I explored the origins of modern blame-the-white-guy politics and then I visited historical slavery, in order to get a balanced view of the white-guys part in it.  In this column I explore "colonialism". 

One of the more prevalent myths of the Left is white men are responsible for everything bad that happens or has happened and it is usually blamed on Imperial Colonialism.  This assertion is based upon the false premise that since white Europeans expanded all over the globe from the 15th century on, then they must be responsible for all the bad that exists in the World today.  I could summarize this way: before Europeans got there, India, Asia, Africa and the Western Hemisphere were Garden of Eden's where people lived peacefully and prosperously.  You know, lands of milk and honey.  The facts are, of course, completely different. 

A good example is the Jamestown Historical Council deciding that the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown should be a "Commemoration" not a "Celebration".  Apparently they felt you could not "celebrate" an "invasion" into a country of civilized people (American Indians) living in peace with each other and in harmony with the environment. 

The Indians, of course, slaughtered and tortured each other with a regularity and tenacity that would have made the European Thirty Years War seem like a brief picnic.  As for the environment, Indians were known to burn large swaths of old growth forests, in order to make paths between villages in New England, and to set prairie fires, burning 100's of 1000's of acres to kill their downwind enemies.  Note both of the above "environmental" practices would result in untold numbers of wild animals being purposely incinerated.  Another one of their favorite "environmental" practices was to drive hundreds of buffaloes over cliffs, in order to harvest just a few buffalo tongues--a delicacy favored by many tribesmen.  They don't sound like the founding members of Green Peace or PETA, do they? 

And let's not forget this fact: the first slave owners in North America were Indians, not Europeans.  And some tribes, such as the Kuakiutl and Haida of the Pacific Northwest, had potlatches where they gave salmon, totem poles and the occasional murdered slave as gifts.  Doesn't sound civilized or peace loving to me. 

And then there is the Spanish invasion of Mexico and the destruction of the Aztecs.  For those of you who may have forgotten, the Aztecs had this odd legal remedy of taking hostages to the top of their beautiful pyramids, before cutting the hostage's beating heart out of his chest with an obsidian knife.  They also had this quaint religious ritual of throwing 1000's of young girls off of cliffs to placate their sun god.  Yes sir, the world would certainly be better off today if the Aztec civilization had survived and ours had died off rather than vise-versa.  And I would guess the Mayas considered the conquering Aztecs colonial invaders. 

If England had not taken over India in the mid-18th century, would India have emerged as the world's largest democracy in the mid-20th century?  I think not, for without the English establishment of infrastructure, a common language (English), education and administration, India most likely would have ended up more like it's neighbors Burma and Afghanistan--19th century political systems trying, unsuccessfully, to make it in the 21st century. 

When Britain first came to India in the 1740's to establish a trading post, the Indian sub-continent was made up of over 50 warring, corrupt genocidal kingdoms, some ruled by Hindus, some ruled by Muslim Colonial Imperialists.  In the 1760's, the British East India Company decided it needed better control of the sources of their raw materials.  It was not because of any benevolent impulse, but just commercial need that drove them to it.  I am not implying any good intent here.  Nor were the British seldom anything other than a harsh and ofttimes racist overlord.  But, of course, before the British arrived, the previous rulers were harsh and racist overlords, too.  Remember, the Indians designed the caste system, and they practiced slavery for more than a 1,000 years before the British white-guys banned it in 1844. 

The end result of British colonialism was an India that had for the first time in its history a consolidated national administration with common laws and a common language--the language of commerce, English.  Two hundred years of this administration and they were ready to become the world's largest democracy.  Without 200 years of British rule, it would never have happened. 

The fact of the matter is European colonialism spread engineering and infrastructure, education, rules of law, property ownership, contract rights and legal remedy of disputes to areas of the world that had never had those things.  Where those processes took hold, democratic, economically viable countries took shape.  In the areas where they did not take hold, or were never made available, the people were condemned to a life of Hobbesian chaos. 

Overall, in the long context of history, replacing smaller colonial empires with European colonialism was a significant plus for the World.

NOTE: Part 4 of "It’s The White Guys Fault" series concludes tomorrow with "Africa’s Problems".

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org

* The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of RFFM.org's management.

Rev. Jerry Falwell, Victim of "Kill the messenger" / Who's mean-spirited?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director, RFFM.org

The Rev. Jerry Falwell died last week at the age of 73.  Many credit the Evangelical Christian minister with giving political power to millions of United States citizens who previously were relegated to the shadows of public discourse.

I didn't always agree with what he said.  I didn't always agree with the way he said it.  However, there is one thing I know for certain.  America is a much better place because of the impact he had on the country and America will be worse off without him.

If it were not for individuals like Jerry Falwell, I probably would not be writing this column.  Now some might say the fact I am participating in the national dialogue is not a good thing.  However, this is why Falwell was so viciously attacked before his death and it is why he was pilloried after his life ended.  The truth is there are those who do not want social conservatives to have a voice.  Hence, they blame Falwell for the existence of a force which ultimately turned out to be an influential voice in American society and, as in ancient times, their response is to "kill the messenger."

Jerry Falwell talked about things that were politically incorrect in a culture which advances the premise that there is no absolute truth, we are all subject to situational ethics and bound by the edicts of moral relativism.  Falwell related the truth regarding Christian Scripture to millions of Americans who have become spiritually and biblically illiterate.  For example, Falwell was blamed for being judgmental of homosexuals and those who support abortion.  But Falwell was merely relating what Christian Scripture said about both subjects and he became a lightening rod for criticism because of this fact.

Today, many Americans look at Christianity as though it were a box of assorted chocolates.  Let me see...I like this one.  I don't like these.  I'll leave the nougat-filled chocolates for someone else to have later.  However, I really enjoy the mints because they go down easy.  Many look at Scripture in the same way.  Because some words are in conflict with their lifestyles, they are ignored.  Other Scriptural messages may be easy to follow, so they are adhered to.  The ultimate excuse for this type of Christianity is that Scripture is all just a matter of ones personal interpretation, they will say.  Again, this enforces the philosophy which tells us there are no truths and morality is subject to the mindset of an individual.  And I call those who advance this version of Christianity as members of the Church of Anything Goes.

Falwell did not candy-coat Christianity like many would have liked him to do.  Yet no matter what his approach was to the Christian ministry, Falwell did not deserve what he received after his death.  Those who claimed to be compassionate, demonstrated the least compassion towards Falwell's family.  Those who claimed Falwell demonstrated a mean-spirit, were the most mean-spirited--just hours after Falwell's death.  Those who call for tolerance in society, demonstrated little tolerance for the feelings of others when they spoke about Falwell after he died.

But the reaction to Falwell's passing seemed to prove what many Evangelicals believe to be the truth.  The battle over some issues is not driven by politics.  Many feel our nation is in the midst of spiritual warfare.  Good against evil.  A culture of life versus a culture of death.  Therefore, this made it possible for there to be more compassion voiced by the Left concerning the death of the evil Saddam Hussein than there was for a man who passed along the words of God.

I am not saying all of those who disagreed with Falwell are going to hell.  In fact, if alive, Falwell himself would say he did not have the right to judge any man or woman, no matter what their behavior, "least he be judged."  But there are a number of those on the far Left who disagree with any take on life other than their own.  Ultimately, their argument was not with the Rev. Jerry Falwell; it was--and is--with God, as it is given to man through Scripture.

Jerry Falwell could probably have been more sensitive at times while relating Christian Scripture to a culture which, for the most part, is not educated on the subject.  However, I believe no matter if Falwell was the most sensitive individual God ever put on the Earth, there are some who would--and do--hate his message and, in reality, they hate God's message as well.

I truly believe without the impact Jerry Falwell had on the nation at this time in America's history, Christians would truly be relegated to the backseats of public participation.   As it is, Christianity is under attack in a nation whose roots are solidly planted in a Judeo-Christian philosophical foundation.  Because of Falwell this tree is still bearing fruit and has a chance to survive.  Looking at the reaction some on the Left have had to Falwell's death, they would rather this not be the case.

Copyright 2007 Daniel T. Zanoza

Illinois GOP Creates Task Force to Reach Out to State's Social Conservatives

RFFM.org EXCLUSIVE

CHICAGO, IL -- RFFM.org has learned the Illinois GOP will announce on Friday a plan to increase dialogue with the social conservative wing of the Party.  According to sources, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna has held a series of meetings with conservative leaders from across the state.

The meetings, which began shortly after last November's general election, are meant to create greater communication between the state's Republican hierarchy and conservative leaders and activists.  During recent years, a growing rift has developed between the Republican old guard and social conservatives who believe the Party has intentionally alienated this group for nearly a decade.

Ultimately, a County Chairman's Task Force--which was created in February of this year--will attempt to address the concerns of conservatives, in order to foster enhanced party unity in the future.

When RFFM.org spoke to a high-ranking Republican Party official about the project and the meetings that have already taken place, he said, "This is an impressive group of leaders committed to the political process.  If we hope to win elections in this state, we need to work together in concert with the conservative community.  These meetings are an important first step."

"I am counting on these meetings as a first step towards healing," said one conservative leader who preferred anonymity.  "The meeting I attended was very positive in nature.  But, of course, there must be follow up which will eventually lead to greater trust on behalf of all parties involved."

"To say such an outreach effort was necessary would be an understatement," said the conservative leader.  "One can only approach Chairman McKenna's effort from a positive standpoint.  But the proof will be in the pudding."

RFFM.org has also learned David Curtin, former Executive Director of the Illinois Christian Coalition, will be the project's lead organizer.  Curtin told RFFM.org he could not comment on the program at the moment, but an official announcement regarding the Republican Party initiative will be released on Friday, May 18th.

"It's The White Guys Fault" -- Part 2 Slavery

"It's The White Guys Fault" -- Part 2 Slavery

Previous Page

by Bill Zettler

Guest Commentary

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

In Part 1 of this series ("It's The White Guys Fault"), I discussed how the media and the Left automatically assign blame to white guys.  In this article, I will review the media's obsession with slavery as strictly a white-guy issue.

Historically speaking, there are such "blame the white guy" items as the "Slavery Reparations" issue.  The theory is since America (meaning European white guys) allowed slavery, they should have to pay -- and pay big.  Ignore the fact that a white president wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and white guys by the 100's of thousands died in the Civil War to free the slaves.  And since 90% of U.S. immigration took place after 1860, the overwhelming majority of Americans living now are descendents of people who were not even in America at the time of the Civil War and, therefore, could not have been slaveholders.  So what you end up with is just another political extortion plot.  The reparation seekers -- and they are a small minority -- are asking: How much can we get if we support certain politicians?

How about the Williamsburg Historical site renouncing the "invasion" of America by white Europeans into a country of civilized people (American Indians) living in peace and harmony with each other.  The Indians, of course, were the first slaveholders in North America and slavery was not only common with Indians, it was a way of life.

"The Cherokee, the Creek, the Seminoles, Choctaw, and Chickasaw owned slaves.  One reason they did this was purely economical.  Some Indian groups had large, profitable Southern plantations and needed labor." Yarbrough (2005).

No different than the white guys, just as abhorrent, but only less profitable.  Unfortunately, the white slave owners were just better businessmen when it came to slavery than the Red slave owners.  The sad point is both owned slaves.

Interestingly, the Cherokee Nation voted on March 3, 2007 by special election to amend their Constitution to exclude non-blood descendents of freed slaves and intermarried whites from the tribes.  The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 6,693 (77%) to 2,040 (23%).  Doesn't sound like any reparations will be coming from the "civilized" Cherokees.

In the fourth century B.C. the Greeks had approximately 20 slaves per citizen.  Since Alexander conquered most of the known world in the 4th century B.C., one has to wonder how many of us are descendents of Greek slaves?  Easily a billion people, right?  Unfortunately, Greece is a relatively poor country, but with a good lawyer maybe we could pick up five bucks apiece.  Oh, wait, we have to pay the lawyers, so maybe three bucks.

And let us not forget slavery in Africa, which is still occurring today.  In the West African nation of Mauritania, between eighty and ninety thousand human beings are owned outright by other people and the Sudan Muslim chattel slaves number in the tens of thousands, many of them Christian children.

And who was it that brought the slaves from the African interior to the white European ships on the coasts?  It was Africans, of course, who have a history of slavery at least as old as Europe, Rome and all the other white guys.  It is certainly true that some of the Africans captured and taken to the ships were slave owners themselves before they were captured.

The Chinese had slaves from 200 B.C. up until the 20th century.  Asian Indian slaves were authorized in original Sanskrit law.  In 1841, a British census of India showed eight million slaves.  The British (the white guys) abolished Indian slavery shortly afterward.

The point is every racial group has historical slavery in his or her background somewhere; it was never a white guy monopoly. When Africans pay reparations for their historical slavery and American Indians pay reparations for theirs, and the Chinese pay reparations for theirs, and Asian Indians pay reparations for theirs, and Arabs pay reparations for theirs, and Greeks pay reparations for theirs then Americans should pay reparations for theirs.

Let's agree with Samuel Coleridge who said, "Slavery is an absolute subversion of all morality," but accept the fact that each of our histories is most certainly tainted with slavery.  The point is not to absolve white Europeans and Americans of their part in slavery, it is to insist that every other ethnic group also accept their responsibility.  Anything else is utter hypocrisy.

Slicing and dicing history to determine who was the worst "slaver" is a waste of time and energy.  Instead, let's spend our energy fighting today's "subversion of all morality" in places such as Mauritania and the Sudan.

Most importantly, let us all be slaves to the truth.

NOTE: Future issues of “It’s The White Guys Fault” series include Part 3 Colonialism and Part 4 Africa’s Problems.

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org

* The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of RFFM.org's management.

"It’s The White Guys Fault" -- Part 1 Overview

"It’s The White Guys Fault" -- Part 1 Overview 
by Bill Zettler    
 
“It’s the white guys fault….”.

I am sure you have heard this before in the media and from the campuses of American secular madrassas such as Columbia and Harvard.  It doesn’t seem to matter what the issue is, “It’s the white guys fault.”  This is an attempt by the media to make true what Russian historian Pokrovsky said, ”history is (liberal) politics projected onto the past”.

In this four part series, I will attempt to correct the leftist media impression that all the World's evils are the result of historical actions taken by Europeans or their Western Hemisphere descendents.
It used to be just Europeans, you know the original Colonial/Imperialists, but over the last 25 years or so, the white guys on the block include Americans and, in fact, today Americans are, by far, the number one whipping boy of the far Left.  After all, we are descendents of those European colonialists, neocon Imperialists, capitalists and other evildoers.

The European white guys have moved to second place by adopting the liberal U.S. position which goes something like this:  “I am sorry I am free, live under the rule of law and the bill of rights, vote in democratic elections, have the most powerful economy and the highest income per capita among industrialized nations.  I apologize for all those things.  I wish I were more like you, unable to choose my political leaders by secret ballot, vilified, tortured and jailed by my government.  I really wish I could have the miserable life you have, then I would not feel nearly as guilty.  But I was wondering: could I still get Starbucks?”

Even Warren Buffet, one of the most successful capitalists in the world, sounded apologetic when he donated $30 billion to help others less fortunate.  You know, kind of like this:  “I studied for years, worked hard 'round the clock for decades, risked everything I had and became wealthy because of it.  I apologize.  I am sorry it happened, I didn’t mean to do it.  It is a legacy of my colonial/imperialist past.  Here take it all, it won’t happen again.”

Of course, if it doesn’t happen again -- wealth creation that is -- millions, if not billions, will starve because only wealth creation can save the World.  Only wealth can create jobs; only wealth can be given away; only wealth becomes charity; and only wealth generates the taxes to provide for a fair and generous government.  Poverty yields nothing but more poverty.  Mediocrity and descension towards the mean yields only tyranny and helplessness.  See Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe as examples.
What Buffet should have said is, “I am thankful that I live in a country with a political system that has allowed me to accumulate this great wealth so I could use it to help others.  I am sure there are more intelligent and capable persons in Africa than me.  However, because of the corrupt political systems endemic to that continent, they are unable to create and generate the wealth needed to help their own people.  Therefore, I will try to help them with the wealth my country’s political system allowed me to generate.”

The self-loathing and self-hatred of the Left is some sort of mental illness.  Success, wealth and their antecedents, freedom, liberty, capitalism, property rights and the rule of law, should be encouraged around the World -- not vilified as some sort of moral decadence.  The moral decadence exists in places like Cuba and North Korea and Zimbabwe, not in the U.S.  They have neither freedom, nor liberty, nor capitalism, nor property rights nor the rule of law and their citizens suffer and live in poverty because of that -- not because of exploitation by Western nations.

The elitist Left have a superiority complex -- they claim they want to help the poor, but repeatedly tell them they are not capable of doing what the elitists themselves have done -- become successful in a capitalist political system.  Liberal elitists have created need for themselves, in order to justify their own existence by disabling the limitless potential of those they are purporting to help.  But blaming the success of Western nations for the failures of others serves no purpose except to obscure the source of the problem.  The problem is over there, not over here.

All men are created equal, meaning we are not innately superior to those that live and suffer in ignorance and poverty, but our political system is superior.  Our political system allows and encourages success and that is why we are more successful.  That is a good thing for the World to learn, not a bad thing.

NOTE: Future issues of “It’s The White Guys Fault” series will include # 2 Slavery, # 3 Colonialism and # 4 Africa’s Problems.

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of RFFM.org's management.