The Black Republican

The San Diego Union-Tribune should get some kind of award: they actually wrote something nice about our troops. When was the last time that happened in an American newspaper?

(hat tip: the venerable Ace of Spades)

UPDATE: On this theme, littlegreenfootballs takes note of the story I linked under Recommended Reading, where some of our Marines were forced to confront one of our most dangerous enemies: John F. Kerry. The comments, as usual, are precious. This is one former soldier willing to give a hearty SEMPER FI!

I strongly suggest this piece by Zell Miller as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Blogs for Bush as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jason L. Riley as "Recommended Reading".

I listened intently last night to a speech that all this week nearly every Democrat said needed to be a great, and afterward nearly every Democrat agreed was the best Kerry had ever delivered. As I listened, all I could think of was "Why is this guy sweating so much?" I mean, it was almost comical... reminiscent of Aaron Altman, Albert Brooks' character in Broadcast News, who had a sweating fit in his debut as an anchorman (and subsequently lost the job). At first it I thought it looked like drool glistening off his chin which, given the desperate measures he has been employing lately, seemed totally appropriate! The fact that Kerry kept licking his lips only added to this perception. But then I noticed that his entire face was becoming wet. As a bit of an historian, it brought to mind the result of the Nixon/Kennedy debates. The radio audience thought Nixon won the debate, but no one watching on TV really listened to Nixon because of the way he appeared on camera... like a used car salesman! Similarly, I found that I couldn't concentrate much on the substance of what Kerry was saying because he looked like a man who had invested everything he owned in a charade and needed desperately for those to whom he was speaking to believe him, lest the charade be exposed! Were that to happen, I'm sure he would insist Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Kerry's nervous sweat reminded me of another movie as well, Total Recall (starring the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger!). Remember the scene where some doctor walks in and tries to convince Arnold's character (Quaid) that everything he has experienced is just a hallucination, and that he (the doctor) has been inserted into Quaid's hallucination in order to 'talk him down' and thus save his life? The doctor is on the verge of convincing Quaid and getting him to let down his guard, when a telltale bead of sweat rolls down the good doctor's face. Quaid sees that sweat, realizes that if the doctor was really there for the altruistic reasons he was proclaiming, then he shouldn't be nervous or sweating, and BANG! - he puts a bullet between the doctor's eyes! And so it is that the Democrats are trying desperately to convince the American public that, with Kerry as president, they can pretend the Bush tenure (to include 9/11) never really happened, that is was all just a bad dream, and we should now get back to a proper Clinton-like administration and set the world right again. Now I do not want anyone to think I am advocating that any harm should come to Mr. Kerry, I am absolutely not! I just want his political life to come to an abrupt and complete end, and the fraud of a man behind the curtain to be exposed. During the day on Tuesday, November 2nd, I believe we'll all hear a loud click... and just after 7:00 PST, a dramatic BANG!

A comment (from frequent visitor "Senator PhilABuster") responding to Ace of Spades' convention round-up sums up Senator Kerry's speech well:

"Imagine we believe in science,
and the wonders of discovery too,
Curing Aids and Alzheimers,
With stem cells isn't hard to do.

Imagine there's no children,
unsafe after school.
Imagine that our leaders,
eliminated hatred too.

You may say, I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day, you'll join us.
And John Edwards and I can live as one."

(W)hen New York is bombed - this time, bombed hard enough to shut down large sections of the city and leave me dead - I'll at least be comforted by the notion that John Kerry confronted my killers with principle.

We've been saying, "We don't question Kerry's service. We question what came after." But let us add this caveat: we also don't applaud his service beyond the recognition it deserves. He may deserve some respect, but a true Hero would not have fled the field. And the truest heroes still lie buried underneath it.

The American people have yet to hear from the Commander-in-Chief in New York. As a boy, unlike Kerry, he did not step on that field. But as a man, unlike Kerry, he has stayed and fought, and not shirked from his duty, and he has invited personal sacrifice.

He returned to Washington when his advisors told him it was not safe.
He visited New York when it still burned and his advisors told him it was not safe.
He stood in an open stadium and resolutely tempted assassination when his advisors told him it was not safe.
He asked that he be the first to receive the smallpox vaccination when his troops feared it was not safe.
And when many in the world told him we did not have enough cause to topple a brutal dictator who murdered his own people, who consorted with terrorists - some of whom have and would again attack us, and his opposition said the whole world called him reckless and irresponsible and they would not support him, and they would rip his presidency apart, he did what was right for America and not what was safe for his political career.

He did not tire, he did not falter, and under his leadership, "We will not fail".

UPDATE: Al-Khaliq is thinking as I am.

These cretins are why people hate politics - and more specifically, why Republicans continue to be regarded as a bastard ideology by so many people, compared with the saintly liberals, who can do no wrong in some eyes.

I don't care what party or ideology you support, this concept of "losing to win" is pure, unadulterated bullshit. I strongly encourage Democrats and liberals to vote their conscience right alongside Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and everyone else. We're not going to get America on the right track by voting against ourselves anymore than we're going to make her strong by ripping each other to shreds while the enemy laughs at us.

A note to the curious who might trip in from Body and Soul: I haven't heard Obama's speech, and don't plan to listen any time soon. It's not that I don't want to - in fact I really do, because I can foresee a possible future where a man like this could provide all Americans with hope and offer the hand of friendship needed to dispel bitterness and unify a divided nation in true brotherhood.

But I see neither hope nor brotherhood in the Democratic Party of 2004, and I certainly don't see America. I can't listen to men who may very well be patriots when they consort with traitors. I cannot believe the honest when they shelter and support the liar. I see a group of people with vicious hatred for their countrymen, unyielding contempt for the land that bore them, and total disdain for her values - values which on the whole they feel are beneath them. Whenever I've thought I've seen the rational and the virtuous among them, my hopes have been utterly dashed, so I dare not hope any more this season.

Please, please, reject the devisiveness and understand that we do not wish to be your enemy. Support the Party of Robert Byrd if you must, but know that the Party of Lincoln stands ready to work with you, come what may, to "bind up the nation's wounds".

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Listen to the important audio commentary from the podium at the Democratic National Convention.

Little Green Footballs points out that the imam who gave a benediction one night during the Democratic National Convention has a little image problem.

Is this the dastardly work of those disgusting Republicans, who like to make McCarthyite guilt-by-association claims against innocent people?

Yup, and he's just as innocent as the communists who never really existed in Hollywood.

We've talked recently about the cause of the Militant Moderate. Today, Rush Limbaugh makes my case with his branded tongue-in-your-face manner.

But as far as I'm concerned, you can be who you are and convert some of those independents long before two weeks before the election -- and if you don't convert them, screw 'em! It's their problem, you know, it's not ours. I just don't like this business of holding back and denying who you really are because you're living in fear; you're worried you're going to scare people. Both parties make me mad doing this stuff because you end up with total phoniness and you end up with people who aren't being who they really are and they attract people on the basis of that and that's how everything gets so screwed up. I really do believe, I think we ought to outlaw independentism. I think we ought to have a law that says, "Six months before the election every citizen ought to declare whether he's Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, conservative or liberal. No independents allowed. No moderates allowed." Make your mind up out there! Get some backbone! You're screwing up the country by being so indecisive because you're having a bunch of people pander to your indecision. That's really going to get us a lot of places.

But if you wait for other people to plead their case, then say, "I like to weigh the arguments of both sides, and pick and choose who I think is right on each issue," your participation in democracy doesn't inspire my confidence. Please, figure out what it is that makes you tick, then champion that cause.

(I guess I should note that I'm not talking about people opposed to labels because they don't want their ideology to be presumed. I'm talking about people who refuse to even consider that they have - or worse yet, oppose the idea they ought to have - an ideology. There's a vast world of difference there.)

Dean is asking "An Interesting Question For Conservatives". I've given my answer.

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

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

And so it begins... the political mean season!

This weekend, every major news network (alas, including Fox!) all gave full lip service to the Democratic Convention "pre-game" show! While mostly fluff and pap, there were actually two enlightening and interesting things to come of this semi sycophantic love feast. The first is that the Democratic leadership is desperately trying to hold down the Bush bashing rhetoric in favor of promoting a more positive and pro-Kerry like image. Wow... this would be a good things for the country, and could actually promote honest and open debate between good people with differing political ideological viewpoints... and that is why I am wondering if the Donks can really pull it off, what with Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Al Gore wondering the convention floor.

The second interesting this is that the Donk leadership actually thinks they need to explain to the country exactly who John Kerry really is, even though they just spend $27.5 million on battleground state adds that were supposed to do just that! They believe that if they can just get out who this guy really is, people will begin to warm up to him. So the plan is to spend a great deal of the convention time and resources to "explain" John Kerry to the world. Even leaving aside the fact that very little of the convention will actually be viewed by anyone other than the Donk kool-aid drinkers and us political junkies, is this really the best strategy for them to follow? I mean, right now, without the vast electorate knowing that much about the new JFK, he is either marginally ahead or tied in the polls. Not to bad for a challenger to an incumbent war-time President at this stage of the game. If, by chance, the economy or Iraq take even a slight turn for the worse, Kerry is - as things stand right now - positioned very well to take advantage. So why tinker with the soup if the spices are right? Cause the soup ain't gonna get done in time, that's why! The Donk leaders seem to have conceded that neither the economy or Iraq will get worse, and will probably get better, so thet're scrambling to bring some fire to their creation, and they think that explaining the new JFK will do the trick.

To support the Democratic leadership in their efforts, I will do something genuinely altruistic of me, I will gladly and honestly give some very good and free advice... be careful what you wish for, because if the general public ever does get to know the "real" John Forbes Kerry, they may not like what they see!

I am so disgusted by what just occurred, I am barely able to keep my head from flying off my shoulders. The worst part of it is the sickening aftertaste, as I realize that like someone living in a tenement after witnessing a rape or murder, I could have done something but chose to stand there aghast and embarrassed and let the crime happen. Unlike those New Yorkers vilified back in the 1970's, I don't intend to sit by and do nothing while the criminals get away this time.

I was in the check-out line at Publix Supermarket, standing right behind a cute little girl who might have been 11 or 12. She was carrying an old-fashioned, brown imitation leather, barrel-shaped purse that looked somewhat coordinated to go with her blonde hair and orange shirt. It looked as though she was making just one purchase: a paper bag, which from outward markings apparently contained school supplies.

Publix has a series of charity drives each year, especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas, where they fill paper bags with dry and canned goods, to be given to the poor if you carry them to the checkout counter and pay for them. Though I recognized the familiar theme of the charity drive, the school supplies appeared to me to be a new idea of giving a helpful hand to parents, by collecting all the basic school supplies, and putting them into a paper bag so you don't have to hunt them all down yourself. 'Great idea,' I thought. 'I'll have to pick up one for each of my kids. Maybe that'll get them off my back when they come to me with that insane list handed out by the school board.'

For those of you in other states that may not experience the same insanity, the schools in Florida have decided that since good Republicans won't let them raise taxes anymore, they'll just not buy any pencils, pens, or paper (or anything else) for the classroom, then spend the money elsewhere in the school budget and appeal to the parents to send a crapload of junk to school with the kids on the first day. The stores in the area go along with the scheme by offering supply lists at the door, which are drawn up by each school declaring what each child must have on the first day. In some cases, the lists are broken down further by grade, and maybe even personalized by each teacher.

Over the years, this "appeal" has gotten more and more outlandish, not to mention more and more expected. The kids fall into the trap by insisting that if they don't bring in their [gag!] "fair share"... well, you can use your imagination what the "BUSH IS HITLER!" crowd would do if your kid ever dared to violate the dictates of The State and its Minions... I mean, "the teachers' crime syndicate"... I'm sorry, I mean, "the school employees". Each year, I get more and more frustrated by this scam, but though I try to fight back by spending less, and I grumble and dispute its legitimacy each year, I swallow my pride and don't embarrass my kids by sending them to school with nothing.

Anyway, I'm standing behind this little girl in Publix, and after her order is rung up, she pulls out an equally old-fashioned leather wallet from her old-fashioned purse, and carefully counts out the $10.99. 'Sweet,' I think to myself. 'At least she's taking responsibility for her own load of crap and not expecting her parents to pay for it.' (My kids are so irresponsible with money, I've rescinded their allowances about a thousand times. In the end, I prefer to dole out the money with an eyedropper, and pay for stuff myself. You're right, I'm not doing the kids any favors this way, and I'm not teaching them proper capitalism. Sue me.)

So the little girl gets her receipt, turns around - and her bag of supplies is gone. "Where are my school supplies?" the girl asks the bagger. The bagger points to a huge basket nearby that's filled to the brim with these paper bags. It's not an assistance program for the parents after all, it's charity for the state-run school.

The next half-hour of my life is pretty much a blur. I watched helplessly as the girl, totally dumbfounded, is told by the bagger that her purchase was a donation to the school board, and (though I didn't hear clearly, I think the bagger said) that she can't have it back. The girl's father, who had been waiting patiently nearby with his groceries, walks over to investigate, has a few words with the bagger, puts his arm around the daughter and escorts her out of the store. The whole scene seemed to take on the most absurd aura of Svengali-like deception. 'You can't fight the state, honey,' I imagined the father saying, as I saw him lean down and whisper to her. Maybe he told her he'd give her the money back, or maybe he just told her it was her own fault for not reading the bag closely enough. (The latter being something I was obviously guilty of myself.) In any event, they walked right out and the store employees didn't take so much as a minute to question the propriety of taking the girl's money. The idea that she should get her supplies - or at least the damn money back - seemed never to cross anyone's mind.

I was so tempted to make a scene there and fight for the girl's money, but with her own parents not doing so, I didn't see that it was my place to butt in. I was afraid and embarrassed that I was an unwilling accomplice to this mess. I had just witnessed the State of Florida literally stealing candy money from a baby to feed into their teacher-run socialist racketeering boondoggle, and everyone just takes it for granted that "that's the way it is". The drones of 1984 were walking all around me muttering in Newspeak, and I, playing the part of Winston Smith, can only hold my head in shame and pray that I can escape the parking lot without anyone noticing that I've seen The Truth.

By the time I got home and calmed down, I saw that if I could not do anything about the situation then, I owe it to that little girl - and my own kids - to do something now.

The school board is right. We Republicans aren't going to take it anymore having our taxes raised. But that isn't an absolutism. We're just sick to death of having our money taken from us without any sign of responsibility on the part of the government. If you're not going to hold teachers accountable, if you're not going to give me the ability to make decisions for my child's best welfare, if you're not going to show improvement from where we are, in 48th place among school systems in the U.S., we're not going to give you any more money. And now, engineering these kinds of back-door schemes to tax us without taxes by making us buy the school's supplies while the teachers continue to fail at the most basic criteria for educational advancement - I simply will not put up with it any more.

I told my son today, and will tell my daughter tomorrow: I will buy one sheaf of loose-leaf paper for each of them, just as my father did for me when I was a kid. They use whatever notebook, bookbag, pencils, papers, scissors, glue, etc. they can find laying around the house. And not another dime will go to paying for school supplies from me. After all, that little girl has already paid $11 more than they deserve.

Occasionally, I'll click the link in my MT interface to go and edit a few posts that are still in a "draft" state in the Archives, hoping to bring them back on-line and up to date. It's taking a lot longer than I'd expected, because it takes forever to save and publish each entry before going on to the next one, and in addition to the time wasted it's incredibly boring.

In an attempt to amuse myself, I decided to edit a few from the first month of the blog and move forward, rather than progress backward from the last published post, as I have been doing. It's been a treat - I'd forgotten how much fun I had in the first weeks, getting into the new medium. And some posts have actually shown some decent foresight, from my observation that the Democrats were going to crusade against Catholic judges, to who the future Majority Leader would be. Even if the meat of my commentary was going in the wrong direction, some of the details of the articles I cited are more true now than ever.

For example, long before Steve made a passion out of "Botox Watch", Mark Steyn thought there was something awfully strange about John Kerry's forehead. So take a break and go back and enjoy a little of December 2002.

Maybe I should go back and research what kind of comments John Kerry was making against Trent Lott, back when the latter was busy shooting himself in the foot. Because the two have something in common, if you read into comments made by William Donohue of the Catholic League: one insinuated that Jim Crow wasn't such a bad idea, and the other has made comments ethically supportive of the 1857 Dred Scott decision.

"Kerry's dichotomy," Donohue said, "was advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision."

"In that ruling, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that members of 'the Negro race' were 'not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government.' Similarly, he concluded that 'it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as part of the people or citizens of the state."

Donohue said Kerry's view was at odds with that of most practicing U.S. Catholics who, he said, "know that a baby is a person, and persons have rights, beginning with the right to be born."

(hat tip: Catholic[?] Kerry Watch, note my correction in the comments)

Allah The Merciful is having a "Fisk the Liberal" party, and the guest of honor has just arrived. Play nice, partygoers.

For posterity, my own response (with one slight alteration) is reprinted here:

Rick: George Bush negotiated an end to the civil war in Sudan

me: I take it from your style of writing that this is meant to be humorous, right? I'm not sure I get the joke, though.

Rick: George W. Bush is a nice guy

me: Gosh, I hope he's not too nice. Being nice during wartime can make people on both sides dead in an awful hurry. Hit hard, hit fast, hit deep, come home.

Rick: He's very compassionate

me: I always hated that spiel. You don't believe it for a minute, so why try? My Daddy used to say, "Actions speak louder than words." And for conservatives, that means proving that the money we give to charity can be spent more happily and more productively than getting taxed by the Great Hog on the Potomac. Fork it into the collection plate, baby, and shut your mouth.

Rick: ...when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses?

me: I'm tempted to say, "So lost, he is..." and drop it there, but I'll ask this: Which did you think was the more "shaky pretense", that Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people, or that he enjoyed it every single time?

Do you really think GW sits in the Oval Office and giggles his way through casualty reports? Are you that depraved that you assume someone is like that, justifying it only with the pathetic "evidence" you cite about how he treats his daughters? (And as a matter of fact, I'll tell my kid he's a pig and he should clean his room right here on the Internet in front of a billion people - so call me evil, too.)

Oh, what's the use... you're never going to get over this, so why should I try? I'm not going to fisk the whole thing. I'll answer you flat out:

Is George W. Bush deserving of my love and adoration, as some Messiah?

Hell, no. He caters way too much to his opposition in the forlorn hope they'll like him for it somehow. He should stand up for Reaganism and screw the naysayers.

Has he been perfect in the War on Terror?

No, and he trusts some advisors too much (like Powell, God love him because "I've lost that loving feeling"), who give him crappy advice that he has to play nice.

Is he doing the right thing overall, and a lot better than the pathetic excuse for leadership we see too much of nowadays?

Damn straight.

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

Many years ago, Steve labeled me as having a "literal" sense of humor. (I must confess that I did consult a dictionary to determine whether the adjective was appropriate. ) Today (okay, I knew before today) I discovered that I am not alone. Literalmind.com is a sympathetic site for my particular mind set. Analyzing the use of proper phrasing on the television game show Jeopardy, Neal notes;

Sure, they insist on the answers being in the form of a question, but they don't seem to care whether the questions the contestants come up with could actually be answered by the answer on the blue screen.

Then provides this fictional example of how things should be;

Later, in the Double Jeopardy round...

Alex: On August 28, 1963, this man gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Rudy?

Rudy: Who is Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Alex: Sorry, wrong question. Neal?

Neal: When did Martin Luther King, Jr., give his "I Have a Dream" speech?

Alex: That's correct, for $200.

So, lets' play the game using current events. The answer is, 'Between July and October 2003, this former National Security Adviser stole classified documents from the National Archives.'

And the question is, 'When did Sandy Berger provide the latest, (known), example that the Clinton Administration was not the most ethical administration ever?'

The 9/11 Commission's Report has been handed to the President. The scene at the White House was cordial, with mutual respect shown between the President and the Commission's Co-Chairmen.

So, it is time to start a stop watch, and let it run until one of the Commissioners falls back into their partisan ways. My money is on Ben-Veniste to be the first to one to use the report to attack the Bush administration. Tick-tock, tick-tock....

Note: I intended to present this idea earlier this week, with two stop watches, when the news about Sandy Berger broke. The first stop watch would be for timing how long it would take Kerry to dismiss Berger. The second would be used to time how long before the Republicans were blamed for Berger's troubles. Both events occured before I could get to a computer and post.

I strongly suggest this piece by Rep. Christopher Cox as "Recommended Reading".

Here I present Reason to Like Conservates More #5462: We offer our honest opinions, and best advice, to our enemies.

Mr. Kerry has a problem with rhetoric. He doesn't have his own sound. You may hate Mr. Bush's sound but it's his, and a lot of people like it. He sounds normal, which for all its pluses and minuses as a style does tend to underscore the idea that he is normal. Mr. Kerry and his speechwriter, Bob Shrum, have long relied on a sort of proto-New Frontier sound that is the rhetorical default position for lost Democrats. Now is their chance to reinvent the Democratic sound. JFK himself came forward as JFK. He didn't present himself to the world with a cigarette-holder, a jut-jawed chin and rimless eyeglasses. That is to say, he did not make believe he was FDR, the party's giant who'd died just 15 years before. JFK knew to be JFK. Kerry should be Kerry.

For those who don't pay much attention to politics, this is The Great Disconnect. Every republic needs leadership, and when men and women engage in the pursuit of the trust of their countrymen, they engage in two parallel and mutually required pursuits. Statesmanship is what candidates and officeholders say to all the people, explaining their vision and and defining their character. Politics is what they say when they're snickering at one another, jockying for leverage within the political class. Some of us don't mind the latter, and may actually find sport in its give and play. But all of us should work to concentrate on the merits of the former, for that is how we should base our vote.

And the vote is how the people practice statecraft themselves, advising their government how they choose to be governed. Without it, they are mere spectators, watching the wrong sport.

Wow! Sound's like the Vast Right-wing conspirators are at it again! The only thing is, how did they get Sandy Berger to agree to smuggle coded document out of the National Archive... stuffed in his pants and socks no less! Those conspirators are really good, aren't they? I'm glad they're on our side!

Hat tip to the Flying Code Monkey for finding this!

That should be the rallying cry of the poor and underprivelaged in America today, and any middle- and upper-class folks looking to help them out (I'm talking to you especially, fellow Catholics). Leading the charge could be a new cadre of black activists rallying our cities away from self-appointed "black leaders" dependant on racially profiling white America to lock up support for their failed agenda.

Sometimes it may seem like you can't get anything out of a sermon you've heard a hundred times. But there are preachers out there who can raise the roof on the church, no matter how many times we've heard the parable.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus want you to treat black Americans with respect and racially sensitive language. And if you don't, they will scream racial epithets at you.

By screaming, "You're just another arrogant white man," (Democratic U.S. Representative Melvin L.) Watt is able to corral some press and proclaim to black America that he is fighting for them. This is how people like Watt stay in power - by suggesting to black America that their problems are the result of arrogant white people who lack the ability to empathize with, or even work alongside, black people.

This is a shameful secret shared by many of the old guard black leaders. They swept into power during a time of overt and institutionalized racism. Their galvanizing message was that all the problems confronting blacks were rooted in racism. Despite the immense social change that has occurred since then, they continue to cling to that message, for fear of falling into irrelevancy.

To this day, many members of the CBC depend on the perception of ongoing, widespread racism in order to remain competitive in the electoral process. They underplay the dramatic improvements in economic and social status blacks have experienced over the last 40 years. Large numbers of their constituents - particularly those who came of age during the overt racism of the past half century - continue to believe that the problems confronting the black lower class stem primarily from racism.

But as great as I think Williams' piece yesterday was, I think he didn't go far enough. He continues:

In the '60s and '70s this sort of black nationalism was integral to pushing basic civil rights issues into the mainstream. But clinging to that rhetoric turns issues of general welfare - such as housing and school reform - into "black issues." That makes it a lot easier for politicians to marginalize and ignore the problems facing our communities. Yes, racism exists. But continuing to isolate ourselves along the lines of black vs. white leaves us stuck in a dead end.

Herein lies the greatest missed opportunity of the civil rights movement: They never prepared for the day when whites would start treating minorities as equals. Their entire public image - their very legitimacy as political and cultural spokespersons - was predicated on the rhetoric of a black-vs.-white war.

America's inner cities continue to have problems. America's poor continue to struggle in the land of milk and honey. America's undereducated continue to be taught in failing schools by disgracefully inept teachers. America's youth continue to be led down the path of sin and depravity by a culture of death and violence peddled by "entertainers" who spew hate, vulgarity, and porn.

And many - if not most - of these underprivileged, undereducated, overfed, and overstimulated men, women, and children are... white.

The problems of the underclasses aren't "black". The failure to fix those problems isn't "white". These problems don't affect only one color or ethnicity - they affect all of America. And the failed policies were dreamed up by men and women of all colors, white and black alike.

Well, that's not exactly true. Their hearts all seem to bleed socialist Red.

It's time Americans took back their country from the racial demagogues of the Left. They have had forty years since the last brick was laid in the Welfare State, and since then that edifice has marred the American landscape while they adorn its walls with gaudy carpet and cover the chipping plaster with coat after coat of psychedelic paint. Social Justice - as my friends at church might call it - can and will be achieved by a color-blind free-market society freed from the shackles of socialism, and aided by the benevolence of the faithful - a society that we're on the verge of having right now. All it takes is the courage to defy the practitioners of negativity and hate, and work - yes, WORK FOR IT.

Which takes us to... Wictory Wednesday.

Every Wednesday we ask our readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. We can't think of any better time to make this call this week thank in this post. If you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you, and work for real justice for all Americans, regardless of class, creed, or color.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. And don't forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

Outrageous! Tonight on The Dennis Miller Show, Lawrence O'Donnell, chief politcal correspondent for MSNBC, and head writer for The West Wing spoke the N-word. He did not say "N-word", he spoke the word. I hate the word when spoken by anyone! And, I hate the double standard that will protect him now. If you think there is no double standard then tell me one context where a conservative white man can use the word without being called a racist? And, then tell me why O'Donnell isn't also a racist for using the word? The answer to the first question is never; the answer to the second is that O'Donnell owes an apology, at the least.
-&-

By now you must have heard that a Las Vegas casino fired Linda Ronstadt for dedicating a song to Michael Moore. The funniest line about this story came from left wing nut job John Lezuigamo. He noted how strange it was for a supporter of Moore's to dedicate the song "Desperado" to Moore, after all, he recalled, the song begins with the words; "Desperado, why don't you come to your senses".

This new web site, styled after the Drudge Report, is debunking Michael Moore's propaganda film.
hat tip Aaron's Rantblog
-&-

I blogged earlier about a flight during which 14 Syrians caused a stir among their fellow passengers. Since that time, I have seen many sites questioning the veracity of the story, many indicating that, to them, it seemed too strange to be true. Tonight, on Scarborough Country, the story was verified. Believe it, it happened.
-&-

Sunday, on Meet The Press, Robert Byrd, the aged Senator who now sports white hair where he once sported a white hood, told Tim Russert that many Senators and Congressmen voted to support the war out of fear. Russert asked if that doesn't make "John Kerry a coward?" Byrd's actual words in attempting to deflect the charge were not memorable.
-&-

Did I mention that there is a precedent for the treatment Whoopi Golberg received? It happened thirty years ago.
-&-

Oh, and is there a more vile cultural group than rappers?
hat tip : Aaron's Rantblog
-&-

Over at Celluoid-Wisdom, (in spite of the building noise about legal action if the election goes south for the Demo(n)crats), they retain a sense of humor;

In the time it takes you to read this post, Al Gore will have thought back to the 2000 elections 677 times. In 39 of those instances, he admits to himself that he deserved to lose; in the other 638 instances, he soundly thrashes Dubya and Cheney using Matrix-style aerial Kung-fu techniques he’s learned from his secret concubine, Lucy Liu.

Now, you tell me, are you certain that scenario is fiction?

I'm sorry, I must be living in an alternate universe from people who answer pollsters. (permalink)

WHAT AMERICANS WANT TO HEAR:
Domestic issues such as health care and education are what many Americans want to hear about in the presidential campaign.

WHAT AMERICANS ARE GETTING FROM THE CAMPAIGNS:
56% of Americans think the presidential candidates are not talking enough about the issues that are most important. Americans who place domestic issues such as health care and education or jobs and the economy at the top of their list of concerns, 61%, are feeling particularly short-changed.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Ace of Spades: MoveOn to Sue Fox Over "Fair and Balanced" Motto

"Perhaps someone could sue MoveOn.org for not having, in fact, moved on?"

35 years after the deed, and still he walks free.

UPDATE: (Sorry Rick, you forgot something. - Chris)

"Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment."

RETROACTIVE ENTRY: (That is spooky, I actually intended to add those very words. Wooooo! -Rick)

Thanks to Greg at Begging To Differ" for bringing to our attention two stories illustrating an important conundrum. The challenge is balancing our civil liberties with our need for defense from terrorists. His work links to two stories of people performing normal activities, each case affected by the terror threat, each case a study in how hard it is to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny by homeland security.

This story seems like either, nothing, racial profiling, or maybe just a malcontent looking to embarass the authorities.

While, this story reveals how exposed to terror we are by our desire to not trample our citizen's rights. Safeguards, which one might think to be common sense, are not in place because the law forbids their practice. And, while they might save lives, in a larger sense employing them is near impossible, and dangerous to future liberty.

It is a puzzling enforcement problem. Maybe the solution lies outside of enforcement? Voluntary compliance? Passengers refusing to fly until they see that each other passenger is clean?

The anti-protest protesters made it to the national news (FOX news w/ Shepard Smith).

Update: Operation Liberty Rising

Link to video of the Fox report: I tip my hat to Michele Malkin

I strongly suggest this piece by Reuel Marc Gerecht as "Recommended Reading".

Following up an on idea that Steve introduced here some time back, comes news from Mexico that they are placing non-removable microchip traces inside of their important authorities.
It is little wonder that CNN.com places this in their "Offbeat" section. In this changing world, mad as it has gone, this is a solution to the kidnapping threat that actually has application. But lefties, like those at CNN, have no vision, and would, of course, think it an odd idea. It would be better placed in a section titled, great new innovations for our time.

The system is here and I already have it. It's solely for access, for safety and so that I can be located at any moment wherever I am,..... -Mexican Attorney General Rafael Macedo

hat tip- inprecatory prayer.

A lot of people are talking about the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Earlier tonight, Mara Liasson said on Fox News that it was her opinion the 48-50 loss in the Senate was actually a victory for the Republicans. In the game of electoral politics, it doesn't matter a whit how much you lose in the states you lose or by how much you win in the states you win. And I can't help but think that Average Joe is tipping the scales in a few states for George Bush tonight, as he watches Democrats and RINOs make fools of themselves saying that homoeroticism ought to be called "marriage".

Every Wednesday we ask our readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. We can't think of any better time to make this call this week thank in this post. If you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you, and work to tip the scales in the President's favor in your state.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. And don't forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

I spoke last week about my opposition to the concept of militantly supporting a "moderate" agenda without having an ideology underpinning your ideas. On occasion over the last ten days, I've regretted saying these people should support "anything", because, of course, I don't want anyone to pick just anything. I really want people to choose to endorse a worthwhile idea so even if I disagree there's the chance I can be persuaded they're right and we can then work toward that.

But our new friend "varun" actually brings up a good idea. If you want to choose to endorse a bad idea - especially a very bad one - feel free. The closer you come to endorsing the agenda of our enemy the easier it will be to just shoot you. The rest of us will find it much easier practicing democracy in your absence.

Well, now that Kweisi Mfume has "outed" us, maybe there's no point continuing the charade that was The Black Republican any longer. I'd apologize to everyone at the Conservative Brotherhood, but there's really no point, since we were just using all the subhumans as a diversion for our diabolical plans.

Duct tape! Someone order me more duct tape!

Where for the love of all that's Holy do these people dream up this hateful racist garbage?!

I suspect this article, just by virtue of who Jay Bryant selects for the honor of best VP ever, is one of those columms that will be read only by the proverbial choir. If you don't agree with his choice, you likely will not read what he has to say. And, that is too bad. For Mr. Bryant intersperses humor and observation between history. For instance:

All in all, there have been 46 Vice Presidents, and that's a real number, too, unlike the common delusion that there have been 43 Presidents, which is only true if you count Grover Cleveland twice. Nonetheless, the "Two Clevelands" counting system is part of the American myth, and I have given up trying to change it, especially now that it has become a common way of distinguishing between the two Presidents Bush. You know, Bush-41 and Bush-43, which should, of course, be Bush-40 and 42, but nobody seems to care. To make matters worse, President Bush-41 actually was Vice President Bush-43!

I strongly suggest this piece by Star Parker as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

The problem with getting information from electronic media is that when some fool on the television mocks a terrorist threat warning, you can't reach inside the picture tube and slap him.

Be alert, report anything that seems strange. We are all responsible for keeping America safe. Ignore those that want easy answers to this nightmare situation, or maybe just slap them once for me.

UPDATE: When the objective is protecting America from attack, it is not helpful when a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Rockefeller, is so two faced.

This opinion explains our situation.

If you want to bring down the USA, terrorism is the only way to do it. It is not that terrorists are our enemies, rather that from now on our enemies (whoever they are) are going to be terrorists.

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

The Curt Jester got hold of the cover letter the Church's chief theologian attached to his instructions to the American bishops regarding Catholic politicians and communion.

What? Okay, so maybe you only find it mildly amusing, but to us this is ROTFL.

Meanwhile, what's not funny is being taught how to be a good Catholic by... the Anglicans?

The Catholic bishops had an opportunity to take an important and courageous political position, but instead they adopted a position of pragmatic cowardice. If the Catholic understanding of abortion truly expresses the divine will, then any Catholic who actively supports a public policy that supports abortion must be counted as a traitor to the faith of Christ. The Catholic bishops should have come clean on this years ago. The chickens of catechesis-failure are coming home to roost, and now the Catholic bishops are confronted with the sad spectacle of Catholic politicians who publicly advocate public policies that the Catholic Church deems as intrinsically evil. And the bishops are unsure how to respond. One thing for sure. The problem ain't going to go away. What are they going to do a year from now when President Kerry shows up for Mass!

(hat tips to Catholic[?] Kerry Watch, here and here)

I'd also like to note here that you'll probably be seeing less of my Catholic ranting here - or at least I'll be cross-posting most of the Religion articles you see here from my new blog concentrating on Catholicism, Ex Parte Fide. The Religion category here will still concentrate on the intersection of faith and politics, while Ex Parte Fide will concentrate more on theology and apologetics - or at least my attempts to understand these subjects better along with the rest of my faith.

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

Blogs for Bush is all a-lather over a report in the Washington Post (of all places) pointing out that the infamous Joe Wilson was recommended for the assignment by his wife Valerie Plame. This is not exactly a new idea, but it contradicts what Wilson says in his own book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth.

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

Relapsed Catholic has some bad news for you.

The Catholic television network EWTN has a voter guide explaining the "Moral Duties Concerning Voting". It's an impressive statement of principle for pro-life voters, especially in this age when cardinals and candidates alike are telling Catholics they may have "proportionate reasons" to vote for a Democrat. (hat tip: Bettnet.com)

I can't help but wonder if the course of the nation could have changed in the 19th century, if twenty years before Lincoln the churches in America had been told they should vote against slavery with the same principles.

UPDATE: I just found several posts in our archives that I'd forgotten touch on the capital punishment angle. Note how much more hawkish EWTN seems to be on this issue, compared with Lopez and Dulles.

ANOTHER UPDATE: "Pro-choice agnostic" John Rosenberg makes a similar argument as I do regarding preantebellum morality. When people who would otherwise support you start showing the yellow caution flag over your political contortionism, you're in trouble. (Hat tip: Catholic[?] Kerry Watch)

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

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Doug Giles as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Paul Nowak as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by H. Josef Hebert as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Michelle Malkin as "Recommended Reading".

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

The President turned 58 today, coincidentally the same day the Republican Party Turns 150. May we cheer four more of these birthdays for the Commander-in-Chief, and many more for the Party of Honest Abe, the Rough Rider, and the Great Communicator. Happy Birthday!

Apparently, this actually happened.

While, this has not.

And, this (caution: adult content/humor) may have more truth in it than does this article it parodies.

John Kerry, a Catholic, a Senator with 19 years in office, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, and a Vietnam Veteran has recently stated the following:

"I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception, but I can't take my Catholic belief, article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist ... We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

"...I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country....I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.... They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

"I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership ... I've always fought for the soldiers."

I strongly suggest this piece by Joan Vennochi as "Recommended Reading".

John Kerry has chosen his running mate. Yawn.

It is being reported that Kerry found someone who will run with him, Sen. John Edwards; not Kerry's first choice Sen. John McCain. That gives the Democrats a ticket of big money at the top, with a trial laywer as second choice, er, second banana. So, that should scare the terrorists; be good or they will sue you!

I strongly suggest this piece by Matt d'Ancona as "Recommended Reading".

Michael Barone reminds us of the anniversary of an important milestone , A Very Civil Act .

It seems that there will be far less commemoration of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 40 years ago yesterday than there was of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education"

"Brown was much less effective in ending segregation than the Civil Rights Act."

And, because I can not pass up another opportunity to educate on this point, I present this fact.

"contrary to what is often assumed today, a higher proportion of Republicans than of Democrats supported the bill."

"Today we are told that racial prejudice is the motive force behind most voters' opposition to racial quotas and preferences. But in fact the advocates of the Civil Rights Act were against racial quotas and preferences or reverse discrimination. During the Senate debate, Hubert Humphrey said he would eat a copy of the bill if anyone could show him words in it justifying discrimination in favor of blacks. Of course he was right: The act bans discrimination by race and racial quotas, and preferences are, by definition, discrimination by race."

Supporting Barone and Humphrey is this, (quoted from the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

"SEC. 401. As used in this title--

(b) "Desegregation" means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but "desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance."

To read the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964 click here.

I found only two instances where preferential treatment for a group was allowed by this Act:

"Sec 702 (i) Nothing contained in this title shall apply to any business or enterprise on or near an Indian reservation with respect to any publicly announced employment practice of such business or enterprise under which a preferential treatment is given to any individual because he is an Indian living on or near a reservation. "

And

"SEC. 712. Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to repeal or modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating special rights or preference for veterans"

The first example, while a racial preference, is limited by its application within certain existant employment programs within a specific geography. The second rewards those that risked the most to preserve this nation and is applicable regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin. In context, both make sense.

There were many surprises in reading through this Act, one I found terribly interesting for these times is this:

"702 (f) As used in this title, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950."

Hmmmmm? It is lawful to refuse employment to subversives? This merits more research.

Photo by Russ Adams, © Arthur Ashe c/o CMG Worldwide

There was Arthur.

I was playing tennis with my kids this evening, when a group of kids came tromping through the public courts where we were playing. The kids in my neighborhood are notoriously ignorant of any sort of manners, and many times will go tromping through the court, using it as a thoroughfare regardless of whether someone's there or not. Tonight was no different, but where I usually get treated as though I'm not even there, this time one of the kids actually engaged me in what probably passes for conversation in his life.

"I'm the greatest tennis player in the world," he said to me as he passed behind me, seeing I just missed an easy point. "I'm, like, Serena or Venus, only a guy."

Looking at him dumbfounded, I said, "His name was Arthur Ashe."

"What? No, man.... My name is..." And he just kept right on walking by, talking to himself like he had an audience for his insanity.

For the next few minutes, I tried to play, but my shots kept going out past the other baseline - I was pounding them way too hard for some reason.

I sometimes wonder if it's really possible for the American Dream to survive the idiocy of our generation. If you can lend a hand from where you are today Arthur, our kids could really use your help. In fact, you might want to bring along Althea, Jackie and whomever else you can find up there.

I haven't looked around much to see what the blogosphere is cheering for Independence Day, but Mark Noonan does the right thing and posts the first two paragraphs of our founding document.

It's such a remarkable thing. As we discuss in the comments, that second paragraph was the first time anyone ever tried to define how treason is legal in the first person, and it remains the best definition of what a government is or ought to be, and how and why any government can be toppled by its own citizens for cause. Before this time, common people were always subjects of the government, not the masters of it.

It makes me recall the note Condi Rice passed to the President last Monday, informing him that Bremer had passed authority to the new Iraqi government. The President scribbled something in reply:

hat tip: Rambling's Journal

May freedom reign for us as well, for as long as Americans live and breathe on this Earth.

[EDIT: I was busy being Daddy on July 4th and didn't bother to spend much time at the computer. But it didn't seem right to allow the day to go unobserved without mention, so I've backdated this.]