ActRight

With the end of Fidel Castro’s nasty life Friday night, we can hope, if not reasonably expect, to have seen the last of charismatic totalitarians worshiped by political pilgrims from open societies. Experience suggests there will always be tyranny tourists in flight from what they consider the boring banality of bourgeois society and eager for the excitement of sojourns in “progressive” despotisms that they are free to admire and then leave. During the 1930s, there were many apologists for Josef Stalin’s brutalities, which he committed in the name of building a workers’ paradise fit for an improved humanity. The apologists complacently said, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” To which George Orwell acidly replied: “Where’s the omelet?” With Castro, the problem was lemonade. Soon after Castro seized power in 1959, Jean-Paul Sartre, the French intellectual whose Stalinist politics were as grotesque as his philosophy was opaque, left Les Deux Magots cafe in Paris to visit Cuba. During a drive, he and Castro stopped at a roadside stand. They were served warm lemonade, which Castro heatedly said “reveals a lack of revolutionary consciousness.” The waitress shrugged, saying the refrigerator was broken. Castro “growled” (Sartre’s approving description): “Tell your people in charge that if they don’t take care of their problems, they will have problems with me.” Sartre swooned: “This was the first time I understood — still quite vaguely — what I called ‘direct democracy.’ Between the waitress and Castro, an immediate secret understanding was established. She let it be seen by her tone, her smiles, by a shrug of the shoulders, that she was without illusion. And the prime minister . . . in expressing himself before her without circumlocution, calmly invited her to join the rebellion.” Another political innovator, Benito Mussolini, called his regime “ennobled democracy,” and as the American columnist Murray Kempton mordantly noted in 1982, photographs of Castro “cutting sugar cane evoke the bare-chested Mussolini plunged into the battle for wheat.” Castro’s direct democracy was parsimonious regarding elections but permissive of shrugs. It did, however, forbid “acts of public destruction,” meaning criticism of Communism. This charge condemned Armando Valladares, then 23, to 22 years in Castro’s prisons. Stalin’s terror was too high a price to pay for a great novel, but at least the world got from it Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. And although Castro’s regime, saturated with sadism, should never have existed, because of it the world got Valladares’s testament to human endurance, his prison memoir Against All Hope. Prison food was watery soup laced with glass, or dead rats, or cows’ intestines filled with feces, and Castro’s agents had special uses for the ditch filled with the sewage from 8,000 people. Castro ruled Cuba during eleven U.S. presidencies and longer than the Soviet Union ruled Eastern Europe. On April 15, 1959, 15 weeks after capturing Havana, Castro, then 32, landed in Washington at what is now Reagan National Airport. He had been in America in 1948, when he studied English and bought a Lincoln. This time, on April 16, in a concession to bourgeois expectations, he dispatched an aide to buy a comb and toothbrush. His connections to Communism? “None,” he said. He endorsed a free press as “the first enemy of dictatorship,” and said free elections were coming soon. Then he was off to a Princeton seminar and a lecture in the chapel at Lawrenceville prep school, well received at both places. By July red stars were being painted on Cuban military vehicles. Three years later, Soviet ballistic missiles were arriving. A year after that, a Castro admirer murdered the U.S. president whose administration had been interested in, indeed almost obsessed with, removing Castro.     #related#U.S. flings at “regime change” in distant lands have had, to say no more, uneven results, but the most spectacular futility has been 90 miles from Florida. Castro was the object of various and sometimes unhinged U.S. attempts to remove him. After the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Kennedy administration doubled down with Operation Mongoose, which included harebrained assassination plots and a plan skeptics called “elimination by illumination” — having a U.S. submarine surface in Havana harbor and fire star shells into the night sky to convince Catholic Cubans that the Second Coming had come, causing them to rebel against Castro the anti-Christ. Nevertheless, Castro ruled Cuba during eleven U.S. presidencies and longer than the Soviet Union ruled Eastern Europe. Socialism is bountiful only of slogans, and a Castro favorite was “socialism or death.” The latter came to him decades after the former had made Cuba into a gray museum for a dead utopianism.       — George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. His e-mail address is [email protected]. © 2016 Washington Post Writers Group

Administrators at a New York state high school are apologizing after the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in Arabic on Wednesday morning, offending some stud...

Alexis de Tocqueville believed Christianity provided a common moral language for the American people. But what happens when faith is on the decline?

"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change [and] there is no policy of the United States, per se, to isolate Russia."  

US Marines and State Department security teams have been requested to up security at the US Embassy in Haiti, after an increase in fuel prices sparked civil unrest. 13 marines and an undisclosed number of civilian contracted security personnel have been requested in response to the riots, with a US Marine Security Augmentation Unit reportedly …

The relationship between President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is so fractured the pair haven?t spoken in weeks, a new report said Tuesday. And McConnell has privately sa…

Hillary Clinton reportedly got a standing ovation after she joked about the recent email scandal and took no questions after her speech on Monday at an event to honor excellence in journalism.  Is ...

The feud between James and Ingraham began last week when the Fox News host said James and fellow NBA star Kevin Durant should “shut up and d...

You have to see Ed Schultz's RFRA meltdown after he's crushed by Heritage guest.

Liberals could never be trusted with any private information that contradicts their sick views. The left believe, when it comes to their agenda "The End Justifies The Means."

Democrats are claiming they need to see literally millions of pages of documents from Kavanaugh’s years working in the Bush White House.

In an age of prenatal medical breakthroughs—and I mean incredible breakthroughs—it’s hard to imagine how abortion can still be considered healthcare.

Media outlets filed a motion Friday morning to publicly reveal the names and home addresses of those serving on the jury in the Manafort trial.

The final exchange in the debate between Professor Ricardo Duchesne and Professor Matt McManus over the book Canada in Decay and Canadian immigration policies.

The Trump administration is planning to shift more than $260 million to cover the rising cost and strain of housing thousands of undocumented immigrant children in the government's custody - including millions of dollars for programs from cancer research to HIV/AIDS prevention.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Cuba turns to a model Communist Party official, Miguel Diaz-Canel, to steer it through a period of uncertainty when it finally turns the page on the Castro era in a vote on Thursday. The 57-year-old First Vice President is the pre-ordained choice of Raul Castro as he steps down, ensuring that the vote

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be in attendance at President Trump's first State of the Union address on Tuesday. 

Would any Republican besides Donald Trump have beaten Hillary Clinton and been elected the 45th president?

Senate Democrats now say that they will not seek any compromise involving the DACA or DREAM Acts in return for a long-term spending bill, codifying an agreement made Monday to end a government shutdown — and officially abandoning progressive activists.

With nary a nay, Congress has scrubbed Thomas Jefferson’s name from a park built to celebrate one of his life’s great achievements and the way it changed America.

The headline says it all: “Proposed Bill Would Expand Parents’ Rights, but Critics Say It Goes Too Far” What exactly is too far when it comes to parents’ rights? In the case of this story from Fort Worth, Texas, it means that “critics” think parents shouldn’t have the right to know what their children are doing at school. Opposing this belief is Texas state senator Konni Burton, who authored the legislation. She believes that parents should be allowed access to their kids’ personal information, rather than protecting their child’s alleged right to privacy. The fact that legislation is necessary to correct the imbalance between parents’ rights and the separate, independent rights of their minor children is one of the defining characteristics of our current age, one in which the government at all levels has become involved in the private lives of families, dictating child-rearing standards and penalizing parents who do not follow the rules. This condition of overbearing state interference in the lives of families is pervasive, though not coordinated, and is the central reason I wrote my book No Child Left Alone: Getting the Government out of Parenting. The range of activities and choices that have been taken out of the hands of parents only to be decided from on high by politicians, school administrators, and unelected bureaucrats and regulators range from the seemingly innocuous — allowing kids to play unsupervised — to the nearly barbaric — removing children from their parents’ custody because they are obese. The government is telling women what to do with their bodies in the form of pressure to breast-feed, while government departments like the Department of Agriculture and regulatory agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission are making life less tasty by restricting the diets of American schoolchildren and less fun by banning games and toys. As attorney Scott Greenfield noted on his blog after a New Jersey mother was arrested for leaving her toddler in the car unattended for no more than 10 minutes: This isn’t a matter of parenting “best practices,” but whether the failure to adhere to a bubble-wrapped vision of child-rearing forms the basis for criminal prosecution, for inclusion on the child-abuse registry, for loss of civil rights, perhaps career, home, and even the right to remain parent to a child. It all started innocently enough when I enrolled our fourth child in state-licensed day care. We had come to expect and accept all the rules — detailed instructions about how to cut up fruits and vegetables sent from home, a prohibition on plastic bags coming to school, the mandates about slathering children in sunscreen, etc. But I was not prepared when the day care explained that my one request, that my son be swaddled à la baby Jesus for his naps, could not be honored, since the state had banned the practice in licensed facilities. The stated reason for the ban, which has been adopted in more than just my state of Pennsylvania, was safety. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics does not define swaddling as medically necessary, and because the busybodies who wrote the guidelines (funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) that became the law argue that any blankets in cribs could potentially harm a child, swaddling has been outlawed. The fact that this regulation is prophylactic — there are no recorded injuries to infants from swaddling at day care — is not relevant because current safety standards are based on the possibility of harm rather than evidence of such. I eventually got permission from my doctor to have my baby swaddled, but it took a lot of effort and I wondered whether I was alone in thinking that the government had no business deciding for me and the day-care operator what was the best way to care for my kid. I also set out to discover if the experience I had was mirrored elsewhere, and if other parents had suffered from nanny-state parenting. It turned out I didn’t know the half of it. The same “what if” or “worst first” thinking — as Lenore Skenazy, the founder of the Free Range Kids movement and the author of my book’s foreword, has defined it — has been applied in too many other areas of life. Sledding is banned on public hills in various cities because someone might get hurt and the municipality might get sued. A dad in Connecticut was cited for disorderly conduct when he argued with police who wanted him to remove his kids from the banks of the frozen Susquehanna River even though nothing untoward had happened besides a family enjoying an icy wonderland. “This small incident,” the father, Charles Eisenstein wrote on his blog, “reveals a lot about our society.” He continued: First is the presumption that legally constituted authority should decide what an acceptable level of safety is for oneself and one’s family. I suppose going out onto the ice was more dangerous than staying indoors or on the sidewalk, but I deemed it in my children’s best interest to be outdoors in this amazing ice world. Assertions of independent judgment by parents as to the best interests of their offspring are exactly what government nannies are trying to prevent. You might want to make your own kid’s lunch, but when there are government-empowered food inspectors at your kid’s school looking into their lunchbox, you may find that your turkey-and-cheese has been replaced by cafeteria chicken nuggets, as happened to Heather Parker of Raeford, N.C. Some school principals have banned home-packed lunches entirely because they believe menus determined by the geniuses at the USDA are more nutritious than what parents will decide to pack themselves. Assertions of independent judgment by parents as to the best interests of their offspring are exactly what government nannies are trying to prevent. Who gets to determine what’s in the best interest of children is muddy water when it comes to schools in general. In many states, children’s weight and height information is collected at the public school and each child’s body-mass index is calculated, all without permission of parents. The government argues that while it has access to students in its schools, it has the right to collect such basic health information. Some schools don’t stop at collecting this personal information, however. Instead, letters warning that children may be at risk for obesity have been sent to parents. At the same time, parents in Florida are having a very hard time getting their kids’ schools to do the healthy and inexpensive thing by allowing kids to run around during recess. And the parents in Florida aren’t alone. Not only has recess been limited or eliminated at many schools, but what games and activities are allowed during “free play” periods have been restricted. Tag, dodgeball, gymnastics, swing sets, and running have all been banned at one school or another in the name of safety. When parents demand a change, it can take herculean efforts like protests and petitions to get schools to listen. Happily, the advocacy can work, as when Rhode Island governor Gina Raimondo signed a law mandating recess at the state’s elementary schools. In the most heartbreaking instances of the state determining what’s in the best interest of the child, dozens of kids have been removed from their parents for being morbidly obese. The doctors and legal scholars who justify these removals argue that the best interest of the child is being served by the state’s taking control of their lives. But ask the parents and children to whom these removals have happened and you hear a different story. “They say it is for the well-being of the child,” explained Anamarie Regino, 10 years after she was temporarily removed from her parents’ custody for obesity. “But it did more damage than any money or therapy could ever do to fix it.” There are two important lessons to draw from all this government-run child-rearing. The first is how improperly we are defining private life and public life. Only in a world where a healthy population is defined as a public good can the state justify breaking apart families over a health problem that will cause no harm to anyone but the sufferers. #related#The second lesson is that there are both individual parents and groups of advocates across the country who are focused on returning the rights of parents to raise their own children. These parents — Captain Mommies and Daddies, I call them — have had run-ins with the overbearing state and decided to advocate on their own behalf and on behalf of their kids. Then there are organizations like the Family Defense Center, which provides legal defense for parents caught in the child-welfare and legal systems. At ParentalRights.org the goal is to amend the U.S. Constitution and support state laws to empower parents. And the National Association of Parents wants to shape public policy on parents’-rights issues through education and advocacy. As commonplace as nanny-state parenting has become, it will take tremendous effort to change the tide of public policy and the overprotective culture that has brought us to our current situation. But being a good parent, and a good citizen, has never been easy. And it remains as necessary and important as ever. — Abby W. Schachter, a Pittsburgh-based writer, blogs at captainmommy.com.

FAKE NEWS: ?This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science,? according to The Guardian.  The article purports to describe and illustrate a rally, held a…

Iranian leaders need to know that the Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates, writes Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

During his Thursday monologue, Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon turned to the Obama administration for the source of his current events jokes as President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and even the scandal-ridden Secret Service each saw a few jests sent their respective ways.