The Black Republican

I strongly suggest this piece by Tod Lindberg as "Recommended Reading".

Immediately after posting the link to this morning's Wall Street Journal editorial at right, I read E.J. Dionne's own analysis of the Medicare drug benefit bill that passed Congress yesterday. It contained this gem:

While Clinton and Frank admire Kennedy, both think he "made a mistake," as Frank put it, in thinking a real compromise would emerge from the current system. "I think we started down this slope in June," Clinton said, referring to the vote on the earlier bill, which she opposed and Kennedy favored. Clinton had predicted that the already inadequate drug benefit in that bill would be weakened by Republicans in subsequent negotiations.

Breaux and Baucus were the only two Democrats allowed to negotiate the Medicare bill with the Republicans, House Democrats having been totally excluded. Would Republicans have put up with such an arrangement?

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Time Magazine as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by William Saffire as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Robert Kagan & William Kristol as "Recommended Reading".

Andrew Sullivan attests he is not "somehow less of a human being". I've never said he is less than a human being. But just because he believes his "sexual orientation" is a part of his genome doesn't mean he has the right to dictate my morality to me.

"Wait a second", you say. "Isn't that the other way around? Aren't YOU the one dictating morality?"

As a matter of fact, I am. The old saying that "you can't legislate morality" is a lie of the first magnitude peddled by secularists and liberals for years as a way to subvert the power of the majority to do what it has every right to do. ALL laws are a statement of the state's morality, from abortion to welfare. Name any law that is NOT an expression of the morality (the "code of good conduct") of the society, and I'll change my thinking, but the fact is that whatever the state codifies in law is by definition a sanction by the society of a given value judgement, or a proscription against one. So when supporters of gay marriage say they have a right to marriage, they are saying the people have no say in setting their own standards for their society, in fact there ought never be any standards for any society. My political science professor in college described that as the definition of "anarchy", but I prefer to call it "chaos".

While I'm on the subject, I should note that this is all a very appropriate discussion here, under the watchful gaze of Mr. Lincoln. One of the most atrocious claims by the gay rights crowd is their attempt to equate their crusade with the civil rights struggle of black Americans. Nothing could be more heinous to the sensibilities of the American people than to make this claim. Why? Because of all our laws, the one most enshrined as the codification of the American morality is called The Constitution of the United States. The liberals twist the meaning of our sacred document by invoking the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, written specifically to protect men and women whose skin color was different the right to decide for themselves what was in their own hearts. The equal protection clause is not a free license to sanction any conduct, any action one thinks should be legalized, even an activity that one might be predisposed to by gene structure. For those who need an example, it's quite possible (though I'd think not probable) that one could be genetically predisposed to some other activity the public finds distasteful, like kleptomania. Does this mean that we must hand over our property to anyone who steals it?

This issue is clearly outside the scope of the equal protection clause as it was written, and despite a margin of one judge in Massachusetts, it still is. Under another of our Amendments, the power to define marriage is a power "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I strongly suggest this piece by Jeff Jacoby as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by David Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

I've noticed a disturbing and quite annoying trend. Some people - such as the President of the United States - say Islam is "a religion of peace", then other people - such as the justifiably angry people at littlegreenfootballs - make fun of the term, then the cycle repeats. What's annoying is that last part, where nobody confronts the disconnect and we just repeat the process of not finding where the problem is.

Larry Elder has finally given us a glimse into this void by posting an interview with journalist Robert Spencer at WorldNetDaily. Spencer fills in the gap by describing where it is that we find the differences between the radical Islam we're at war with and the more moderate strain that occupies the mosques of the West, including many of those in the United States. He still doesn't address the core theology that would explain how the moderates have the justification to igore the more violent parts of the Quran (essential if any of us is ever going to have an intelligent argument with those poor muslims who aren't predisposed to violence but don't know better), but at least we now have a context that non-muslims can use to ask the right questions.

I strongly suggest this piece by Stephen F. Hayes as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Douglas Kmiec as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jeff Jacoby as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Dick Morris as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mike S. Adams as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Brendan Miniter as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by NewsMax.com as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by George Will as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by William McGurn as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Pat Buchanan as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Hoover Institution as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Howard Fineman as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Michael Barone as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jeff Jacoby as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Associated Press as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Charles Johnson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Robert L. Bartley as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Brian C. Anderson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mark Steyn as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Victor Davis Hanson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by John Kass as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by George Will as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by William Hamilton as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Daniel Henninger as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Fred Barnes as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Chicago Tribune as "Recommended Reading".

Is it time to fight fire with fire? Allen E. Parker Jr. thinks so. The human-rights lawyer is trying to reverse Roe v. Wade by invoking an obscure part of the law that allows a plaintiff to sue to have a previous ruling in his favor reversed.

Parker believes Doe and Roe were wrongly decided and that there is a promising way to challenge them using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FCRP) that govern federal trials. Parker’s approach differs from previous challenges in not relying primarily on arguments about the right to life of unborn children and constitutional errors in the decisions. Those arguments are true—and tried. No majority of justices has heeded them, even in a challenge to the flagrant barbarism of partial-birth abortion. Something different is needed, that “gives the Supreme Court a graceful way out of the problem it is in” over abortion, as Parker says. Rule 60 of the FRCP and Parker’s plaintiffs may be that something.

Rule 60 provides that “on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment … for the following reasons: … it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” The original plaintiff may return to court to ask that a judgment be reversed if it is now unjust. There is no statute of limitations.