The Black Republican

I have no particular interest in the autopsy results, as I told a friend who suggested that it is time for the results to made known: we could have learned much more about Terri's condition if they had performed all of the new tests while she was alive. An autopsy will no more tell us about Terri's ability to comprehend the world than we can tell the color of a dinosaur by examining its fossilized remains. In both cases we are left to make a best guess. I can do without knowing the hue of an ancient lizard. But, I will always regret that they did not fully determine the level of Terri's ability to recognize and connect to this world. One need not have the intellect of Stephen Hawking to be incapacitated, but alive. We all function at differing levels. If, as her family believes, she was aware that she was being starved to death, then all the other arguments make no matter; the wrong thing was done.

My friend, who resisted my notion that support for Terri was not motivated by religion, (he is a former Catholic, who now is suspicious of everything Catholic and sees Catholic conspiracies in all things;but, then, having an Uncle who is a convicted pedophile Preist is a burden to which I can not relate and obviously a great motivator of his thinking), wants me to believe that even against the wishes of the Church, GWB, the Congrees, and the Supreme Court, it had to happen the way it did for Terri. Because, (1) her brain was a bag of liquid, (2) her family was unfairly critical of Michael Schiavo, (3) Terri had made it known that she did not want to live that way, (4) if we did not starve her we could not justify starving the other 2000 brain dead people who we let die that way each year, (5) if we have to keep all the brain dead people alive it will cost too much State money, (6) the Supreme Court decided she should die, (7) the Congress' action allowing a Federal court to review the case was unconstitutional, (8a) the Federal court and Supreme court decided to not hear her review because they knew the law was unconstitutional, (8b)the Supreme Court justices were watching the case and would have stepped in if there were any grounds not to kill Terri, (9) refusing her food and water by mouth after the feeding tube was removed was perfectly alright because she should only get food and water if she can feed herself or at least ask another to feed her, (10) he says he heard terrible lies from both sides and he thinks Michael could have handled it better, (11) my friend thinks he is going to get a living will in place soon so he can know he will never have to live as a vegetable..............

Ignorance.

I calmly and directly countered his every point, (or if he was close to being right I reinforced his statement to increase its meaning); he was the one who left mad, saying as he went that he had other things to spend his time on. He isn't a bad guy, just terribly ignorant on this issue. And, he is an example of a person too busy to get the facts straight. And, too shallow (a term of endearment descibing a reforming liberal still too caught up in his Massachusetts education indoctrination) to know the harm his carelessness does.

All of this has been a prelude to the introduction of an article about an Englishman who executed a living will directing that he not be starved to death. I told my friend to be precise in his living will, seems even then you can not be assured of getting your way.

Leslie Burke .... has asked that his right not to be starved or dehydrated to death be upheld by the doctors who treat him.

The Department of Health, along with the British Medical Association, opposes that right and is adamant that it will not guarantee to respect it unless it is forced to do so by the courts.

I found the above article at Les Jones who remarks correctly;

But as with Terri Schiavo - who was brain damaged but not brain dead - the British health care system wants to cease care before brain death occurs. They want to withdraw Burke's feeding tube when he becomes unable to feed himself and becomes uncommunicative, even if he's fully aware he's being slowly starved to death. Schiavo took more than two weeks to die after her feeding tube was removed. We don't kill criminals or dogs that way - only innocent people.

A point, which I am proud to say, I managed to make to my friend. I hope he has time to remember that lesson. And the depth to appreciate the ramifications to humanity if we continue down the euthanasis express. Though I am not sure that he is aware there is any danger there. But, please, do not take his lack of connection to the real world, or his expressed desire to not live as a vegetable, as an excuse to deny him food and water; I still believe there is a chance for intelligence to sprout, when his past is exorcised.

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

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

It seems I may have previously mentioned my disgust [!] [!] [!] [!] with John Kerry's failure to keep his word with regard to allowing us access to his military records?

Now it seems he claims to have signed the SF 180, which is required on his part by rule, allowing the citizens of the USA to see his military records. Technically, he may have, thereby, kept his promise, made to us during his apppearance on Meet The Press, to sign the Standard Form 180. One problem, signing the form does not release the information, unless he then sends the signed form to the proper authorities.

Clever Senator, you weakly fulfill the terms of the agreement, (signing the SF 180), while scandulously keeping your records secret. You must have a lot to hide John Kerry.

A worthy effort yields results. Bus stop moved away from home of sex offender.

Raymond has not approached any of the neighborhood children since his move to the area in March. But, the mother of two said, she's not taking any chances

Bravo for this lady. The neighborhood school bus stop was on a corner where a sex offender lived, she got the bus stop moved to another site. Great work, and she is willing to council others who find themselves in similar circumstances, great charity.

"I'm really excited," she said. "I didn't just do it for my kids, or the neighborhood — I did it for all of Collier County, and I'm willing to help others through it too."

As I've said before, know if you have a sex offender in the neighborhood. And, let me add to that advice, this advice; if you have one around, do whatever your instincts tell you is needed to protect your children from these predators! Take no chances, take no prisoners! And, certainly, don't be afraid of offending the sicko; your children are more important than is preserving a predator's pride.

There is well-worn maxim which acknowledges that, if asked, all prisoners say they are innnocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. Criminals, afterall, are not the most credible among us.

It seems there is a parrallel when it comes to how the detainees at Guantanamo descibe their treatment; they say that the guards are abusive. What a revelation? Prisoners claim they are being mistreated, and they are innocent too. Right (heavy sarcasm).

It may be that the Newsweeak story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet is a case of a captive blaming the guard for an action of the captive.

Pentagon officials have said recently that the public claims by released detainees were not credible and that the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay had been trained to make such false claims.

Indeed, the FBI records cite at least one instance in which a detainee is said to have falsely claimed that a guard had dropped a Quran. "In actuality the detainee dropped the Quran and then blamed the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim," the FBI document said, and that sparked an uprising "on or about 19-20 July 2002."

How big should that headline be in your local newspaper? Very big, indeed.

My Book, My Toilet, My Feelings

John McCain has disappointed me for the last time. He shall henceforth be known as John McChamberlain, AKA John The Appeaser.

I strongly suggest this piece by Los Angeles Times Editorial Page as "Recommended Reading".

Main Entry: Senate Republican
Part of Speech: noun
Pronunciation Key: sen�ate re�pub�li�can (snt) (r-pbl-kn)
Definition: Senate Republican: A member of the upper house of the United States Congress belonging to the Republican Party of the United States.
Synonyms: Cowards, big babies, caitiffs, chickens, craven, curs, dastards, deserters, faint-hearts, fraidy cats, funks, gutless, gutless wonders, invertebrates, jellyfish, malingerers, milksops, milquetoasts, mollycoddles, mice, poltroons, punks, quitters, rabbits, recreants, scaredy-cats, shirkers, sissies, skulkers, sneaks, turkeys, weak sisters, weaklings, yellowbellies, amoeba, emasculates, faint-hearts, forceless, frightened, impotent, inadequate, ineffective, ineffectual, invertebrate, irresolute, lily-livered, nerveless, pithless, soft, spiritless, squeamish, submissive, timid, vacillating, weak, weak-kneed, weak-willed, yellow, failures, also-rans, deadbeats, defeated, disadvantaged, duds, failures, fall guys, flops, flunkies, lemons, turkeys, underdogs, washouts, deceivers, dishonest, double, double-dealers, duplicity, falseness, giveaway, Judas kiss, perfidy, sellout, treachery, treason, trickery, unfaithfulness.

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Keith Thompson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Lino A. Graglia as "Recommended Reading".

As the debate on stem cell research goes forward, remember that there are three types of stem cells acquired for research.

(1) Adult Stem Cells
(2) Umbilical Cord Stem Cells
(3) Embryonic Stem Cells

Thus far, only research using the first two types have yielded results. The third type, the cells from living embryos, are the controversial ones. Some people believe these cells to be the equivalent of a human being, other people don't care if anyone is offended by the destruction of these life forms. So, when you hear someone talking of stem cells, make sure that you are given an account of which type is being discussed. If you hear a report which does not differentiate between the types; you are not getting the whole story.

A group of "moderate" Senators from both sides of the isle have reached a "deal" on judicial nominations. After I read this from Michelle Malkin and the following from Kos (no link to the "Screw 'em" pig, look for it at RealClearPolitics if you must), I was infuriated and completely despondent:

There'll be more outrage from their side, since quite frankly, they lost. Obviously we didn't get everything we wanted, but they lost the ability to have carte blanche on the next supreme court justice.

Then I calmed down.

Then I calmed some more.

Then I read Ace and his commenters, who riled me up again. Then I calmed down again.

I think I've come to a realization:

If we want to be in the majority, we need to put up with all the psychopathic loons like John McCain for a while, until we've gone through a long, slow purge of the liberalism in our society. It's like draining the puss from an infected wound, you've got to squeeze it and irrigate it, and peel out some of the living tissue to get it cleaned, until there's nothing left but the bare, raw, healthy flesh.

We'll slowly get what we want, but it hurts like hell. It feels like we're only making things worse, but we're making baby steps of progress, while the other side thinks they're still winning. It's like seemingly consenting to rape, but while the beast is occupied with his pants around his ankles, you're really pulling out a knife.

By the end of the week, we'll have three more conservatives on the Appeals bench, including the SCOTUS-worthy Janice Brown. Meanwhile, we'll have confirmed the names of the seven weakest pansies in the Republican Party, whom we can target mercilessly (eight, if you count the useless dope of a Majority Leader, who can't even keep a flagpole standing straight up), and the names of the seven most scared Democrats in their ever-dwindling circle of naysayers.

Don't look at this as a defeat, my brothers and sisters - look at it as the next opportunity in the Karl Rove Rope-a-Dope Follies. Wait for the rebound, after we've confirmed these three.

Isn't the Democratic Party which intends to filibuster the President's judicial nominees the same Party which made such a ruckus about how every vote should count just last November?

If you've had trouble reaching the site in the last 24 hours, we had a slight glitch when our account was moved to a new server at the host company without us being informed. If you're reading this, you're probably past it by now, but FYI you may see strange things from us until the new IP for the domain is propagated around the 'net. Thanks for your patience.

The current flap over the ilegally attained photos of Saddam Hussein caused me to recall the photos of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and others taken hostage and killed by terrorists. I did a Google search and came up with this page of images. There are pictures of Mr. Pearl and Mr. Berg (and others) both as hostages and dead.

Today there is a concern about photos of a prisoner whose dictatorial rule was brutal, and all I can think of are the gruesome photos of the slain innocents. I considered posting about the comparison between the two types of photos; and considered presenting the photo of Pearl in death, opposite a square containing the words, "Any photo of Saddam in captivity". (I did not want to provide another forum for a Saddam picture which should never have been shown.) But there is no point there. The photos of Saddam should have never been public, and I hope they catch and punish those who made it happen. And, I quickly learned that I could not stomach the pictures of Mr. Pearl. That one photo made me think of the other fooled me into examining if there was a nexus worth mentioning.

But, alas, after a few tries, the subject was boring me and I decided to let it go. Then, as I was ready to close the Google page, I noticed an advertisement on the right side of the page:

Daniel pearl
Deals on Daniel pearl shoes
Compare prices and save now!
Zollop.com

Talk about shock and awe! What cruel joke is this, I thought? Are they actually selling Mr. Pearl's shoes? Tribute shoes? This can not be?

And it isn't. There is a shoe designer with the given name Daniel who sells a shoe he calls Pearl! Obviously this man is oblivious to the real world. What an insensitive product name, what an unfortunate ad placement. Perhaps this shoe salesman should use his last name, Green, instead of Daniel, and accept the confusion of Green pearl shoes, over that of Daniel pearl shoes.

Moving on.

Just above that ill-named/placed ad was a link to an interview with Mr. Pearl's widow, Marianne. Now, three years after he was confirmed dead, it is good to hear her optimism, and to read these words she spoke in 2004.

They want to destroy hope, therefore I shall preserve it by any possible means.

They want to kill trust. Thus I will reach out to others, Africans, Asians, Arabs, Americans and Jews alike.

They want to imprison people in labels and stereotypes. I will strive to maintain a dialogue, always focusing on the individuals rather than the symbol.

They want to kill joy in me, thus I will laugh again.

They want to paralyze me, therefore I will take action. They want to silence me--therefore I will speak out.

From a speech given by Mariane Pearl in Sydney, Australia in March 2004.

And this from the interview:

I know that at no point Danny begged, and I know that through, for instance, the photographs of him. In one there is a gun pointed at him and he has a smile on his face--how much stronger can you be than that? In another one he had shackles, but he's doing V for victory, and in the other he gives the finger. Every way possible he communicates his spirit. I think that's what I call a mighty heart, someone who holds onto their belief until the end.

A brave man needlessly lost.

The headline staring at me from the magazine rack as I got milk this morning was, "The Real George Washington". Great, I thought, just what we need is more revisionism - and from journalists no less. One might wonder if Newsweek was trying desperately to make a certain statement after last week's wholly unreal Koran-flushing story. (Indeed, the word appears again at the Newsweek website, where one "web exclusive" is entitled, "The GOP’s Real Judicial Agenda". The author? None other than the liberal hack Eleanor Clift.)

But the magazine's cover story this week is the intro to a book excerpt, not journalism per se. Though the article (continuing the apparent theme) is titled, Rethinking Washington, amazingly the revisionism doesn't appear to be on the part of the book author so much as (you guessed it) the magazine.

The book is "1776", and the author is David McCullough. A storyteller so adept he's made a career out of narrating for PBS (probably the only thing I find watchable on public television), even the article admits (on page 2, of course), McCullough is far from a revisionist. "Some professional historians find McCullough's work too safe and too smooth," they say. Really? Who are these historians who want "dangerous" history, and what the heck does it mean that writing is, "too smooth"? I might understand if the remark was "not safe enough and too smooth", to suggest a revisionism where the contents are being fabricated. But Newsweek is "Real" this week, just offering puff on a book that's going to make McCullough millions, and the headlines apparently imply controversy that isn't there just to sell magazines.

One might say they are fabricating "a new reality". It wouldn't be the first time.

Last week Senator Robert Byrd took to the floor of the Senate to, in his mind, uphold a Senate tradition. In a verbal sword fight with Senator Bill Frist, Senator Byrd said:

You have a shirttail full of nominees, and you're going to wreck Senate tradition.

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities - including private businesses offering public services - such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

Three of the nominations most vehemently opposed by the Senate Democrats are Henry Saad, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown. What do these three have in common? Well, they're all conservative, but is it such a surprise that a conservative President has nominated conservative justices? No. And that he has the right to do so is in no way illegal or unconstitutional. But more importantly, they are all minorities. In June of 1964 Janice Rogers Brown was 15 years old and living in California, her family having just moved there from Alabama. What do you think her chances of becoming a lawyer and State Supreme Court Justice would have been - even in the progressive state of California - had Senator Robert C. Byrd and his cronies been successful with the 1964 filibuster in the same way they had been for the prior thirty-seven years? And doesn't it seem ironic that the same party - even the same man - who had tried to maintain the servile subjugation status quo of her and millions of other Americans is trying to use the same filibuster tool to deny her today what they were unable to deny her then?

It seems to me that Senator Robert Byrd and the Democrats don't really seem to care for minority rights unless, of course, they are the ones in the minority. And it seems Senator Byrd specifically has a problem with strong black women. In any case, some "traditions", like slavery, keeping women at home and out of the workplace, or children going to work at age ten, were concepts whose time has come and gone. Ending judicial filibusters that allow a tyranny of the (political) minority is also an idea whose time has come.

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Nat Hentoff as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Ann Coulter as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Donald Lambro as "Recommended Reading".

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

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

Heh.

Update: It seems that great minds think alike.

I strongly suggest this piece by Mychal Massie as "Recommended Reading".

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

I've been procrastinating saying anything about the Newsweek/Koran scandal (recap at Malkin), for lack of anything profound to add. Best I came up with was a skit where Dan Rather calls Michael Isikoff, and his secretary says, "Mr. Isikoff, it's Mr. Rather on line 3, wanting to thank you for saving his reputation by comparison...." Yah, lame.

Anyway, our friends at Cox & Forkum do their usual exemplary job of saying the same thing, only with about 18 fewer or 982 more words, depending how you count them:

About says it all, I think.

The reported reactions to the Vincente Fox's moronic classless dumbass remarks are full of the usual obfuscations and parsing of words we have come to expect when the walking-talking brain dead get called out.

The quote of infamy.

"There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States." [emphasis mine- RJ]

Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Derbez said:

"I think that what we have to be very clear about is that the statement made by the president was in no way motivated by racism."

Quite true, the remarks were motivated by greed, and the desire for the money Mexican nationals carry back home from the US; but there is no doubt that while the motivation for the remark was not racism, the expression revealed Fox's racist tendencies. Obviously, Vincente Fox sees blacks as less discriminating that counterpart Americans. He, from his statement, feels that blacks are, (by nature?), appropriate for and seeking out of the least desirable work in our society. Though he makes the allowance that "even" blacks won't do some jobs; but his impoverished Mexican citizens will do the distasteful work. A slam on both American blacks and the Mexican workers.

Jesse Jackson called the remark "a spurious comparison" with "ominous racial overtones."

But Jackson stopped short of saying Fox should apologize.

"I don't know about that," he said, adding that the comment was "unwitting, unnecessary, and inappropriate.

Jackson, who said he has never met Fox, planned to call the Mexican president.

So, once again Jesse's Machiavellian nature causes him to reject his rejection of Fox's bias in favor of a politically ambiguous position which allows him to enter the fray, talk with another country's leader; and thereby he does what is best for Jesse Jackson while he demagogues the issue. He will find a way to make it appear that he intervened on the side of his constituency, and got results, while doing nothing. Same old Jesse. Heck, he might even get a check out of Fox for the favor of resurrecting the man's reputation.

Meanwhile, the US government has been unable to take on the issue directly.

A State Department spokesman who asked not to be named, read CNN a statement saying, "That level of dialogue doesn't merit comment."

The spokesman also said, "President Bush's commitment to immigration reform that is rational, legal, common sense, decent and compassionate is well-documented."

Big whoop! Could they possibly deliver a more tepid response? I suggest they put John Bolton to work as a speech writer while he awaits confirmation as UN Ambassador. At least that man says it like it is. Vincente Fox is a racist, and a man incapable of improving his own people's lot without advocating they break the laws of other nations.

Jesse Jackson did get one thing right, (without then contradicting himself) when he spoke to the immigration issue, and Fox's introduction of race into the matter.

"The comparison is diversionary from the issue of a workable immigration policy between the U.S. and Mexico."

Diversion being the word that is worth remembering from that statement. For, that is what Fox's strategy is all about. When he speaks of the jobs his people will be doing it is always with the intent to make us forget that they are breaking into our country. So, when Derbez continued with:

"They've (Mexican burglars- RJ) been able to improve the conditions of life not just for themselves but also for the communities in which they settle and, by the same token, the president made the comment in this context to say that a large quantity of the jobs taken by Mexicans are jobs that in the U.S. society aren't being filled."

He is practicing Fox's propaganda, mixing apples and oranges, when in reality immigration and the distribution of our workforce are separate issues. Immigration is immigration. Economy is economy. And all the rhetorical connections devised by man do not bring the two disciplines together as one force. It is clear that those who enter the country illegally are breaking our laws. That they only take jobs our citizens will not do is unproven, and unproveable as examples of them taking desireable jobs come into focus.

If Fox insists on combining the two; then let him chew on this comparison. He is to Mexico what Ken Lay was to Enron, both were in favor of breaking the law to accomplish their greedy goals.

One more reason to close the southern US border. That their President wants his people to come here, because he won't do anything for them there, is not news. But now we have irrefutable evidence that the man is also a sleazy dollop of pond scum.

"There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States," said Mexican President Fox

Speaking of jobs people don't want to do, apparently the Mexican President does not want to do the job of turning his own country into a place of opportunity attractive to its own population. I have long held that we should move to an immigration and visitor policy in which we only allow inbound movement from, and we only provide benefits to immigrants from, countries who comply with reciprocal treatment of our citizens who go there. So, if Mexico wants to continue sending us their citizens without regard to our immigration laws; then Mexico needs to give US citizens the same pass when we go there. Thus, we could travel to Mexico without papers or permission, and take any job we want, (with the clear intent of undermining the Mexican economy prior to a complete take over), and Mexico could provide us with welfare. I suspect that it would only take a couple of decades (exaggeration) of this entrepreneurial movement before we essentially owned the whole country, and when millions of Mexicans living in the US would storm home to take advantage of the opportunities.

I even have an individual in mind as Governor for the annexed Mexican Territory. It won't make Mr. Fox happy to know that Ulysses "Junior" Bridgeman, a black American, could do the job that Fox will not.

I strongly suggest this piece by Joyce King as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Washington Times Editorial/Op-Ed Page as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Peggy Noonan as "Recommended Reading".

Mixing in pop culture and a Washinton Times article, Ace concludes that the war in Iraq may get us two for one effort; we already ended a tyrant's rule, we may also break the terrorists.

"Five years from now the debate will be whether Bush and his "neocon madmen" actually planned this flypaper/mudpit strategy or if they merely blundered into it. It seems immaterial either way-- the basic strategy of the Bush Administration was to actively fight these bastards, rather than waiting for Americans to be butchered. Luck, as they say, is the result of good planning. Or good instincts."

I strongly suggest this piece by Richard Brookhiser as "Recommended Reading".

I have searched for a transcript of John Kerry's remarks during the Bolton hearings without success. But, I did find one site which quotes the line that interested me.

As Sen. John Kerry charged, ending debate on the nomination with so many outstanding allegations would be akin to "voting in the blind."

"Voting in the blind".

I almost fell off my chair when I heard him say that. For, that is exactly what he asked of the American voters during the 2004 Presidential election concerning his military service record. He failed to release his records for our review during the election cycle, though he said he had already done so, and thus we were left to piece it together from many conflicting sources. A process which left all sides claiming the other told it wrong, and the voter blind to the truth.

The simple answer to that dilemma, have the Senator sign the Standard Form 180 so that all Americans could evalute his record. And thus we would not be, "voting in the blind".

100 days ago the junior Senator from Massachusetts (aka John F'n Kerry, who served in Vietnam) made a promise, on national television to sign the 180. We still await his action on that promise.

Blogs For Bush is promoting the idea of spurring on the Senator to perform this promised act and provides the following FAX numbers.

Washington D.C. - (202) 224-8525
Boston, MA - (617) 248-3870
Springfield, MA - (413) 736-1049
Fall River, MA - (508) 677-0275

BFB suggests we all send a polite request, asking the Senator to finally do what he promised to do. Oh, and be sure to mention that the promise was made ____ days ago (see the counter at lower left for actual number of days since he promised).

I was able to get my FAX through on the first two lines without any delay. The third line rang busy. I'll retry later.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to once again take up the Bolton nomination this week. And, look for the Bolton nomination to pass out of Committee, before Kerry signs the SF180. I suspect that Kerry may not wish to let us see his records, though I can't imagine why.

Sign the SF180 Senator!

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

Maybe it's just me, but doing this - blogging - is not really that hard. You just need to have the desire and ability to communicate what you want to say, the ability to write at between an eighth and tenth grade level, enough Internet savvy to lookup and verify fact and figures to support your positions, the good sense to spell-check your work, and be reasonably consistent, over time, with the opinions and positions you put into your posts. Blogetiquette is helpful but not necessary, as the Blogosphere will point out and help you correct (in an amazingly short time) any deficiencies you may have in that area. I may be oversimplifying this, but IMHO, anyone that attended public schools should be able to handle all of this without a problem.

That having been said, Hollywood seems to be having some [smirk]... issues!

The first time I asked this question way back in December (What Would the Democrats be Screaming?), I pointed out the not so subtle slurs and distortions being made by liberal Democrats regarding conservative Republicans who happen to be black. Back then, Harry Reid said of Justice Clarence Thomas:

I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.

Does Senator Reid mean to imply that Justice Janice Rogers Brown is in favor of returning to antebellum America? He must. Why else would he use that point in history? He could have said the 1940's or 1950's as a way of saying that she wants to reverse Roe v. Wade and Brown v. The Board Of Education. Or he could have said any date after 1896 to suggest her wanting to return to the separate but equal days of Plessy v. Ferguson. But instead, the esteemed Democratic Senator choose to say Civil War days. What else are we to infer from this other than that Senator Reid wants people to think that Janice Rogers Brown wants the country to return to the days of slavery? Is that right Senator Reid, or did you mean to imply something else? If so, what, and why haven't you made similar comments about any of the other, lighter complected judicial nominees?

I mean, really, what do most people think of when they hear the term Civil War? The war that ended slavery, right? (or as Chris would prefer, the war against the racists.) But some might try to say is that it was the war of states rights, so perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps Senator Reid meant to infer that Justice Brown would work to return us to a time of greater states rights. But given what is in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that would actually be a good thing, wouldn't it Senator? You do know that one, don't you Harry?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Your idiotic and subtly racists comments about two of the most prominent and respected black jurists in the country, and your silence in the face of the racist rhetoric spewed by your liberal counterparts about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are a disgrace. I wonder when your political party, the self-proclaimed champions of diversity and tolerance, will begin to speak up about your intolerant and narrow-minded comments?

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.

Today marks sixty five years since Sir Winston Churchill became Britain's Prime Minister.

The New Editor has a collection of quotes from that great and eloquent man.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill

You can post comments that appear immediately by setting up a TypeKey account here. Posts by users logged into TypeKey are not moderated. Posts by users not logged into TypeKey ARE moderated, and I make no claim how long it may take me to approve the comment. Please don't post several times, or keep clicking the Post button thinking your comment isn't being submitted. I get all of them, and it takes longer for you to see your comment if I have to figure out which of the three or four comments is what you really intended to say.

This Captain's Quarters post leads to an actual discussion of Brown's performance while on the bench. See the comments as well as Capt'n Ed's remarks. It seems plain folk sitting around in their pajamas can do what the Senate can not; talk about her record from an actual case.

Sparking Ed's post was the revelation that a liberal editor in Sacramento is in favor of JRB being confirmed. And beyond that, she wants to see JRB on the Supreme Court.

Frankly, having read this short debate, I want to know more about JRB's decisions, which is what debate should encourage in all of us.

From The Jawa Report, (Stovepipe tipped to It Comes In Pints?), comes word that a blogger alerted the FBI to the existence of a terrorist. The evil one has been apprehended.

Thomas Sowell

Black identity has become a hot item in the movies, on television, and in the schools and colleges. But few people are aware of how much of what passes as black identity today, including "black English," has its roots in the history of those whites who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" centuries ago in Britain, before they ever crossed the Atlantic and settled in the South.

Jay Ambrose

Of course, the most famous instances of employing the filibuster did not exactly shower our land with honor. The most famous instances were not on the order of Jimmy Stewart boldly battling corruption in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but of Southern Democrats making sure that no black would ever get his or her rights or decent treatment in their neck of the woods. Perhaps a recollection of that racist obstructionism was in the back of the minds of the 19 Democratic senators who voted to end all filibusters a decade ago.

Sometimes I didn't agree with his politics, and I frequently found his military analysis confusing and contradictory, but there is no doubt David Hackworth was a patriot and a tireless advocate for uniformed Americans, who did what he believed was right. Reports indicate he will be interred alongside the heroes at Arlington with full military honors. He deserves our farewell salute.

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

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

As I said yesterday, mentioning the Civil War or Gettysburg will probably get you a post on this site. Mentioning Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, will positively get a post.

Like Martin Luther King Jr. a century later, Lincoln seemed to understand that epochal decisions are rarely made in a secular frame of mind. When great leaders make daring leaps, they often feel themselves surrendering to Divine Providence, and their strength flows from their faith that they are acting in accordance with transcendent moral truth.

One lesson we can learn from Lincoln is that there is no one vocabulary we can use to settle great issues. There is the secular vocabulary and the sacred vocabulary. Whether the A.C.L.U. likes it or not, both are legitimate parts of the discussion.

Another is that while the evangelical tradition is deeply consistent with the American creed, sometimes evangelical causes can overflow the banks defined by our founding documents. I believe the social conservatives' attempt to end the judicial filibuster is one of these cases.

I strongly suggest this piece by James Taranto as "Recommended Reading".

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

I think it is (or is quickly becoming) an unofficial requirement of this site that any time a news article mentions the Civil War (or anything to do with the Civil War) it will get it's own post. This is because not only is site dedicated to Abraham Lincoln, the savior of the Union and founder of our Grand Old Party, but because we are also Civil War buffs - and particularly fascinated with the social, political, military, and historical aspects of the battle of Gettysburg.

Having said that, David Ignatius has written a very good piece in the Washington Post that wonderfully compares the lessons of Gettysburg, the Civil War, and Reconstruction to the current events and strategies in Iraq.

I think perhaps that Mr. Ignatius is bucking for the right to call himself a Black Republican.

I strongly suggest this piece by Tom Bevan as "Recommended Reading".

Now this is an amazing and encouraging story! A firefighter, who was left brain-damaged and mostly mute (Hey Judge, can you say Persistent Vegetative State?) for 10 years after going without air for several minutes following a roof collapse, miraculously sat up in bead this past Saturday and said "I want to talk to my wife."

This is great news and must give new hope to Michael Schiavo and the friends and family of Terri Schindler that perhaps she will... oh, wait, I forgot... Terri was starved to death back in March. But I thought the only reason that the courts allowed Michael Schiavo to starve his wife to death was because there was no hope of her ever recovering and, since there was no hope, her wishes were that she not be kept alive artificially. I guess they - Michael Schiavo, the courts, and all of those who sided with them - were all wrong. There was hope all along. Well, there is definitely no hope of her ever recovering now, is there?

This is proof positive that miracles will only happen when there is a belief that miracles can happen - and when they are given the chance to happen.

Update: Joseph Kerry (via the Glenn Beck website) agrees with me that in order for miracles to happen, they need to be allowed to happen.

Goading Liberal Secularists

While I am not demonstrably religious, I support the right of others to be so, and I fell in love with this bumper sticker as I imagined the apoplexy it must cause amongst liberals. The owner of the vehicle tells me he occaisionally gets a thumbs up from a passing motorist, but hasn't heard any catcalls to speak of. The reaction he is getting may be a testimony to the prevalent political make up of this area, (S.W. FL., a conservative bastion), in part. ( You know, Conservative s, those people who remain tolerant of others views). But I think it also reflects the general values of Americans.

Seeing religion so proudly displayed also reminded me of how often the Left has thrown religion together with the Terri Schiavo Schindler case, as though the only reason anyone had for supporting her parent's wishes for her to live was based on religious motives. As can be seen in the archives of this site, I was strongly in favor of getting Michael Schiavo out of Terri's life, and letting her parents care for her. And my position wasn't based on religion, (I am not a practicing member of any faith, and have seen the inside of a church only four times in the last seven years; twice to say goodbye to departed friends, twice as a contractor performing work). My position was based on common sense, common decency, and as a defender of an innocent person sentenced to death for no good cause. And I believe the majority of those who supported Terri's side were of like mind, interested in supporting her cause for reasons other than religion. The secular left is making religion a straw dog. And in doing so they are missing the mark. Missing both in respect to the root motivations of conservatives, and with the population at large. Generally, this country supports the right to practice religion freely. (Free even of ridicule from those who don't believe.) And in demeaning the religious (read: Christians primarily), the Left is lowering their own stature in American's eyes, the exact opposite reaction to which they aspire.

The Left does not understand this now, nor will they tomorrow, or the day after. And, only on the day after their rhetoric is near universally panned will they even begin to understand that something went wrong; but they won't know what is was that went wrong, and they won't listen when we tell them. Just as they are not listening now.

The cruel side of my sense of humor is hoping that even if they won't listen, they will read. For, every one of them that sees the picture above there will be a reflexive irrational response of anger, intolerance, and contempt. Such reaction will cause them to say and do things which will hasten their political demise, and perhaps the demise of what remains of their faculties as well.

Sure I am being mean. Sure, Jesus would not act this way. But then, it is also true that, I am not him. The Left's pitiful attempt to selectively define the first line of the Bill of Rights,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......

is hilarious. And I am just mean enough to give them every opportunity to make me laugh.

Rick mentioned to me this afternoon how much he'd like to comment on today's Day by Day strip. I know a lot of times we all might have a similar impulse, and that the Day by Day site doesn't have any commenting mechanism. So on the chance Chris Muir won't have the time to implement one [Chris: hint-hint], here's a thread that will be devoted just to comments about Chris's great cartoons.

EDIT: I'm aware that I may have thrown the template for IE out of whack. I'm working on it, please be patient.

EDIT2: Fixed now, sorry for the funky pages for awhile.

EDIT3: For a long time, the comments for this article weren't working properly, as advertised, and most times noticing, I was too tired and/or lazy to fix it. Our recent upgrade of the MT software may have resolved the issue.... we'll see how it goes.

Here's today's strip... meaning whichever "today" you happen to be reading this. :-)

EDIT: A suggestion... before after commenting on a particular strip, include the URL to the .gif of that's day's entry (or include the date and I'll add it into your comment). Firefox users can click on the cartoon, then when you're at the Day by Day site, right-click on the cartoon and click View Image. (The link must come AFTER the comment or it will screw up formatting on the front page. Thanks.)