PeaceJam was a scam

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, Oct. 1) Someone needs to say it: PeaceJam was a scam. The goal, a world less riven by aggression and oppression, is laudable. But that outcome is only set back by such utopian lovefests as last month’s big Denver conference. The 3000 young people who gathered from 31 countries, at a time when Islamofascists seek a new global caliphate enforced with nukes, deserved better than Buddhist platitudes about “inner disarmament” (the Dalai Lama), daydreams about the US answering 9/11 by building schools in Afghanistan (Shirin Ebadi of Iran), and leftist lies about Guantanamo (Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland).

The PeaceJam organization, founded ten years ago by Ivan Suvanjieff of Arvada, has shown imagination in brokering idealistic kids together with self-important Nobel Peace laureates for its annual rallies. And it’s hit promotional paydirt with massive, gooey media coverage.

PeaceJam’s premise is fatally flawed, however. Its hoary ‘60s mantra of (start italic) Think positive, be nice, hug each other (end italic) is powerless against aggressive evil. By seducing impressionable teens away from the tough realism needed to defend humane values in a dangerous world, it actually imperils peace and invites war.

The high-sounding curriculum posted at PeaceJam.org is a cover for educational malpractice being perpetrated on naïve students. Take for example the September 17 conference journal published online at the Denver Post Bloghouse by East High senior Rose Green. This bright, earnest girl seems like someone you’d want for a daughter. But a responsible parent or teacher would warn Rose against uncritically swallowing the PeaceJam message, which she sums up this way:

“We are all brothers and sisters…. We are all interconnected…. We all should give and must have compassion and love…. We should all be happy…. All religions practice tolerance, love, peace, nonviolence, and self-discipline. We must accept all religions and simply try and focus on those elements instead of anger and extremism…. America is incredibly guarded from reality…. Bombs do not secure a country, people do.”

Rose Green probably excels as a varsity debater for East, and there are a lot worse things her classmates could be doing than participate in the PeaceJam club she founded. But club members are ill-prepared as future American citizens and global peacemakers if they agree with Nobelist Mairead Maguire that the corrupt, despot-dominated United Nations is a better model for the future than our own United States.

Or if their standard for truth comes from Nobelist Rigoberta Menchu Tum of Guatemala, whose revolutionary autobiography was found by the New York Times to have been “fabricated or seriously exaggerated (in) many of the main episodes.” Or if their idea of tolerance matches that of Argentine Nobelist Adolfo Esquivel, who told the Denver conference, “God covers up his ears when George Bush prays.” Or if their exemplar for nonviolence is Irish Nobelist Betty Williams, who said in a recent interview, “I would love to kill George Bush.”

In thousands of words about PeaceJam in both Denver papers, there was only one passing mention of freedom, the value prized higher than peace by most Americans – and by most people anywhere who have any backbone. It came from Nobelist Aung San Suu Kyi, speaking by videotape from house arrest in her native Myanmar. The conference seems to have omitted any consideration of liberty and the other precious things that are worth fighting and dying for. Peace at any price was the assumption. What a crime.

Did Maestro Suvanjieff’s peace symphony contain any note of praise for those nations such as the United States, Britain, Australia, Israel, Poland, Taiwan, Japan, and India that are the world’s true force for peace because of their success with democratic capitalism and their courage in defending it? Apparently not.

Was there any tribute to the brave statesmen who promote genuine peace by standing against the barbaric warmongers, political leaders like al-Maliki of Iraq and Karzai of Afghanistan, or spiritual leaders like Pope Benedict XVI? Again, sadly no.

“Second to agriculture, humbug is the biggest industry of our age,” said Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite and founder of the prizes. Though microchips now outsell cow chips, PeaceJam proves that humbug still sells.

Bravo for ballot issues

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, Sept. 17) “Why, John Andrews! You don’t like government.” The scolding words came from Gov. Roy Romer. It was 1990, and I was the Republican nominee debating the Democratic incumbent. To emphasize my freedom agenda, I had begun urging a vote for "Andrews and the Amendments," namely TABOR and term limits. The liberal Romer pounced on this as proof of his conservative challenger’s unfitness, and sure enough, he won big on election day. But term limits won even bigger, and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights just missed winning, coming back for a victory in 1992. Both are still with us and popular. So if liking those reforms equates to not liking government, this columnist is not alone in the sentiment.

Let’s be clear. I accept and respect government. I recognize the need for a political order to protect and restrain all of us as unruly human beings, deficient in self-discipline. But precisely because of my skepticism about fallen humanity, I have little liking for government as such, little trust in its fearsome monopoly of power.

Liberals do feel affection and affinity for government. They center their hopes on what it can do for people. We conservatives worry more about what it can do TO people. We cherish our American form of government, the best on earth, limited and directed by consent of the governed. Our hopes, though, are centered on what freely choosing individuals and private, voluntary institutions can do for themselves, under God.

Coloradans this year face another ballot crowded with amendments and referendums. Some believe we have too much of this voter participation in changing the constitution and laws, whether proposed by the legislature or by citizens’ petition. Not me. Distrusting political insiders and centralized power means welcoming a brake (or accelerator) on the process from we the people – and I do.

No matter which candidate you like for governor, or which party you want running the legislature, these ballot issues are your chance to alter the playing field on which November’s winning candidates will suit up next January. “All political power is vested in and derived from the people,” proclaims the Colorado constitution. Never let the insiders talk you out of exercising your share.

Our state is fortunate, for example, that government must always seek voter approval of taxes or debt, under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Those who claim TABOR is dead, just because state refunds were waived till 2011 by last year’s Referendum C, are talking moonshine. Your permission for key fiscal decisions will be requested on many local ballots this fall. Lots of other states envy us that.

As for the statewide ballot, 15 measures large and small await our action. Much like Senate bills in the past, my vote is an easy call on some of them, a tougher decision on others. Here’s my scorecard so far:

Strengthening consent of the governed: Yes on Amendment 38, safeguarding your petition rights and restraining legislative overreach. Yes on Amendment 40, putting term limits on high-ranking judges.

Making illegal aliens less welcome: The state Supreme Court robbed us of voting on the main issue here. But I’ll vote Yes on Referendum H, a tax hammer over employers who cheat, and Yes on Referendum K, a state lawsuit demanding tougher federal enforcement.

Affirming traditional marriage: Yes on Amendment 43, putting into the constitution a one man-one woman statute we passed in 2000.

Maximizing education dollars in the classroom: Yes on Amendment 39, so at least 65 cents on the dollar gets spent where teachers face kids. No on Referendum J, a bogus alternative from teacher unions.

Easing the property-tax burden on disabled veterans: Yes on Referendum E, absolutely.

Protecting jobs for minorities and youth: No on Amendment 42, a minimum wage hike that would lessen entry-level opportunities by boosting labor costs 30%.

Nixing nutty ideas: No on Amendment 41, unless you want to chill normal dialogue between public officials and the public. No on Amendment 44, unless you want to make Colorado a marijuana mecca.

The remaining loose ends I’ll happily tie up in a future column, for I do indeed love politics. It’s just government I’m not crazy about.

Tancredo for President?

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, Aug. 20) It’s a long way from the Stockyards Amphitheater in Chicago, summer 1960, to the Cool River Café in Greenwood Village, summer 2006. But Congressman Tom Tancredo’s post-primary Republican breakfast speech the other day reminded me of watching Senator Barry Goldwater tell conservatives at the GOP convention back then to keep faith, his time would come, moments before the delegates nominated Richard Nixon to face John F. Kennedy. It’s clear to me that Tancredo today, like Goldwater back then, envisions a serious run for President of the United States, but wants to remain above the battle at present because it’s still a long shot. The Arizona senator’s moment did come, four years later. Will the Colorado congressman’s moment come two years from now? Stranger things have happened.

I know, Tancredo says his exploration of entering the 2008 presidential primaries is on hold. He’s now supposedly considering a Senate race. But several things make me doubtful: the fiery Republican’s themes in that August 9 speech, his new book developing those themes, and the uneasy flux in GOP leadership ranks just 500 days before the Iowa caucuses.

Addressing the Arapahoe County Republican Men’s Club, the four-term representative from Littleton said nothing about the previous day’s contest between would-be successors to his departing colleagues, Bob Beauprez and Joel Hefley. He hardly mentioned his party’s struggle to hold Congress amid weak polls, or his reelection bid against Democrat Bill Winter. What Tom Tancredo dwelt on was the kind of leadership Americans need right now from our chief executive.

With his trademark passion, candor, and humor, but also with a discipline that shows new depth in my friend of 25 years, he skipped the rhetoric and hammered intensely on three concerns – the immigration mess, the multiculturalist assault on American identity, and the clash of civilizations pitting Islamic fascism against Western civilization.

Tancredo’s bottom line on each issue was: How will the next president measure up? Passing laws to secure the borders and deal with millions of illegal aliens won’t help, he said, unless we have an executive determined to enforce them. Rescuing our national unity and pride from a dispiriting “cult of multiculturalism” will take unflinching presidential leadership as well. So will the existential challenge of knowing our global enemy and defeating him at all costs, the congressman warned. His whole focus was on 2008, not 2006.

Having given and written many a candidate speech, let me stress that technically this wasn’t one. Tancredo mentioned none of the presidential contenders. He never hinted of joining them, let alone winning the great prize and shouldering the great burden. But he didn’t have to; it was all there between the lines, an invitation to a draft, Goldwater 1960 all over again. People were shouting “Tancredo for President” in the ovation afterward.

In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security, the congressman’s latest book, tackles the same three issues in vivid detail and uncompromising bluntness. It’s much more than a campaign tract for a suburban Denver lawmaker, make no doubt. If Tancredo’s chapters from the Mexican border are expected, the ones from Beirut and Beslan are less so. The guy has range. And if you’re not aroused by his account of only four hands going up when he asked 44 of East High’s brightest kids, “Who believes we live in the greatest country in the world?”, you’re hopeless.

How far will the author-politician go? Barry Goldwater’s book, The Conscience of a Conservative, helped him to the GOP nomination, and though his candidacy lost in 1964, his ideas have won in the decades since. Goldwater supporters said he offered “a choice, not an echo,” in contrast to the bland, cautious alternatives in a party lost and adrift. And it worked.

Heading into 2007, if McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Allen, and Gingrich all seem like echoes of each other, the clear choice Tancredo offers could start to catch on. Michigan Republicans made him No. 1 in a recent straw poll. Might the enthusiasm be contagious?

Cultural comparisons reflect realism, not racism

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, Aug. 6) Thought police on patrol: it’s not a pretty sight. To me it’s un-American. And when the insult to freedom is compounded by injury to opportunity, because leaders won’t face facts, it’s downright tragic. Sadly, that’s where things stand right now in the kangaroo court case of The Status Quo vs. Richard Lamm. The former Democratic governor is guilty of “hate” and “racial profiling” according to Sen. Ken Salazar and ex-Sen. Gary Hart. He’s condemned by black legislator Terrance Carroll for “demonizing” and by Hispanic clergy leader Butch Montoya for “extremism.”

Republican state chairman Bob Martinez charges Dick Lamm with making “bigoted remarks… inciting fear and suspicion and distrust.” Bruce DeBoskey of the Anti-Defamation League says Lamm’s comments will “lead to greater prejudice.” “Hard-core racist,” says Latino activist Veronica Barela. Offensive to Dr. King’s memory, adds black pastor Paul Burleson. Slaps America in the face, summarizes Sen. Salazar.

So there’s your jury verdict; sentencing is next. Banishment to Siberia awaits the outspoken politician-turned-professor unless he apologizes and pays restitution. Even then, the implacable establishment may order branding. TH for “too honest,” seared on the blasphemer’s cheek, will deter potential signers of his next petition.

What impermissible idea has Dick Lamm voiced to arouse such outrage? In a January book and a July speech, he dared suggest that Americans of African or Mexican descent should first look inward at their own habits and attitudes, rather than outward at “racism and discrimination [which] clearly still exist,” to account for the lagging educational and economic performance in those communities. Horrors.

A remedial dose of “Japanese or Jewish values, respect for learning and ambition” could do a lot to help discouraged residents of our ghettos and barrios help themselves, Lamm writes in Two Wands, One Nation. Citing statistics (difficult to dismiss as bigotry), he goes on:

“When two-thirds of black births are out-of-wedlock births, it is hard to write a happy or prosperous future for black America. When close to 50 percent of Hispanic students don’t graduate from high school, it is hard to see Hispanics following the typical American route to prosperity.” Most of us from whatever ethnicity would call this realism. It’s bizarre to hear Butch Montoya label it extremism.

But remember it was Mr. Montoya who helped orchestrate the protest last spring when Superintendent Michael Bennet closed the low-performing, chronically dysfunctional Manual High School. Bennet argued we owe inner-city children an education that lifts them. Montoya, despite his experience overseeing the police department, seemed less interested in rescuing kids than in demagoguing the ‘hood.

His claque used the same angry rhetoric of victimization and white guilt against DPS that they are using against Dick Lamm. Theirs is a shameful failure of leadership, of adulthood itself. How are young people, brown or black or any color, supposed to learn that character means hearing the message, even when bitter, and not simply shooting the messenger – if so-called adult leaders do the opposite?

The message that tells kids to work harder, study longer, save more, complain less, stop resenting and start achieving, is no hot-fudge sundae in any era. To the teenage sweet-tooth in our spoiled urban culture of multicultural excuse-making, it’s castor oil. Yet the only choices for any of America’s population groups are to swallow it and thrive – or spit it out, sicken and die. There is no third way.

We should thank Dick Lamm for being the unwelcome messenger, the curmudgeon with the tough love. He’s only repeating what nonwhite truth-tellers like entertainer Bill Cosby, economist Thomas Sowell, and former education secretary Lauro Cavazos have already said: Culture matters, and unlike race, culture can be chosen and changed.

Constructive criticism of comparative cultural outcomes is thus the very opposite of racism. Will the Burlesons and the Barelas of inner-city Denver bravely champion that choice, that change? Or will they stay trapped in the blame game? Our future together as Americans, not just for this or that race but for all of us, depends on the answer. ------------------------------- For further reading: Here is Dick Lamm's own 8/2 statement in the Post, after the controversy was already boiling. Here are a critical Jim Spencer column from the preceding day, and a Mike Rosen piece in Lamm's defense.

Which political anniversary shines brightest?

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, July 16) “We have no king but Caesar.” It was an odd thing for the elders of Jerusalem, royal David’s city, to tell the governor from Rome. But politically this was the safe answer, so Pilate proceeded to execute the freedom-talking seditionist in question, one Jesus of Nazareth. Independence Day set me on a historical odyssey from the ancient emperors to the modern idea of liberation. After a detour through the dictionary and the calendar, this column resulted. The theme is political birthdays. The destination is America in 2076. Come on along.

Why do the last four months of our year have Latin names signifying 7 to 10? Because the Romans inserted, ahead of September, two months named for Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. Fittingly, July and August now abound with memorable dates from the endless struggle of freedom versus tyranny.

Next month begins with our statehood anniversary, Colorado Day. This month Americans have already marked the Fourth of July, the French on July 14 celebrated Bastille Day, and on July 26 the Cuban people (some at least) will hail Fidel Castro’s revolutionary beginnings. Britain paused on July 7 to commemorate last year’s Al Qaeda attack.

I won’t be around for the U.S. Tricentennial on July 4, 2076. But my three-year-old grandson Ian will be here, God willing. You know youngsters who likely will be too. Ask yourself, though, and don’t answer too quickly – will the United States itself be around for that great celebration?

Some would say it absolutely will be. I am more inclined to say it depends. The Constitution was written “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Liberty is real for you and me because previous generations kept faith. Our posterity, Ian and his descendants, won’t have it unless we keep faith. The responsibility is ours.

Nobody in 2006 wants to live under a Caesar who claims divinity and rules by decree. Britons, French, and other Europeans, Cubans and the Third World, even the Islamofascists, all profess their visions of liberation. Yet for mankind’s sake everywhere, it is the July 4 vision that must prevail.

The Declaration of Independence, America’s birth certificate, teaches that our rights come from nature and God, not from laws and majorities. Limited government, consent of the governed, and as a last resort the right of revolution, necessarily follow. This remains the best mode ever devised for organizing society, bar none.

The July 14 vision in Paris, “liberty, equality, fraternity,” may sound similar. But it licensed atheistic and utopian illusions that led to the Terror and then to Napoleon, Caesar reborn – by way of their own renamed months and statist cult. Unlimited government, albeit in tamer forms, has haunted the French ever since. It haunts their brainchild, the European Union, still today.

Castro’s July 26 communist vision goes further, annulling morality and truth entirely. It substitutes an ethic of raw power, where might makes right and no limits on government remain. Far from dying out, this evil has new life in Venezuela and Bolivia. Nor is it completely dead in China and Russia. The Marxist dream dies hard.

As for July 7 and the 2005 subway bombings, Melanie Phillips’s new book “Londonistan” raises dark questions. Is Britain already too far gone in EU multiculturalism and appeasement to resist the Islamic colonizers within? Will the Mother of Parliaments honor Magna Carta or Sharia, come 2076? It depends.

Which political anniversary will shine brightest 70 summers hence? Americans need to understand our own heritage better, for starters. Too many, according to surveys, don’t even know Marx’s “to each according to his need” from Jefferson’s “all created equal.” The relativist curriculum in government schools doesn’t help.

Blather like the Diane Carman and Ed Quillen columns in the Post on July 4, painting President Bush as morally equivalent to George III, doesn’t help either. We should debate our differences like grownups. And we should never take for granted this “republic, if you can keep it,” which Benjamin Franklin and the other Founders gave us. Its keeping is our most sacred trust.