I'm old enough to remember when baby killing was a bad thing:
A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”
Are obnoxious and spoiled college students "self-aware"?
There is an edge to it that seems, at least to those of my generation, to be mildly shocking. Growing up in the 1980s the Reagan we knew was a genial though tough grandfather. There is something oddly unsettling about seeing him so young, so fiery and at times almost angry. This is a man ready for a fight. That fight would come and, improbably, lead him to the White House less than a generation later.
It became known almost immediately as The Speech. A sweep of American society from housewives to factory hands to Ayn Rand was tremendously impressed. The pre-recorded program broadcast on October 27th, 1964 transformed a B-movie actor with a fading career, he would star in one more film before retiring, into a political celebrity and in just over two years into the 33rd Governor of California. Not since Lincoln had so relatively inexperienced a politician been catapulted into high executive office.
The fiftieth anniversary has produced a small flury of commemorations:
Reagan delivered a deeply ideological speech, with strong attacks on liberalism and its vessel, the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society era. "In this vote-harvesting time," Reagan said early in the speech, "they use terms like the 'Great Society,' or as we were told a few days ago by the president, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people."
At the same time, Reagan made great efforts to transcend partisanship by portraying his views as common sense: "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: man's old, old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."
Financially, it raised a stunning $8 million (over $60 million in today’s money) for the flailing Goldwater campaign, most of which couldn’t be spent in those days when checks were delivered by regular mail. But as former Reagan aide Jeffrey Lord reminds us, “the real importance of the speech was that Reagan had looked Americans in the eye and stood for something.”
In the half century since that speech, some of the policy debates Reagan discussed have changed while others have not. But every single one of the principles he outlined is just as relevant today as in 1964. I believe the modern conservative movement can find its roots in that speech, but I also believe it can find its blueprint for the months and years ahead, starting with the election next week.
This would have been unthinkable just a short-time ago:
ARI’s executive director Yaron Brook recently traveled through China to promote the publication of the Chinese translation of Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government. Co-authored by Brook and Don Watkins in 2012, Free Market Revolution illustrates why Ayn Rand’s ideas are key to solving the economic and political ills of our time.
Brook gave seven talks in China about the ideas in the book, addressing hundreds of free market thinkers, academics, intellectuals and students.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne let out a cheer upon learning that John Tory had won Toronto’s mayoral race.
“Hallelujah!” Ms. Wynne said as she heard the results, shortly after finishing a morning run photo-op with Chinese athletes and international school students at a stadium in Shanghai.
The Premier, 12 hours ahead of Toronto on a trade mission to China, was filled in on the returns as she walked off the field after the seven-lap run. When at first it appeared Doug Ford was within striking distance of Mr. Tory, the Premier looked visibly concerned.
Let not another wrinkle worry that formidable brow dear lady. Your man is in office. Don't believe me?
The notable difference this time is that it’s both the PC and Liberal machines behind Tory. Check the dream team of fixers, movers and shakers assembled around him to ensure victory. Among them, Tom Allison, the current Premier’s former deputy chief of staff; longtime Liberal backroomer Bob Richardson; Liberal strategist John Duffy; Ontario PC party president Richard Ciano; Conservative organizer John Capobianco. And of course, Rob Ford’s former campaign manager Nick Kouvalis.
The list of endorsements numbering in the dozens includes half the sitting members of city council, and practically every member of Toronto’s Liberal caucus at Queen’s Park.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Kathleen Wynne Candidate for Mayor. But now he is the mayor. It'll be very chummy going forward. The great issues of transit, social housing and taxes to be neatly settled by people who know people. Friends of friends who run into each other here and there, greeting each other with forced joviality and agreement on all the important things. The Liberal-Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Now in power from Front Street to Steeles Avenue.
Shouting Hallelujah is not something that is typical of Kathleen Wynne's approach to politics, not very United Church either, yet it is likely the most honest word that has escaped her lips since entering politics. The God of Moderate Statism has bestowed upon us a child and he shall be called John Tory.
Whenever Hollywood shifts its attention to Second World War tank combat, the German Panzerkampfwagen VI, aka the Tiger, inevitably lumbers into view, more often than not pitted against the thinly-armoured though heroically-crewed Sherman tanks that were a mainstay of the American, British and Canadian armies. It’s a classic David and Goliath match-up, but with armour-piercing shells in place of rocks and foreheads.
Of all the terrible things that happened last week this was among the worst:
The tragic murder of a young Canadian reservist and the Parliamentary shootout was all the more shocking because of its sudden, seemingly out-of-the-blue fashion. In the same way, on a daily basis in tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, children in schools, celebrants at weddings, and other individuals and families are suddenly, shockingly killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a remote control-operated drone, likely with the Canadian-built targeting camera courtesy of L-3 Wescam in Burlington, Ontario.
The moral equivalency is disgusting. It would be beneath notice if the attitude, in one form or another, was not so pervasive. I remember walking around the University of Toronto's downtown campus on 9/11. There was one overarching theme to the conversations. Whether stated directly or hinted, however cushioned by formulaic expressions of compassion, the message was very clear:
The Americans deserved it.
That same attitude is now being expressed toward Canada. We as a nation deserve whatever a random Islamist or organized Jihadist group decides to serve up. After all we bombed their countries why should we be exempt from the price of war? Except that the murderer in question, I don't intend on using his name, was a native born Canadian of partial Quebecois descent. He is not a foreigner he is one of us. His homeland was not attacked, his country was not bombed and his immediate family was not killed by the Canadian military. The only relationship was one of religion. Some of his coreligionists on the other side of the world, some violent and some peaceful, have been killed in a war by Canadian forces.
It is exceedingly odd that people who otherwise scoff at religion should be so sympathetic to such deep, albeit perverse, religious sensibilities. When a Christian organization peacefully protests the persecution of their fellows in China or Iraq it is characterized as the "Evangelical Right" seizing control of our foreign policy. A soldier on honour guard duty is murdered in a religious frenzy and carefully hedged expressions of sympathy are the order of the day.
These contradictions exist only if you miss the one consistent element. It does not matter what, when, how or why, all that matters is the who. The Western nations are always villians and all others must be victims. The underlying premise, borrowed from Marx, is that the success of some must come at the expense of others. The West is rich and peaceful because we have exploited the other nations of the earth.
Leaving aside the sloppy and convoluted histories that support this view, note the lack of agency. The Muslim, the impoverished African or the Latin American peasant is always a hapless victim. They would quickly and easily right themselves if only the West would leave them alone. If not for the Evil of the American military and the State Department then peace and justice would flourish through out the world. Not a sparrow falls that is not the fault of America or its international henchmen.
The caricature of the West is matched with a caricature of the Rest. The complexities of history, economics and religion are reduced to shibboleths of capitalist oppression. The poor decisions of governments, the irrational habits of peoples and the failings of institutions are ignored. The rest of the world is nothing more than a stock character in a Western based morality play. Our villains and our heroes imposing themselves, like something out of the Iliad, upon the hapless peoples of the Third World.
This view is, of course, deeply patronizing and historically ignorant. Some non-western nations have not only overcome western exploitation, both real and imagined, but have surpassed much of the West in terms of technological progress. You would be hard pressed to find any European city as modern and efficiently run as Tokyo or Seoul. The rapid advance of the Chinese, who are even now only half-developed, beggars imagination. These are not hapless victims. They are thinking men and women who chose to better themselves. When you look at the advance of the nations and peoples of East Asian, and contrast it with the violence and superstition of the Middle East, the driving force here is ideas and culture. American foreign policy has been as blundering in Asia as in the Iraq or Egypt.
What makes Canada Canada is the ideas and values of Canadians. Syria and Iraq are violent places because their peoples have made them violent places. The arc of Canadian history from Baldwin to Diefenbaker was the movement away from tribalism toward a civic nationalism based on individual rights. This is why multiculturalism is such a dangerous idea, it points us back down the road we came. Not so long ago, a blink of the historical eye, there were sectarian riots in Toronto and ethnic riots in Montreal. There are people alive today who can remember "No Dogs or Jews Allowed" signs at posh Toronto country clubs. We've gone from that to inter-racial couples being an unremarkable fact in less than fifty years.
This is progress, genuine progress in the original and proper meaning of that word. The murderer of Cpl Cirillo is not victim, or a random madman, he is an aspect of a Dark Age evil that still exists in much of the world. He represents not a legitimate grievance but all the bigotry, violence, tribalism and superstition that has scarred the history of mankind. This is the dead hand of the past trying to drag us back. There is only one proper response. We saw it brilliantly displayed last week through the heroism and skill of Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers.