The Black Republican

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Leo McKinsry as "Recommended Reading".

Again today, John Qerry has told Tim Russert that he will sign the SF 180 which will allow his military records to be open for all to see, he first told Russert he would sign the form on April 18, 2004, we are still waiting for his pen to move over the form.

Russert found it necessary to badger Qerry into answering with a yes or no to the question, "would you sign the 180?". After repeated attempts he finally got a meek "yes, I will" from the Senator. Qerry then immediately went on the attack against those who served with him, and who now question his credibility, by insisting that they too should sign the SF 180 to release their records for examination by all. (Dude, I don't remember them using their service as evidence of their competence to be Commander In Chief, the issue is your resume!) In other words, Qerry is saying to the Swiftboat veterans, if you question my service, I will slime you! Which, as we well know, is the standard operating procedure for libs, they never stand on their own record, they always attack those who are not convinced by their bullshit version of the facts!

Hey Senator, I'm not convinced. And, I doubt that you will ever keep your promise to sign SF 180, because I believe the release of those documents would prove once and for all, that you are a lying piece of trash whose military career was a dishonor to the services! Can I lend you a bandaid Senator?

Taken from the transcript of the April 18th, 2004 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The Boston Globe reports that your commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibberd has suggested that you perhaps didn't earn your first Purple Heart and question whether you should have left Vietnam after six months. In order to deal with those kinds of issues, when I asked President Bush about his service in the Texas Guard, he agreed to release all his military records, health records, everything. Would you agree to release all your military records? SEN. KERRY: I have. I've shown them--they're available to you to come and look at. I think that's a very unfair characterization by that person. I mean, politics is politics. The medical records show that I had shrapnel removed from my arm. We were in combat. We were in a very, very--probably one of the most frightening--if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam and we're...

MR. RUSSERT: But you'll make all your records public.

SEN. KERRY: They are. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them. I'm not going to--but I'll tell you this. I'm proud of my service....

Update: Full transcript of January 30, 2005 NBC News' Meet The Press.

Including Qerry on how he won the election, except for the total vote and the electoral college. And, why he did not spend all of the campaign's money. On Howard Dean. On abortion. On Scalia. The Iraqi elections. and so much more of his particular brand of humor.

The Power In Prayer?

Also:

New evidence suggests the Shroud of Turin is between 1300 and 3000 years old. 1988 carbon dating may be accurate, but irrelevant.

My Verizon cell phone has been acting strange these past two weeks. I began getting that display which tells me that I have mail, but when I would check my voice mail there would be nothing new there. When I received a display telling me, "Memory Full New Text Rejected", I went to their store for answers. It turns out that Verizon had been sending me text messages (a service I was only vaguely aware that my phone was now capable of) offering me mew deals on phones and service and after thirty (30) of these Spams accumlated my "Memory" was filled.

The Verizon tech gave me an 800 number and I have had them block all future Verizon spam. If you are having a similar problem you can call 1-800-922-0204 and have them block it on your phone.

I was also told, by another Verizon user, that they will count the minutes taken for me to receive those text messages against my usage, and Cass says I/you can have them take it off the bill as well. I have never been over my minutes, but you can bet I will check my next bill!

The nerve of these people advertising to me at my cost on my business phone! What are they thinking?

GENEROSITY

There is a saying that suggests, people get the government they deserve. Perhaps it has been with that maxim in mind that I have not had a warm feeling for the Iraqi people, until today. There was a brief period in the Eighties, when the Iraqi were fighting our Iranian foes, when I had good thoughts about them, but since, especially since the Gulf War, I have viewed the entire population as extensions of Saddam Hussein. And being associated with Saddam's image is not a good thing. The invasion of Kuwait, holding Scott Spicher, violations of the "No-Fly" zones which were established to keep Saddam's military from harming the Iraqis in the north and south, the shots fired at our patrol planes, violations of sanctions, the continued threatening posture toward the USA, and on, and on....

But, today I watched video of exile Iraqis voting for their new government, their faces filled with pride and joy. And, I saw reports from in country that the curfew is being respected, and the people are anxious to vote in spite of the murderous acts of a few animals, and I found myself suddenly very aware that Iraqis are not the beasts I had envisioned. They are going to become a part of the civilized world, they are going to form a government which represents the wishes of the citizenry, for the first time in the lives of many Iraqis it will be their country.

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

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200501/POL20050126c.shtml

CNSNews.com

The strangest escape ever?

If we take the word of ABC News, an organization which does not yet employ Dan Rather, then we are to believe that a leaker within the Cosby investigation has revealed the following:

A source close to the investigation told ABC News that Cosby's version of what happened between him and the woman and his accuser's story are similar in many ways. The dispute, the source told ABC News, is whether the contact between Cosby and the woman was consensual.

Of course, those are the facts surrounding the case, if we believe the word of someone who knowingly violated the trust placed in them by the investigators who are looking into the matter. It seems like a dubious source, but, perhaps ABC could whisper the name to Sandy Berger and have him vouch for the source? Perhaps not.

Based on what I surmise of Mr. Cosby's nature, a conclusion drawn from viewing his work product, and listening to his words; the notion that he is guilty of,

giving her a pill that rendered her semiconscious and fondling her

is absurd!

When I first heard of the charge, my immediate reaction was that someone is getting revenge for the common-sense he has been spreading. Mr. Cosby says that Blacks need to take a larger
role in their future, and everyone who has an interest in making Blacks believe they need big brother to help them out is suddenly mad! The users see that in the future, the gravy train will leave town if they can not continue to convince Blacks that Blacks are victims without the power to improve themselves on their own. If you need to discredit a truth-teller, slime him, right? Isn't that the way the game is played?

I think some liberal (read narrow left-wing conspiracy) decided that Mr. Cosby was getting too uppity, what with all his talk about personal responsibility leading to opportunity, and the havoc that would ensue for the liberal elites (read mass'ers) if the folk decided they no longer needed handlers was too great a price to pay; so they set him up by duping some poor girl into claiming something that never happened.

But, hey, I could be wrong. Afterall, I am just some guy sitting around in his pajamas with an internet connection. It isn't as though I am a credentialed journalist with decades of experience behind me. And, I don't have even a single un-named source to back up my contentions. So, who are you going to believe?

I strongly suggest this piece by Jonah Goldberg as "Recommended Reading".

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

The following senators voted against today's confirmation of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.
James Jeffords, I-Vt.
Jack Reed, D-R.I
Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Notice that only three senators from "red" states voted no, all of them bordering on Bluesville: Byrd of West Virginia, Harkin of Iowa (Gore by 0.32% in 2000), and - somewhat suprisingly - "moderate" Evan Bayh of Indiana. One can only assume this is Bayh's first vote as a 2008 presidential candidate, trying to appeal to Democrat primary voters.

I must be living in an alternate dimension or universe. What else could explain a world in which a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan can stand in the well of the United States Senate to advocate blocking the acceptance of a black woman nominee for Secretary of State and not one major national newspaper or television network questions the propriety of such an act? And why is it that this formerly hooded gentleman is not being lambasted by his Senate compatriots? Where is the hue and cry of racism?

HELLO! IS ANYONE OUT THERE???

This is a former Ku Klux Klan member... arguing against an eminently well qualified black woman!

ANYONE?

And don't tell me that he and his cohorts are simply objecting to her nomination because they believe she is unqualified! She has more personal and professional qualifications to hold the position for which she is nominated than do most of those that oppose her have for theirs.

It's not as if Senators are insensitive to these type issues. It was just a few years back that Senator Trent Lott made an abstract and offhand compliment about a Senate colleague who had once held segregationist beliefs and was drummed out of his political party's leadership - by the very members of that party. So why isn't that same thing happening this time?

Some will say that this former Ku Klux Klan member's actions, and the obvious inaction of his colleagues, cannot possibly be racially motivated because many of these same Senators approved the nomination of Colin Powell four years ago. And I'm sure if you ask them they'll tell you that some of their best friends... well, you know! Perhaps the formerly hooded gentleman is just misogynistic? But then if that's true, where are the complaints from the Feminists? No, I don't think the Klan Senator objects to a woman as Secretary of State either because he was a strong supporter of Madeleine Albright.

It seems evident that the Klan Senator is objecting much more to the nomination of Dr. Rice than he ever did to that of Colon Powell because to his eyes, and in true Klan fashion, Colon Powell is just so much "brighter" than Dr. Rice!

Update: It seems The Dark Truth agrees with me, although he is much more polite than I have been about it. (Stovepipe hat tip: Booker Rising) The Dark Truth also seems to agree that the Democrats may have made a conscious decision to risk some complaints about racism in order to keep their brand of liberalism alive. The thing is, if you find the need to perform CPR it's pretty much a certainty that something is desperately wrong with the patient.

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

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

The buzz-buzz-buzz going through Washington is the ever-present swarm of liberal consternation as the journalistic world tries to grasp (not for the first time), "Just who does George Bush think he is?"

As the saying goes, he's the "Leader of the FREE World" and he's trying to put some meaning back into that title.

No sooner had the President finished his second inaugural address than critics began to question his meaning - as if his plain-spoken style for the previous four years could provide no clue.

(The speech) has alarmed some critics, who say it suggests a major and potentially mistaken expansion of U.S. foreign policy goals or merely empty rhetoric. They have asked whether the speech's soaring language has any practical application as the president goes about the gritty work of day-to-day diplomacy, and, if it does not, what meaning does it have?

White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere....

White House officials argued that some observers have read more into the speech than is there. "The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced," said presidential speechwriter and policy adviser Michael J. Gerson. "We are dealing with a generational struggle. It's not the work of a year or two."

The speech Bush delivered Thursday at the Capitol appeared to set the United States on a new course in foreign policy, a pivot from the focus on terrorism, which has defined Bush's presidency since Sept. 11, 2001, to confronting tyranny as the enemy that threatens global security. In the 21-minute speech, Bush mentioned neither Iraq nor terrorism but defined what he called a generations-long struggle to encourage democracy to make America safe from terrorist attack....

Presidential advisers also said they were not trying to roll back the speech on the day after, pointing to language in the address that they said made it clear that the goal of ending tyranny would not be accomplished with cookie-cutter policies or unrealistic ambitions. For example, Bush declared that ending tyranny would not be accomplished primarily through armed conflict, and he made distinctions between dealing with outlaw states that actively support terrorism and those whose human rights records may be poor but that have shown a willingness to change. (my emphasis)

It's simple, people. Remember "The Bush Doctrine"? For three years we've recited it this way: "You're with us, or against us." The President has made it plain that the "us" does not stand for "U.S." but for democracy, for FREEDOM.

Nations of the world take note: You're either willing to entertain the notion that your countries should some day embrace the principles of democracy and freedom, or you're against the long-term goals of the United States of America and the other democratic institutions of the West.

I strongly suggest this piece by Kevin McCullough as "Recommended Reading".

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

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Stanley Crouch as "Recommended Reading".

As the President began his second innagural address today, I told Steve that I thought perhaps he might go so far to make a pledge similar to that made by John F. Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy promised, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

Almost six years and two presidents after his death, America made good on Jack Kennedy's promise, with just five months to spare.

I envisioned that George Bush would make the commitment, "We shall ensure to all the people of the earth the right to a democratic government by the end of this century."

He came close to making that very pledge the policy of the government.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world....

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

Noonan, however, thought the President and his speeachwriter were swinging too hard.

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

I strongly suggest this piece by Lance Frizzell as "Recommended Reading".

Emmett Tyrrell has an excellent piece at TownHall.com today, describing the absolute assault on the First Amendment by liberalism. Referring to the furor over Harvard President Lawrence Summers' contention that men and women are different, Tyrrell writes:

For years now there have been things that one simply cannot say in the presence of progressives. The possibility that men and women have different aptitudes is one of those things. There are others. This means, of course, that there are things progressives are unlikely to hear. When they do hear them they are astonished, and as Professor Hopkins demonstrates, physically convulsed.

Contrast this with our discussion yesterday, where liberals refuse to censor themselves regarding highly sensitive military and national security information. On the one hand, the liberal seeks to mute the voice of their opponents with restrictions on their liberty, and on the other he threatens to destroy the country that protects his freedoms through sedition, all the while claiming that he is the victim as he speaks for tyrants.

May God give us the wisdom and courage to defeat these vipers in our midst.

Master blogger Charles Johnson has stumbled across something quite interesting, in direct refutation of a lie peddled by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State designate Condoleezza Rice.

Despite public rhetoric to the contrary - rhetoric even die-hard pro-war conservatives like myself thought was regrettable fact - Congress never actually authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The act of Congress passed in 2002 which authorized the use of military force by the President in Iraq used phrases like "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will... employ those weapons... combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself."

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to... defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

It's utterly amazing how the Masters of Newspeak have perfected their Svengali-like craft. I've got to stop listening to the news and just read http://thomas.loc.gov for this crap.

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

To those critics who contend this slim black woman can't possibly wield the authority of speaking for the United States of America as her chief diplomat, especially while our reputation among world governments is in such disarray, Condi Rice has a response:

There is no doubt that Iraq is a country that has deep divisions and it is a country where Saddam Hussein exploited those divisions, for instance, with the policy of Arabization in Kirkuk.

And so they have a long and hard road ahead to effect national reconciliation.

But I've been, frankly, quite heartened by the fact that the Shia, whenever there's an attack against them by Zarqawi and his people or by the insurgents, don't take to the barricades. What they say is, this is going to be a unified Iraq, and we're not going to fall to sectarian violence.

So I think we need to give them a chance here. You know, the political process, as you well know and you all know better than I, is one of coming to terms with divisions, coming to terms with institutions that mitigate against people's sense of alienation. It takes time. It takes effort. Sometimes the compromises are a bit imperfect at first. But over time, it gets better.

You know, we've had our own history with this. I often say, and I don't mean it jokingly, that so far I have not seen the Iraqis, or for that matter, the Afghans, make a compromise as bad as the one in 1789 that declared my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man.

So we need to be patient with people as they make these moves to democracy, understand that it will be in small steps, that they will have ups and downs, that the whole process will have ups and downs.

But as long as they're on a strategic road that is getting them to a government that can actually represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people as a whole, I think they've got a chance.

Tony Blankley entitles his latest Washington Times article Espionage by any other name, but I happen to think the last line he writes would have made a more suitable title: Sleepwalking toward the abyss. This is a truly frightening story, and I agree with Mr. Blankley that federal prosecutors should indeed review the information disclosed by Mr. Hersh to determine whether or not his conduct rises to the level of criminal espionage.

Of course the left will no doubt cry that this is just another attempt by the vast right-wing media machine to scare enlightened and thoughtful writers into silent submission. I guarantee they will use terms like a chill wind, casting a shadow, and the ever popular stifling free speech to describe Tony Blankley's suggestions that federal prosecutors get involved. But that suggestion does not in any way infringe on a persons right to freely express their opinions at all, it merely make the observation that words mean things. Mr. Blankley is, in essence, telling Seymour Hersh (et al) that you can go into a crowded movie theater and scream "FIRE" as loud and as often as you would like - just so long as you are prepared to take the moral responsibility for any injuries that may occur from the stampede, and financial responsibility for defrauding those patrons of their right to watch a movie they paid to see.

What too many in this country fail to understand is that the term "free speech" means that you are free to say (write, sing, etc.) whatever your heart desires, but not free from the consequences those words create.

Leave it to Mark Steyn to say what I've been thinking since Britain began its inane "Prince Harry the Nazi" episode, apologizing all over itself in the process.

It's a good rule of thumb that, no matter how big an idiot someone is, he can never compete with the political class's response to his idiocy. Thus, whatever feelings of unease I might have had about Prince Hitler were swept away the moment the rent-a-quote humbugs started lining up to denounce him....

The French sports minister suggested the "scandal" would undermine Britain's bid to host the Olympics. Londoners should be so lucky.

But, if I understand the concern of the sporting world correctly, being a totalitarian state that's killed millions is no obstacle to hosting the Olympics, but going to a costume party wearing the uniform of a defunct totalitarian state that's no longer around to kill millions is completely unacceptable.

(W)orrying about a minor Royal schoolboy's alleged Nazi bent seems something of an indulgence at a time when the neo-Nazis get as many votes in Saxony's elections as Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democratic Party; when from Marseilles to Paris, Jews are being attacked and their homes, schools, kosher butchers, synagogues and cemeteries burnt and desecrated in a low-level intifada that's been going on so long the political establishment now accepts it as a normal feature of French life; and when the Berlin police advise Jews not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith. It's not just Nazi insignia you don't see in Germany these days; Nazi wise, the uniforms are the least of it.

But if Adolf Hitler were to return from wherever he is right now, what would he be most steamed about? That in some countries there are laws banning Nazi symbols and making Holocaust denial a crime? No, that wouldn't bother him: that would testify to the force and endurance of his ideas - that 60 years on they're still so potent the state has to suppress them.

What would bug him the most is that on Broadway and in the West End Mel Brooks is peddling Nazi shtick in The Producers and audiences are howling with laughter. I don't know what kick Prince Harry gets out of his Nazi gear, but once long ago I was obliged for an historical scene to wear an SS uniform and I've never felt so screamingly camp as when mincing around doing that little flip-of-the-wrist mini-Heil thing.

One reason why the English-speaking democracies were just about the only advanced nations not to fall for Nazism or Fascism is that they simply found it too ridiculous.... That's why British party stores stock Nazi outfits - because they're a joke, and we made them one. So when prissy Krauts want to ban Prince Harry's party gear they should go suck an old bratwurst.

Comedy is always the art of poking fun at someone. It can be used with grace, as a way of saying, "Humanity is funny, because we all make mistakes." But it's also a defensive mechanism, reminding the bully that we can laugh at him too. And no bully ever deserved derisive laughter more than the monsters of the Third Reich.

After reading Steyn, one wonders exactly who William was supposed to be laughing at in his lion outfit. Perhaps Harry didn't have such a bad idea after all.

What is your Lincoln number?

To explain the premise of a "Lincoln number", I refer you to this Colby Cosh article. I am reminded of Six Degrees of Separation. Which concludes that we are societally interconnected more closely than one might imagine.

My Lincoln number may be as high as four! I am related to John Hay through my maternal grandmother. And, while I don't believe she ever did, she almost certaintly touched someone in the family who did touch Lincoln's secretary. So, I can say that I touched someone, who touched someone, who touched a man who touched Lincoln.

And would you believe it, I still have to pay for coffee?

And a history lesson: Here is some background on a city founded by a freed slave before the Civil War, New Philadelphia, has long since disappeared from the maps but remains the first town legally founded by a black man.

From WAFB-TV down on the bayou.

A Baton Rouge judge has switched political parties to become Louisiana's first black Republican public official. East Baton Rouge parish family court Judge Luke A. Lavergne announced his intentions to switch today on the steps of the State Capitol.

Lavergne says he is dissatisfied with what he calls the leftward trend of the Democratic Party on certain issues. He says the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln and his ancestors, reflects the attitudes he holds dear: family values, lower taxes, and the American spirit. He says the Democratic Party has abandoned these issues.

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

Come get some "moral motivations" over at The Washington Times:

Go back and read that Wall Street Journal quotation again. Mr. Bush gets a lot of grief for his supposed self-certainty (often attributed, usually disparagingly, to his religious beliefs). Yet what you see here, on the contrary, is a man who sees a "philosophical argument," which is to say, a contest with at least two sides. His presidency is "stimulating a debate" over the spread of democracy by trying to spread it. He is aware that there are those who say "Bush is wrong." He doesn't in turn say they are wrong. He says, "I assume I'm right" - which is to say, he will act in accordance with the conviction "that the philosophical argument of the age" will be resolved in favor of the spread of democracy.

Or perhaps... both.

...imitate Peter Gibbons:

For months, the passions had been running awfully high. A lot of Democrats seemed settled on the belief that Bush supporters were stupid and selfish and sanctimonious, when they weren't downright religious fanatics and bigots.

I strongly suggest this piece by Stanley Crouch as "Recommended Reading".

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

When the Martin Luther King holiday was first proposed, I opposed its establishment. I'd love to say my opposition was based on completely rational reasons, but in all honesty I was somewhat more prejudiced when I was a teenager. But the gripe I used to convince myself that the holiday was illegitimate was this: why shouldn't a great man of America's history like Frederick Douglass have a day honoring him, and a holiday established instead in favor of a more recent gentleman of questionable morals? Time, I believed, would rate King less of a hero in the American pantheon than others, and we shouldn't rush to canonize him before history bore that judgement.

Each year on this holiday, I grow further and further from that opinion. Not that I don't still feel Frederick Douglass deserves his due, but as King's era grows more distant, we see more clearly his effect on American history and the national character. Paradoxically, the stain on his own character is as ripe for legend as the Sally Hemming story is for Jefferson, with less and less effect on his memory as time passes. These stains remind us that our heroes were human, and our own humanity need not bar us from heroism in our time. In the field even now, our armies are filled with Americans proving their heroism and their right to be free. As Douglass once explained:

Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pockets, and there is no power on earth which can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship in the United States.

But King was a man of peace, and in some ways that required him to fight an even more hazardous battle, and that required a leader of special talents. An eloquent statement of the nature of this character - and America's - in relation to the King holiday comes today from Roya Hakakian, an Iranian refugee who began to lose her distrust of The Great Satan by listening to King's speeches.

Today, in the distant corners where terror is raging, many teenagers hold views on America similar to those I once held. The enemy has an arsenal, but also a narrative. According to that narrative, the world's superpower represents only one race, and its history is a single tale of intolerance, arrogance, and domination. The war against this enemy is impossible to win without defeating that narrative. To tell American history in its entirety is to disprove the fabrications about who an American is. To tell the story of the Civil Rights Movement is to tell the story of how arrogance was made to give way to justice by none other than a man who advocated peace. Against the grim and infallible image that is painted of America, this will be a truer portrait: colorful and human.

This sounds like a just decision. If the woman does not qualify under the law for the post, case closed. Or is it? Will the Legislature challenge the courts right to overturn their decision to seat the lady? So, why is this good news? Because, putting the spitting contest between the judicial and legislative branches aside; the court decided the case on an exact point of law, their decision appears to be void of any judicial activism.

To see another case the courts got right, look at this, the court says there can be prayer at the President's inauguration. Every time Newdow shows up I inadvertently remind myself of the title of a favorite book of mine: Will You Please Be Quiet, Please?. I remind myself of this Raymond Carver book by shouting the title at the TV or radio which, to borrow Newdow's logic, is forcing me to hear about something which I do not believe in, i.e., the attempted destruction of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Now, once again, Newdow's baseless attempt to suppress the free expression of religion is refuted. Newdow puts too fine a point on the phrase, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,...", choosing to see any religious expression by an elected official as the attempt at the establishment of a national religion. This is patently absurd, and a prohibition from such expression would violate the next phrase in that Amendment, "or prohibiting the free expression thereof..." Newdow is a hard case; his attitude the antithesis of diversity, the opposite of tolerance. He doesn't see the world in color, nor even shades of gray, nay even black and white; his world is black only, absent of all light. Perhaps one day, when his age racked body faces mortality, he will soften and accept that there are many other possibilities in this world. Perhaps there is hope for Michael Newdow to one day acknowledge that the world is infinite, it happened to Carver as cancer was ending his life.

Raymond Carver proved that literature has room for second acts, and in his second life, the life of "pure gravy," he came full circle. He returned to the Pacific Northwest, to poetry, and to Chekhov. He moved beyond Hopelessville toward a small, good thing that he knew to be lasting. "I'm just bearing witness to something I know something about," he said. "In a way, I've come back to testify." In his last months, Carver spoke of "blessing," "grace," and "mystery." But asked whether he was a religious man, he answered with inborn equivocation. "No," he said, "but I have to believe in miracles and the possibility of resurrection."

Graner is convicted, justice prevails in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Did you hear about the deficit going down?

Addendum:
One of our readers is unable to grasp the definition of decreasing deficits, so I have added the following quote to help those, like Peter, who are so blinded by their bias that they can not reason.

"In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks." -Larry Kudlow

Additional news sources on the declining deficit, courtesy of Chris' research: here, here, and here.

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Tony Mauro as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Stanley Crouch as "Recommended Reading".

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

The Wall Street Journal today poses an Ideal in the Washington gubernatorial election. As much of a capitalist as I am, I'm not buying.

Still, we have our doubts about the wisdom of a court challenge and a revote, especially if no fraud can be proven.

Consider, first, the problem of moral hazard. There are dozens of extremely close elections in the U.S. at every level of government, elections in which--like this one--the "real" outcome can never be known. What should determine which of these merits a revote? The judgment of a court? An opinion poll? Either of these is a recipe not for more perfect democracy, but for the destruction of democracy.

Then too, there is that democratic virtue known as losing gracefully: that Ms. Gregoire failed to show it at the first and second ballots does not mean Mr. Rossi should fail to show it on the third.

Finally, there is the straightforward matter of political calculation. According to political reporter David Postman of the Seattle Times, "Gregoire said that she felt a lot of pressure from Democrats around the country, who were sort of sending her a message that somebody needs to stay and fight: 'You need to stay and fight. There'll be a price to pay if you don't.'"

I'd been having a hard time grasping the significance of the Pay for Punditry scandal involving Armstrong Williams. Sure, it's clearly wrong and shouldn't have happened. I expected better from Williams, and I expect a Republican administration to do more to curb fraud and abuse at a cabinet department we once tried to scuttle. But how wrong can it be compared with the many wrongs perpetrated in Washington D.C. - many of which are not only legal but conducted by a willing Congress?

First off, I wasn't aware that Williams was paid specifically because the department was trying to woo minorities to No Child Left Behind. Michelle Malkin has the rest of the answer.

Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that "women of color" in public and political life adopt their left-wing political orthodoxy. When we don't accept such tripe, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched.

This is indeed atrocious, and a terrible setback for the already-feeble Republican gestures of outreach. Michelle has more on her own site.

Oh, and Michelle, the "On The Payroll" thing is just a joke, meaning you're a professional journalist or commentator, and not a hack like the rest of us.

I strongly suggest this piece by Terence Jeffrey as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Henry Cisneros as "Recommended Reading".

In two short paragraphs Jim Pinkerton not only identifies the greatest Pajamahadeen victory to date, but also reminds us that we cannot rest on our laurels:

This turn of events marks a historic shift in media power relationships. A bunch of bloggers, working mostly at home - the so-called pajama gang [That's Pajamahadeen Jim. Get it right!] - actually nailed the "Tiffany Network." Now, everyone in the journalistic establishment, including this writer, is on notice: The people are not only paying attention, but also providing powerful feedback, whether we like it or not.

But some questions for CBS remain: First, why does Dan Rather still have a job? Yes, he has announced that he will step down from "CBS Evening News" effective March 9, but he will stay on at "60 Minutes" - and it was on "60 Minutes" that he misreported the memo story.

As for the rest of the MSM... We really don't need to vanquish all the giants out there, just transform them, and Mr. Pinkerton's observations have shown us that the first step in that transformation has begun.

Happily, CBS will not get the last word. Those days are over, thanks to blogs. It's not that the blogs are always right, but that the media market is now enlarged by their active, interactive presence. More participation, and more scrutiny, is healthy - not only for news, but also for democracy.

BTW - The geek in me just loves it when I can combine current event and Star Trek! I toyed with the idea of writing that bloggers are a "force" to be reckoned with, but mixing Star Trek and Star Wars metaphors is a real geek no-no.

The Black Republican would like to offer a warm welcome to Betsy West, Josh Howard, Mary Murphy, and Mary Mapes, all of whom should be starting blogs soon. Some may call this speculation, but my inside sources say that due to a recent turn of events, they will all soon be spending a lot of their time in their pajamas.

I strongly suggest this piece by Matt Towery as "Recommended Reading".

At 8:30pm it was well past sundown, and the intersection was not extremely well lit. When he aproached my passenger side windshield my first thought was to check the light; it was still red. I looked back to see what he was doing, his lips were moving, no sound, and he half-gestured in a way that suggested meaning but was void of intelligible reference. In an instant I had decided I wanted no part of this man, darkly dressed, T shirt and jeans, gold chains, a baseball cap facing forward , rail thin but muscled, gaunt face; I sensed the potential for malice. He had appeared from behind my car, was off the curb, his reach could touch my car; I glanced a check to the door lock on that side. I had long since stopped trying to understand him, I kept shaking my head "no". Now behind him was another man, similar appearance, this one stayed on the sidewalk, peering over the first's shoulder he could see my "no". I had given the only answer I would give, it was time to dismiss them, I turned to look straight ahead. I kept them in my peripheral view, the first one moved away from the car. I locked the driver's door.

I don't know that I was in any danger, but I knew I didn't like his, then their, looks, and, not being able to hear him through the windshield was a red flag; no way in hell was I going to roll down the window. Or show fear, I remained stoic, decisive, and I wanted them to know that I felt in control of the situation.

Now they moved past my front bumper to the driver's side window of the car in the left turn lane. They approached together and were standing at the window when, as chance would have it, a Deputy turned the corner. His lights went on immediately, now his window comes down, I roll my window down to hear. "What do you think you're doing!" he commands more than questions. He pulls off to the side and climbs out, "I want to see some ID right now!" They both have moved to the far curb and look like they want to be anywhere but there at that moment. I have a green light, and after briefly considering letting the Deputy know they had approached me too, I moved on confident that he had enough in what he had seen to get to the bottom of it all.

Yes, I profile. Yes, that policeman profiled. Profiling is also known as using good judgement, or as recognizing who is not acting right, and taking appropriate action.

"In this world justice prevails."

I offer this story, and this site, knowing that there is absolutely no chance that anyone will be interested.

Right Chris?

The slander and label-mongering is coming home to roost.

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a liberal Democrat and law professor who is black, said Reid's erroneous attack on Thomas appeared to be motivated by racism. "It is the black justice who cannot write opinions, articulate independent thoughts or perform his job well," she said, writing in the Chicago Tribune. "The exact same comments were made about the late Justice Thurgood Marshall."

Democrats are willing to permit President Bush to replace Rehnquist with another white male conservative, but not with a conservative who is non-white....

Democrats maintain their hammerlock on black votes by accusing Republicans of racism. Whenever a Republican president appoints obviously qualified blacks to high public office, this smear seems less credible. And Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and - yes - Clarence Thomas prove that a black can get ahead without chopping cotton on the liberal plantation.

Janice Rogers Brown is Condoleezza Rice with a law degree. She is a bright, articulate, black woman who accomplished much despite growing up in the segregated South. No one can call her unqualified on the basis of her resume.

Like all of us who aren't perfect on this issue, for many Democrats it's subtle, and almost unfair to tag them with the label. But the rest of America has been living timidly for too long, fearing that standing up for a color-blind America will get you branded "racist" by the party that has the power to designate racism by proclamation because they kow-tow to minorities.

In the world created by that party, people who don't put all minorities first and who don't repeatedly apologize for every politically incorrect remark are racist. Isn't that itself racism?

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

On tonight's broadcast of the Hardball with Chris Matthews show, Al Franken, the one-time funnyman turned anarchist, related that during a USO tour to Iraq a US serviceman confessed to him that he/she would shoot Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld if given the chance. Franken was obviously gleeful as he told this story, and never mentioned that he took any action to report the murderous intentions of the soldier. One does not need think for long to call to mind former servicemen who have gone on to murder after their military service ended; Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, and John Allen Muhammad are examples of murderers who changed history and may have been stopped beforehand if someone had taken note of their abherent attitudes and responded seriously.

Mr. Franken, who is not a serious man, has taken this death threat lightly, (he was using it as evidence that he is better liked by some troops than is the President), and should be considered a co-conspirator in a murder plot against a sitting Secretary of Defense during a time of war until, he delivers the name of the soldier who made the threat. If it turns out the incident did not happen, and there is no soldier who made such a statement to Franken, then Franken should be prosecuted for making such a threat himself; as it would then be obvious that the invention of the fictious soldier was in fact a projection of Franken's own intent.

Either way, Franken should be in FBI custody at this very moment and he should be interogated as viciferously as is legally possible until the truth is fully known.

Additionally: It is illustrious of Chris Matthews' limited abilities as an interviewer of conscience that he did not immediatley call upon Mr. Franken to explain the actions he (Franken) took to report the conversation. Matthews, were he a serious man, would have recognized the danger in the story and would have demanded to know who made the threat, and to know that it was being properly dealt with by the authorities. However, Mr. Matthews is not a serious man, and he dropped the ball on this one. But that is nothing new for Matthews.

I strongly suggest this piece by Mona Charen as "Recommended Reading".

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man and an insightful columnist, but he's not exactly known for being a firebrand. He doesn't come from the Ann Coulter School of Commentary. And I was just complimenting him yesterday for telling it like it is - with guns blazing - so when I checked OpinionJournal.com this morning, I was more than surprised to find another bristling column where he completely dismantles a stalwart of the American Left.

Whatever the short-term solution to the problems created by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a longer-term solution must put a stop to the practice of publicly savaging nominees to the courts. Vote against them if you don't like them, but do not make this a snake pit that high-quality people, who have many other options, will avoid.

Within living memory, judicial nominees did not even appear in person before the Senate for confirmation. A system that produced giants like Oliver Wendell Holmes is surely better than one which has produced pygmies like David Souter.

As they say, read the whole thing. It's actually a quite wide-ranging discussion of options for President Bush's second term agenda.

I strongly suggest this piece by Dr. Walter E. Williams as "Recommended Reading".

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

It started out innocently enough. Thomas Sowell, regarded by more than a few as The Smartest Man in America, wanted to set the record straight when it came to the (pardon the pun, but it's his) wave of criticism we've received regarding tsunami relief.

The catastrophic tsunami wave that has devastated so much of southern Asia has even killed more than a hundred people on the east coast of Africa, more than 4,000 miles away. Two questions: First, what country has done the most to help the victims of this natural disaster? Second, what country has been criticized most for not doing enough?

The answer to both questions is the United States of America.

No consistent principle is involved in these criticisms, just attitudes. These include not only the attitudes of those foreigners envious or resentful of American success and power, but also the attitudes of those among the American intelligentsia who automatically echo foreign criticisms of the United States.

Incidentally, in all of Mr. Kristof's waxing indignant about the ravages of malaria, there is not one word about the banning of DDT, which has led immediately to a resurgence of malaria that has taken lives by the millions, as a result of propaganda campaigns against DDT by environmental busybodies.

Apparently it is not the principle of saving lives lost to malaria that is crucial, but the opportunity to score points against the United States. Green extremists get a pass. So do bungling and corrupt foreigners, including the United Nations.

Good news: Comment spam blocking and moderation is working great. We're getting a few here and there that I have to delete from the Moderation Pending list, but not enough to really bother me, and all while keeping comments unrestricted (though moderated for unregistered users).

Bad news: Today we got slammed by trackback spam, and since nothing I'd installed yet works against that, there was nothing I could do to stop it short of disabling the trackback script.

In my never-ending attempt to walk the fine line between locking down the site with a deadbolt and quitting my job so I have time to delete hundreds of comments and pings daily from pornographic losers and poker fiends, I've upgraded the site yet again. I've gotten the most recent version of the blacklist software I'd had to uninstall when we upgraded to MovableType 3.0 (this version no longer conflicts with TypeKey), and added a couple of other enhancements that will allow me a little more flexibility even while putting up more barriers between us and the nonsense.

If you're a legitimate guest to the site and have any problems posting a comment or leaving a Trackback from your own blog, please let me know and I'll try to make changes that will give you proper access - or at least advise you what you'll need to do to be recognized as legit.

Sorry for any trouble, and (hopefully) enjoy the porno-free version of TBR.

I'm glad to see more prominent nationally syndicated columnists, like Linda Chavez and James Taranto, coming closer to stating what we here at The Black Republican have been saying for some time... that the real racists and segregationists reside not on the ideological right, but on the left. And not on the radical far left either, but right down the so-called "mainstream" center of the party! Linda Chavez hits the points I have been most passionate about expressing:

It irks some Democrats that a Republican president keeps naming blacks and Hispanics to such unprecedented, high-level posts. Liberals believe they own the franchise on minorities and can't stand any Hispanic or black who breaks rank.

...the North’s first major victory of the Civil War, opening the way into the very heart of the Confederacy.

I don't know who it was, but someone deserves a medal for knocking some common sense into House Republicans.

The new Congress convenes with House Republicans, leery of a bruising floor fight, stepping back from plans to significantly relax ethics rules that ensnared Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

GOP leaders stressed that they didn't want the ethics issue to sidetrack their greater goals for this session of Congress, such as overhauling the Social Security system.

"It would have been the right thing to do, but it was becoming a distraction," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., referring to a relaxation in ethics rules including one that would have allowed party heads to retain their posts even if indicted.

That's the only way to describe this pair of columns in The New York Times and The Nation. The audacity of liberals sends them to new heights of absurdity the further they get from the mainstream. Every time I say they've gone about as far off the deep end as possible, the find a new depth somewhere. It's just incredible.

Fans of the dynamic duo take note that Cox & Forkum are running a Tsunami-Relief Art Auction at their site. Without your click-generated blog-money, I haven't any hope of participating in the bidding, but I encourage everyone to make a donation great or small to C&F's preferred charity DRI, my preference of Catholic Relief Services, or the American Red Cross or elsewhere to help out those devastated by a kind of natural disaster most people weren't even aware existed two weeks ago. With the threat of disease and malnutrition affecting everyone who wasn't killed outright, the death toll is almost unimaginable, so please help.

My compatriot in blogging, Ace of Spades, likes to use as one of his running gags how he's "got to get me a piece of that crazy blog-money!". Well, thanks to the suggestion of another geek who shall remain nerdless, I've taken the plunge myself into tracking down the elusive blog-money prey. After numerous tweaks and fudges, our new Google AdSense block appears above the Recommended Reading section to the right on the main page.

If you're so inclined, let me know how it looks, and what your general impressions are of the ads. Not that I'd be willing to rip it down all of a sudden if I got just a few complaints, but I'd at least like to know if a large number of people found it terribly distracting and/or annoying. I tried to insert it into the code in a prominent place, but with customized colors to match the rest of the site so it