The Black Republican

Due to a security problem, TBR will be offline for a bit. Please be patient while we try to track down and eliminate the problem.

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Steven G. Calabresi as "Recommended Reading".

Speaking of schadenfreude...

Please pardon the triple pun, but it's just hilarious watching liberals "flip out".

If you didn't catch Brian Wilson's report on FNC last night, baldilocks explains, and Cynical Nation does a fisking that's right on the money.

Honestly, people, this is just embarrassing. In one short year, we've gone from "Bush lied, people died!" to "Ooh! Teacher! Little Georgie made a naughty sign!! Ooh!" Ah well, such is the paucity of substance for many of Bush's critics, I guess.

Usually, when something goes in the "Race and Prejudice" section here at TBR, it's a rant. But today, we have two related pieces of good news to report.

Yesterday, seeing that I had so much reading piled up that there was no possible way I was going to be able to get to it all, I reset the RSS feeds on my account at Bloglines. That must have happened just before Michael Bowen posted at Cobb - and a good thing too, or I would have missed some lovely crowing and "thumbs in the face".

It's almost as if the RNC and I were reading the same page. Just yesterday in the other thread I was saying how much of a no-brainer it is for the right African American candidates to walk into the open arms of the Republican Party. Of course it's no walk in the park for anyone, including (Michael) Steele, but there is not, contrary to urban myth and Liberal lie, a color bar in the Republican Party.

Looking for details, I came across a Washington Post article that fills us in.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele hosted the first major fundraiser in his as-yet-undeclared bid for U.S. Senate last night, attracting presidential adviser Karl Rove to headline a $1,000-a-person cocktail party in Washington.

The private affair was an attempt to introduce Steele to the ranks of national GOP donors who might not have encountered a man whose candidacy has become a top priority of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the arm of the party that recruits candidates.

Steele said he was "very excited" to have captured the interest and backing of such national Republican luminaries as Rove. So too, it seemed yesterday, were his opponents.

Democrats dispatched about 35 protesters to the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill to heckle Steele. They blasted him for appearing with Rove, who has emerged as a central figure in the probe into the disclosure of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

"No one who would use Karl Rove for a fundraiser is fit to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate," said Tom Hucker, executive director of the advocacy group Progressive Maryland.

Progress on many fronts... and within the MSM, no less.

I strongly suggest this piece by Debra Saunders as "Recommended Reading".

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Wendy McElroy as "Recommended Reading".

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

The Confederate Yankee has a great post about, as he puts it, the Devil's Choice the London police faced in the recent shooting of a young Brazilian man.

The weenies of the world point out that they would not have made the same choice as the police and that, in choosing differently, an innocent man would have still been alive. That the man would still be alive may be true, but of course, should it have been a real terrorist - and next time it could be - the result would have been one dead terrorist, several dead weenies who decided not to shoot, and who knows how many dead London tube passengers.

I teach my godson that much in life is about choices: good and bad, obvious and obscure, easy and hard... and that usually (not always, so don't write nasty comments) the best choice to make is the hardest, or most difficult, or the seemingly least desirable. The easiest and most desirable choice in this case would have been not to shoot. And if you cannot see why the easy choice would have been the wrong choice then there is little hope for you, and I pray you're not a cop, soldier, or politician.

Ace of Spades

I strongly suggest this piece by Herman Cain as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jay Bryant as "Recommended Reading".

The following phrase is playing in my mind to the tune of the Blue Oyster Cult song, Godzilla;

Oh so, they say you've got to go...go,go Club Gitmo.

Sane Nation

Charles E. Schumer, the senior (but least important) Senator from the state of New York, has compiled a series of questions that he feels should be asked of - and presumably answered by - Judge John Roberts, the President's nominee to the Supreme Court. I perused the list of questions and found most of them to be very fine questions indeed - if proposed to legal scholars, law schools or political science students, or public policy wonks. But the fact that they are being proposed for and will be asked of a prospective Supreme Court jurist makes them completely inappropriate, primarily because answering nearly any of them would require Judge Roberts to prejudge facts that may come before him in the future.

Asking questions which you know full well before you ask them cannot be answered makes a much sense as asking a question for which there is no known answer (ie. [a typical Schumer-like question] "How many people would have been killed by now had we not enacted the Assault Gun ban?") or a question that has no correct answer (ie. "Do you still beat your wife?"). Such questions are not asked to gain insight by way of their answers, but to manipulate the situation via the refusal or inability of the subject to provide an answer. I think we all know what Chuckles is trying to do with these "questions" of his - he looking for someone to burn! The only good thing about these "questions" is that Judge Roberts is far too smart to answer other than the way a future Supreme Court Justice should and would (The Ginsburg Standard).

But since Schumer and his fellow sandbaggers are going to ask their silly little questions anyway, I have a few suggestions as to some additional questions that should be asked, and by whom:

Patrick Leahy:

Judge Roberts, since leaks of information are so commonplace here in Washington, you wouldn't find any fault with a person who leaked classified information so long as that leak was done for the public (democratic) good, would you?

Richard Durbin:

Judge Roberts, do you know what a gulag is? How about a nazi, what's a nazi? Do you know? And can you tell us why the administration is allowing this kind of unconstitutional behavior to go on at Guantanamo Bay? Can you, huh? Oh, by the way I'd like to state, for the record, that I support our troops.

Edward Kennedy:

Mr. Roberts, lets just say, as a hypothetical situation, that you were representing a client - a married man - who was involved in a tragic car accident in which he was not... well, he may not have been driving... well, yes, he was driving but didn't want to be, and where someone else was... um... injured... and your client...um... may have had a drink or two or... um... you know. Well anyway, your client, after the accident, swims across a channel to another island and instead of reporting the accident to the authorities, sneaks up to his hotel room, gets a good six or seven hours sleep - not because he was drunk, mind you, but because he didn't want to remember - I mean he wanted to forget - I mean he didn't realize that he was even in an accident, that had he reported it at the time, the single young woman might not have drow... I mean, may not have been as injured as much as she ended up being. Injured, I mean. Well, my question is, would you or would you not advise your client to wear a neck brace at the young woman's funeral?

Now those are questions I would love to hear answered!

When I rebuilt the site a few weeks ago to resolve one problem, some of the things I'd done to combat trackback spam stopped working. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure what I've lost in my current configuration to cause the problem, but I've found some web sites that are giving me some ideas how to lock things back down again. Until I can put the screws on it, I apologize for any improper content you may see on the site.

UPDATE: I've run a change on the system that should be working perfectly, but if you notice problems with comments or trackbacks (that is, them not working properly other than spam), please let me know.

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

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

There really is not much I can add to what Keith Thomson says in his piece titled;

Leaving the left
I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

But I can provide a few quotes to tease out the reader's interest.

"I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode. "

and

"Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror."

That sounds familiar, right Cobra?

"When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table."

Hey man, some heavy sarcasm in that last line. And this was written before Dhick Dhurbin compared Gitmo to the Soviet gulags, thereby slandering our country. Oops, I said gulag, hope you weren't eating.

Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."

Nuff said dog.

I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?

Imagine that.

Read it all, there is so much I left out.

Tammy Bruce

Josh Davenport for reminding me to add Mr. Thompson's Web Page link. He also has a blog, Sane Nation.

This post is to serve notice to one of our readers that his commenter's priviledges are hereby suspended pending his answer to my question: Cobra, where is your resolve to win this war?

It seems as though ages have passed since President Bush took to the airwaves (sic- cables?) to speak to all Americans about this war, and to remind us all that;

"It demands the perseverance of our citizens"- GWB 6/28/05

I used that same quote in my post that day, wherein I make the point out that many of us did not need to hear what he had to say, we already knew it was so.

I expect that the President knows there are many (most Americans?) out here in Red States and Blue, who were already resolved to "perseverance". And though he was speaking to us too, he was speaking to those who don't get it first. A call for unity of purpose. A primer for the Left on setting priorities.

I received two great compliments/votes of solidarity/dittos of perserverance to my words.

And then there was the one who calls himself Cobra; six times he posts, always about, not the point I made, but about the throw away lines of hypebole I tacked on to the end. I saw that coming, and I indulged his challenge for a time. But then I tired of being asked to defend other's words and asked Cobra to explain his resolve to win this war. He came back with a diatribe about "which war", so I made it easy for him to answer and narrowed it to the war on terrorism.

I asked the question for a second time:

"We understand you are resolved to blame America. And that you are resolved to get Bush! But, where is your resolve to win the war?"

I await his answer. He won't get his priviledges reinstated until he does this assignment to our satifaction. To achieve our satisfaction he must do one simple thing: answer the question asked.

Additionally- A clue for Cobra, the answer lies in understanding that your Leftist leaders have failed your causes.

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

Soldier Ride 2005 is a fund raiser for our wounded soldiers, undertaken by our wounded soldiers. The ride itself is over, they have completed their 4200 mile ride, on bicycles and wheelchairs, starting from California ending in New York City. A terrific feat. The fundraising continues. They have not met their goal of $5 million, yet. (I just sent one donation, but that alone won't get them there.) Please take a look at their site, and if you can, please help them out.

There is a "Special Event" yet to come:

EHM 92.9, The Stephen Talkhouse & Martha Clara Vineyards present The Funk Brothers with Joan Osbourne, Supremes Mary Wilson, & Special Guests Nancy Atlas Project Opens Sunday, July 24th 4-8 PM, $50 Martha Clara Vineyards 6025 Sound Ave Riverhead NY ll901

These brave young people have given to us. Let's give back. Please pass this on the your friends.

Also, if you are a corporation interested in helping:

"Corporations interested in becoming one of our National Sponsors or interested in conducting a corporate program, please contact us at questions@soldierride2005.com or call (571)261-1465. There are many different ways corporations can help our wounded heroes."

Well the sniping about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court has begun and, to use a Civil War analogy, the President can see his opponents rolling the media artillery up to the ridge and readying them to fire - on the appointed day, at the appointed hour - as a prelude to an all out attack. As the leader at the forefront of the liberal attack, General Charles Schumer would do well to read up on the "high water mark" of the career of one George Pickett. I do believe we are seeing a slow motion recreation of those events.

Boom!

But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that put Bush into office by settling the recount, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in that 5-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan.

Boom!

Critics, though, were quick to say that Roberts' role in the 2000 election, however minor, suggested that he was not merely the bookish legal scholar described by his supporters.

"What's interesting is that only now is it coming to the fore that John Roberts was part of that," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way. "He always created an impression of being above the political fray, being part of the Washington legal establishment, but not of partisan politics."

Neas said Roberts' involvement in the recount was not necessarily a reason for senators to oppose his nomination, because many well-known legal scholars on both sides were called into service during the Bush-Gore fight.

And Roberts had only a bit part, compared with higher-profile players such as Florida's then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was subsequently elected to Congress, and Gov. Bush, the Republican presidential candidate's younger brother.

But, Neas added, coupled with Roberts' past work in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, the recount could become a factor.

"This is a legitimate area of inquiry: How partisan is he?" Neas asked.

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

Listening to Laura Ingraham's show just now, the guest host played tape of Ken Livingstone, the leftist mayor of London. A British infobabe asked him, "What motivates these terrorists?" and Red Ken proceeded to babble on about "...80 years of Western interventionism..."

It's a well-worn liberal axiom, I know: "Why do they hate us...?" and all that. And others have spoken volumes on "root cause" stupidity. But in conversation with my family this morning, something occurred to me, one question we never hear: "What motivates these Republicans?" When the motivation of Republicans is discussed, it's always an accusation, and never a question.

Why is it that liberals want desperately to understand the mind of terrorists, murderers, and dictators, and invent elaborate methodologies to excuse the behavior of such folks, but they never really inquire about the motivation of their fellow Americans who disagree with them? They always immediately brand us as idiots, slackers, and racists, and never bother to excuse the faults they impugn on us. Odd, isn't it?

I strongly suggest this piece by Clarence Page as "Recommended Reading".

The headline said, "Keep wall between judiciary and politics". By whom? Mario Cuomo.

My first thought was, "COOL! A liberal who gets it!" Then the shock wore off and I asked, "Has old Mario gone crazy?

Nope - it's just me who has gone crazy, if I were to think that was going to happen. Hard as it is to believe, Mario thinks the President's nomination of Judge Roberts is injecting politics into his perfectly balanced Supreme Court.

Yah, right.

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

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

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Jack Kemp as "Recommended Reading".

Last year, one of Blogdom's favorite truth tellers was the one called Allah. Well, now Allah may be in the Poor House, but he hasn't completely given up sharing his thoughts.

Here he reminds us of one of his gems, and suggests where we can test the credentials of those in the news in the future. (Note: His link to this article is not working, for later reference, it was written on July 7, 2005)

"Whenever possible, run those names through the LGF and MEMRI search engines. As the Loseweek incident demonstrates, when it comes to terrorism, journalists often are either ignorant of their subjects' backgrounds and unwilling to conduct basic research or they're not ignorant but unwilling to run the full story because it doesn't serve their agenda. Whatever the reason, if you want context you'll have to find it yourself."

You may have heard of Bernard Goldberg's latest book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37). Mr. Goldberg's book is sitting at #6 on the NYT bestseller list, but word is he has not been getting invited on many shows to discuss his book. We are given the impression that the media doesn't like his latest work. Can't imagine why?;)

Capt Ed has it that he did get an interview on CNBC's show hosted by Donny Deutsch, and the producer sandbagged him, tricking him into staying around to face a virtual Spanish Inquisition (my hyperbole, not Capt. Ed's). I expect that he handled himself well, if they let him speak, though I suspect it will be another of those cases where the libs talk while the guest is speaking.

The show is to air tomorrow. I'll have to tune in to see how it goes, with notepad at the ready.

Update: (Posted by Steve) John McCaslin of The Washington Times has comments from Bernard Goldberg on the blanket party Donny Deutsch threw him the other night:

But then, unbeknownst to me, they brought on a panel of five, plus Donny, all of whom took the other side. And it's not like they just respectfully disagreed; there was name-calling, ganging up; it was unbelievable. And not one of them even read the book. They admitted it.

My only reaction is incredulity. Is anyone really surprised that the highly educated, elite, liberal, progressive, protectors of the First Amendment Civil Liberty Unionists were the ones responsible for an attack that can only be described as an attempt to distort, subvert, and silence an author?

Isn't ironic it that the champion of these thugs (Donny Deutsch, Jeff Jarvis, Linda Stasi, et al) Michael Moore, titled his movie Fahrenheit 9/11 purposely to be an allusion to the book and movie Fahrenheit 451 - the temperature at which paper will burst into flame. Is there any doubt that they relished their participation in this mugging - or that in their whispers at cocktail parties they talk about how they would love to burn that book... or this one... or this?

Want another irony? The most vociferous voice involved in the Bernie Goldberg beat down was that of Linda Stasi. How fitting a name is Stasi?

Chappaquiddick- 1

Guantanamo Bay- 0

Ted Kennedy - 1 (victim names: Mary Jo Kopechne)

Gitmo Guards - 0 (victim names: None)

Thirty six years ago, on July 19, 1969. Ted Kennedy remains at large to this day.

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

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

Taking a cue from Rick, who by the way has been doing a great job of illustrating the principles of The Black Republican through snapshots of everyday Americans living and enjoying everyday life (Americana), I thought I would try to do the same.

My wife and I took our 10yr. old godson along with us on a trip to Washington D.C. for the 4th of July weekend, and then on up to New York City for a few days. We did a lot of driving but the trip was worth every mile. I won't bore everyone with dozens of pictures, but I did get a few which I consider to be in keeping with Rick's Americana series.

The first picture is of my 10yr. old godson standing at the very spot in front of the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his I Have A Dream speech. At 10 he's still too young to understand the history and importance of that spot, but someday he will. As for me, I understand the history and importance all too well... and I had a lump in my throat as I took the photo.

Next is another of my godson, this time at the Vietnam War Memorial - The Wall. There was this little flag stuck between two of the black granite slabs acting as a hanger for a silver POW/MIA bracelet. I looked at the flag and bracelet, and I saw the names, and then I saw my godson's reflection...

I don't know if it can be seen in the relfection, but there were at least two hundred people all along the walkway beside the wall, and if you had shut your eyes and just listened you would have thought there no more than twenty. The reverence that wall evokes is amazing - and well deserved.

More to follow!

The Berkeley, California school board has changed the name of Jefferson Elementary School because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. However, the new name (as reported by James Taranto - last article), Sequoia, seems to be just as problematic. You see, Chief Sequoia - you guessed it - was a slave owner (see the Prosperous Cherokees heading). Putting aside the school boards rationalization that "the [at that time] proposed new name would honor the sequoia tree, not the Cherokee leader" (so that would be a school, named in honor of a tree, named in honor of a Native American Indian Chief, who owned almost 100 times as many slaves as Thomas Jefferson), it would seem that the Berkeley has a much bigger problem on their hands.

If having a school named in honor of Thomas Jefferson was unacceptable because he was a wealthy white landowner who happened to own slaves - in an era when doing so, however morally wrong, was still not only legal but commonplace - then logic would have it that the Berkeley citizens would find it just as unacceptable to have any public place named for similar individuals, right? Well it just so happens that their own fair city of Berkeley was named in honor of the College located there, which was itself was named in honor of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne... a wealthy white landowner who happened to own slaves!

Looking into the history of George Berkeley reveals some very interesting facts:

• He bought 3-5 slaves to work on his Rhode Island plantation, Whitehall.


• He proposed slavery as the best way to Christianize black people.


• Sermonized that Christianity supported slavery:



It would be of advantage to their [slave masters'] affairs to have slaves who should 'obey in all things their masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, as fearing God;' that gospel liberty consists with temporal servitude; and that their slaves would only become better slaves by being Christian.



• Advocated kidnapping 10-year-old Native American boys, sending them to Bermuda for re-education, and then releasing them once they were ready to evangelize their former homeland.


• After 1732, donated the profits earned by leasing the Whitehall plantation to fund Yale University's first scholarships.

Given these facts, and given that the PC Police seem to rule the roost in Berkeley, I want to know how soon the name of the city - and the college - will themselves be changed? And make no mistake, if the citizens of Berkeley are to display any intellectual honest and integrity at all, it's not a matter of if but when. Because if it so offends the sensibilities of the citizens to have a school named after the primary author of the Declaration of Independence because he had the audacity to own slaves, then it must be at least equally as offensive to have a city and college named after a Religious leader who advocated enslaving blacks and natives for evangelical reasons. George Berkeley was a Bishop - a leader and a symbol of the Christian religion. What about the separation of church and state, isn't that a mantra championed by the academians of Berkeley? Oops, I forgot... Thomas Jefferson was the person who coined that phrase. Well, on that one thing he was right (at least the way liberals read it) and should be lauded, but on everything else he was a pig - you know, Sally Hemming and all - right?

Riiiight!

Perhaps the city and college leaders should contact Dennis Kucinich - Goddess of Peace, California has a nice ring to it!

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

Matt Drudge got himself an invite to a MoveOn.org "Supreme Court house party." The fedora-wearing blogfather found out the host emailed special instructions to his guests beforehand.

We don't want to come across as leftist, liberal activists. We want to come across as we are- regular folks who are finally saying enough is enough to the extremists; that we're not falling for their extremist rhetoric anymore and we're finally going to expend the effort necessary to get our country back....

Oh, because a photographer will be here, might I suggest we put away our "Bush is a Liar" t-shirts. Let's look like they do.

( Hat tip: Cox & Forkum)

From the 4th of July parade. Not a great picture, but it is of the Color Guard which lead the parade, and captures the moment of loudest applause as the crowd warmly welcomed these Marines. The applause for servicemen occurred many more times as there were so many of them in the parade.

I'll take a good parade over a fireworks display any day.

Now that just is not right! That arrow is pointing in the wrong direction! The Candy Ass Protest was takng place directly behind the sign from where I took this picture, not over to the left somewhere.

The occasion was the local 4th of July parade, and after they tired of standing on that street corner they put down their signs and walked the parade route handing out a pamphlet titled Peace Is Patriotic. When offered to me, I said no thanks, and they moved on. A moment later a girl of perhaps five years took the one given to her and put it in the trash can, which caused me to laugh.

I expect that her parents asked her to throw it away, but I found it funny all the same. I also found, well not funny, but, pathetic the message in that title. It is as much a defense as a platform. They are saying, we may be against what you stand for but we want you to think we are on your side when it comes to our getting the benefits of being an American. Pathetic too that they think they are advocating something, peace, which only they want. Their mistake is in believing peace is a process, instead of the goal that it really is. You can strive to attain Peace, but you must take actions to insure it, and simply promoting the idea that if we act peacefully the enemy will follow is candy ass naive. We all want peace, wanting it is not a mark of patriotism.

Acting to keep the enemy at bay is what guarantees it. And for that we need heroes, not protestors.

The site will be down for a while as I perform some necessary maintenance. I've put up this temp page so you know what's going on, but a lot of the links may not work if I've cut off access to the back-end. We'll have it all back up as soon as possible. Until that time, please don't post any comments or there's a very good chance they won't be saved.

By the way, (especially for some of our more liberal participants): I've been lazy and apathetic recently, and I've noticed that while I've been in that state you've been getting away with some stuff in the comments I don't normally let slide. I've been editing comments this afternoon to correct your overexuberance (not to mention some crappy formatting) and will continue to do so until I'm satisfied the place is cleaned up. Suffice to say, I didn't go back and "censor" you, I'm just trying to make you readable and remove any extraneous material that I consider link spam and the like. Please remember the following:

Comments should be pertinent to the topic of the article, or at least a logical progression should flow from where we start to where the last comment ends up.

If you want advertisement for your website, you are free to use the URL field of the comment and my readers can browse to your site through your name.

If you have an article (of your own, or someone else's) that's directly relevant to one of ours, you're invited to use trackback or include an href reference in a comment (but I reserve the right to anchor the link to text to make it both linkable and readable).

All other links, comments, extraneous quoting and nonsensical ravings are subject to the whim of my editor's cursor. I don't claim that this space is an exercise of anyone's 1st Amendment rights but my own - especially since my freedom isn't free in the monetary sense. As I've said before, I pay for this site in lieu of therapy, and I find the blog gives better advice than my old therapist, too. I extend certain courtesies to you in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. Please respect that or you'll find a lot of your time typing will be wasted.

UPDATE: Site is back up - and in fact it never really came down. All the maintenance was performed without any interruption in service. Comments (and contributor's entries) are safe to post again. Thanks for your patience.

I was going to complain about the Washington Post's schitzophrenic editorial, Mr. Rove's Leak, but everything I was going to say is said better - and far funnier - by Jeremy Gilby. That Jeremy's post has nothing to do with the Washington Post editorial shouldn't come as a surprise, since we're all just pontificating about what Karl Rove didn't say to a super-secret grand jury with more leaks than a Valerie Plame story.

Oops - did I say, "Valerie Plame"? Better alert Tom Raum that I'm up to my old tricks again.

Meanwhile, the AP spins more unsourced blather in an article that will probably get blamed on a copyboy. In this article, written by AP reporter John Solomon, we learn that Rove sent an email to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to let him know that reporters were asking leading questions about Wilson's Times Op-Ed. But Solomon's version of events uses a curious adjective.

The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove told a grand jury about it last year during testimony in which he also acknowledged discussing Plame's covert work for the CIA with Cooper and syndicated columnist Robert Novak. (my emphasis)

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote Hadley, who has since risen to the top job of national security adviser.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

...Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly divulged his or her identity.

Answer: Solomon WANTS Rove's conversation to have been about Plame being covert, so he can pretend to be the next Bob Woodward. Too bad his editor has the same inclination and let the Freudian slip get printed.

When I read this OpEd by Chuckles Schumer the other day I couldn't help but scream at the monitor while doing so. Since I haven't done a good fisking in some time, and because the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is such an important issue, this seemed like the perfect opportunity. I started this a few day ago, but before long the old weariness began to creep over me and I began to lose my will to finish... because I'm quite sure that not only will people like Schumer never change, they don't even see the need to. In their world, the Constitution is not the granite foundation on which this country has been built, but the ethereal west wind that directs the course of the ship of state in whatever direction the "progressives" wish to steer it. I had all but given in to the frustration, but last night's photo-op Chuckles had with Joe Plame and the revelation that he (Schumer) actually voted against the very law he now accuses Carl Rove of violating, helped give me a new burst of energy. Talk about Hutzpah!

Anyway, here goes, but please do me a favor and read the whole OpEd before reading any of my commentary. I want to know if you have the same reaction I did - what a pompous, arrogant, condescending elitist this guy is! Has he even read the Constitution?

Let the fisking begin...

Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement 10 days ago that she will retire offers an opportunity for President Bush to bring the country together; to unite rather than divide, and to allow the Senate to move on to addressing the bread-and-butter issues facing average Americans.

His selection will have a lot to do with determining his legacy, and I hope that he will seize the day.

Since O'Connor's announcement, two questions have been swirling around the Capitol and the country. What kind of person should replace her? And also, what kind of process should lead to her replacement? Both the process and the pick should reflect the American people's ideals of reasonableness, moderation and fair play.

First, before nominating a replacement, the President should consult meaningfully with senators of both parties to arrive at a consensus nominee, not only because the Constitution contemplates it, but because the country needs and deserves it.

After two exceedingly divisive presidential elections and a season of bitter partisanship, Americans want the President and the Senate to unite rather than divide the nation.

The best way to do that is for the President and senators from both parties to get together. I have proposed a summit, at Camp David or even over dinner, where the parties would roll up their sleeves, loosen their ties and have a serious discussion about potential nominees.

Former President Bill Clinton consulted regularly with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the lead Republican on the Judiciary Committee at the time, and that led to two smooth and quick confirmations of consensus candidates - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

At the hearing itself, senators should ask - and the nominee should answer - questions about the candidate's views about constitutional interpretation, about decided cases and about what rights he or she believes are protected in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of our most precious rights, and appointments to that court are for a lifetime. So long as the nominee is not asked to prejudge a specific case, it is incumbent on us to ask about a nominee's views of the First Amendment, civil rights, environmental rights, religious liberty, the rights of working people and other fundamental issues.

Otherwise, how are the American people to know whether the nominee can be trusted to protect those rights?

Now, what kind of person should the nominee be? Because Justice O'Connor was the pivotal swing vote on so many vital issues, the President should take care to preserve balance on the court.

I have often said that a Supreme Court with one William Brennan and one Antonin Scalia would be an interesting and vibrant court. But a Supreme Court with five of either would not.

In thinking about what kind of person would make a good replacement, history provides an excellent precedent. Twenty-four years ago, when Former President Ronald Reagan faced his first Supreme Court vacancy, after a divisive election, he picked someone who was thoughtful, mainstream and pragmatic. He picked a consensus nominee - Sandra Day O'Connor.

She was confirmed 99 to 0. President Bush should take a page from Reagan's book as he faces his first Supreme Court pick, also after a divisive election. He should select a mainstream, thoughtful pragmatist in the mold of O'Connor.

I strongly suggest this piece by Byron York as "Recommended Reading".

Rick and I have posted about this before, but the fact that I just got back from visiting this hallowed ground makes the desecration proposed by the hate-America-first elitist liberals seem that much more heinous and outrageous to me.

This memorial is not just for New Yorkers, or even just for the 9/11 families. It's for all Americans, and all Americans need to make their voices heard on this issue.

Cox & Forkum

I'd say I've had just about enough of this corrupt left-wing partisanship from the media, but I long since passed "enough". In an AP report today, Tom Raum distorts the situation to the point of outright lying, under the headline, "Bush Passes on Public Endorsement of Rove".

President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush's support. "As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president," McClellan said.

Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

McClellan said Bush had not expressed confidence in Rove in the Cabinet session because no one had asked him that directly. The question put to Bush was whether he had spoken with Rove about the Plame matter, whether he believed Rove had acted improperly, and whether it was appropriate for the White House to say in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak....

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation," Bush said. "We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

(EDIT: Hastily written, I realize now I left the punchline unstated: Not satisfied without a quote that would garner him a Pulitzer and put Rove's head on his mantle, Mr. Raum helps fuel the media-created non-scandal by inventing this whole piece around that concept. To the press, the president's non-answer to the non-question must mean he's effectively cut Rove off at the knees. This is considered honest reporting?)

And for what crime is Karl Rove losing "the president's endorsement"? Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that TIME shouldn't print an article saying the Administration sent Joe Wilson to Africa, because his own wife got him the assignment through her job at the CIA - a job half of Washington apparently knew about.

Yup, that's right. Rove told TIME the TRUTH about a known CIA exectutive, and they're trying to claim this is a crime.

PSST! TIME Magazine: Porter Goss has a secretary getting him coffee in the morning. Better tell the special prosecutor I'm "outing" CIA agents.

I strongly suggest this piece by WSJ Editor as "Recommended Reading".

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Dennis Prager as "Recommended Reading".

I have been curious about the political leanings of the victims in London's terrorism attacks. Without any data to back up this contention, I feel safe in saying they were not all in favor of their government's actions in the war on terror. It is also certain that the bomber did not care about their politics, even if their positions supported the terrorists. The terrorist's method is violence which is random and non-discriminating. They will kill an avowed friend as quickly as they will a supposed enemy. Proof positive, if my above assumptions are correct, that sympathizing with terrorists is no assurance that one will not fall victim to their hate.

I received the following in an email today. I will let it speak for itself, it is powerful on its own.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Anthony Gardner 973-216-2623

Major September 11 Family Organizations Challenge America and Its Leaders to Keep the Promise to Never Forget 9/11

July 11, 2005 New York, N.Y. – At a press conference today on the steps of City Hall, family members of relatives lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 representing fourteen major September 11 organizations challenged the International Freedom Center’s latest ploy to hijack the memorial at ground zero and called on America and its leaders to act now to ‘Take Back the Memorial.’

The event was opened with a moment of silence in memory of the victims and survivors of last week’s bombing of London transport. The family organizations, which represent civilians, firefighters, police and emergency personnel, restated their objections to a massive cultural complex intended to house institutions that have no relevance to September 11, 2001 that infringes on and will overshadow the memorial.

“Freedom is an ideology,” said Charles Wolf whose wife Katherine was murdered in the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. “Ideologies change over time. Memorials are meant to be perpetual and eternal – they’re meant to go beyond a period in time.”

“We must not make a mockery of the words ‘Never Forget,’” said Debra Burlingame who lost her brother Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. “We think the public will not be fooled by the IFC’s new plan to appropriate 9/11 artifacts. It’s the height of arrogance and insensitivity to use these precious objects as mere window dressing or statuary.”

Calling on President Bush to intervene, Jack Lynch whose son, Michael F. Lynch died rescuing others in the South Tower on September 11, 2001 remarked, “Mr. President, one of your staff last week stated in response to a reporter’s question that the memorial is a ‘New York issue.’ Nothing could be further from the truth; this is an American problem as it was America that was attacked. Saying that the memorial at Ground Zero is a New York problem would be like calling Gettysburg a Pennsylvania problem or Pearl Harbor an Hawaii issue. We expect better of you.”

The 14 major family organizations called on President Bush and Congress to come to their aid and honor their promises to ‘Never Forget.’ They asked all American citizens to log on to www.takebackthememorial.org, sign the petition and call their elected officials and ask them to make the WTC memorial reflect only the history and events of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. They also called on the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Boards who both meet later this week to exercise their fiduciary obligation to protect this memorial.

A friend, impressed with the inspiring image, sent me a link to this:

I must say that I like the symbolism and the sentiment - A LOT. But mischievious rascal I am, I couldn't help but click the link for "Previous". Just 24 hours earlier, probably drawn before the bombings to meet a deadline and be released later, was this:

Earlier today on Fox News Sunday (no transcript available) Bill Kristol opined that Bush came out of the summit meetings in Scotland vindicated. He'd gone into the summit wanting to talk about terrorism and the war, while his left-leaning counterparts in the G8 wanted to talk about 'more important matters', like global warming. It didn't take long before al Qaida showed the rest of G8 - and Steve Benson - that this war is more than just Bush's "adventure", and there's merit in a plan that "stay(s) the course".

I never visit Kos, and would not have heard of the editor's attempt to reform it as a "reality-based" space staion, sans the moonbat conspiracy theories, had I not seen it mentioned at small dead animals.

The gist is, after receiving comments which claimed that Bush and Blair conspired to produce the London bombings, the editor decided the reader's had finally gone too far, and he purged all those he considered less than earthbound from his site. However, after receiving emails from the purged ones requesting permission to land, he is reinstating them.

Even before he began the reinstatement process it was apparent the reader's he kept were not up to a "reality-based" threshold, as the first commentor promotes the unreal, and he is followed by one who insists there is no proof that UBL was involved in 9/11, (even though UBL was involved in training the hijackers and later took credit for the attack). The fight to retain the right to be ungrounded is in hyper drive over there. There is the occaisional view from terra firma, but mostly the commenter's skulls are as empty as is space itself.

One space man even gives away the entire raison d'etre for the Daily Kos site when SeanF says;

"Conspiracy theories can be fun but should be in a different place than where you try to bring down Bushco."

We can all see the real force at work over there.

Their purpose in life is to bring down the President, and that is not theory, that is a conspiracy fact. Unreal. And not productive. I guess they did not get my memo. But I have their coordinates, and they are parsecs away from America. Sound does not travel in space, so they can't hear our calls to correct course. And, as their aim remains off, they won't be coming home anytime soon.

Hurricane Dennis is on a track which includes the southwestern section of Florida, home to all of the TBR writers. As the storm may be here tomorrow I don't expect us to put in much time on the internet until the danger passes. Just as with Charley last year, we will be more focused on local events and preparing for the worst possible outcome, rather than thinking about the world at large.

Update: 11:45 7/9- It appears the danger has passed, though the eye of the storm is still south of the latitude here at Naples, it continues its northwestern track and shouyld bring us only moderate winds and rain.

As my original post is not showing, for some unknown reason, all danger may pass before this is even read. Whew! Dodged another one.

Update 5:45 7/10- The storm did miss us, but at this point has increased to Cat 4 levels and is bearing down on the northeast gulf coast. This is a big one, best of luck to those in its way.

A series of bombs have rocked London during this morning's rush hour. The latest report has a previously unknown branch of Al Qaeda taking credit. Cowards targeting civilians once again.

Death to the cowards!

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

In the early 1970s, Jack Warner, head of production for the famed movie studio Warner Bros., bought the rights to a Tony Award-winning stage musical he fell in love with and intended to bring to the screen. In reference to the project, he once said, "I didn't do the thing because it would make money." It's good that he took that attitude, because he lost money on the deal. But amidst the strife and turmoil of the Vietnam War, Warner was thinking about something more important than money. "I figured what the country needed was an idea of where it came from and how we got the freedom we all enjoy."

Of course the play that exemplifies the comment, "where (America) came from," is 1776. When possible, it's my tradition to sit and watch Warner's adaptation every year on this day, as my own special way of observing the holiday. When I began the tradition, years ago before DVD players, I was fortunate to hit a string of years when a local independent TV station would devote three hours of their July 4th to show the movie. Since the advent of video rentals, I would make sure I'd have a copy of the tape picked up for viewing. But nowadays I'm able to watch my very own copy of the DVD - which restores the film to director Peter Hunt's original cut. Why the film needed restoration in the first place, and what new insight I received from this year's viewing, are both tales that belong here at The Black Republican.

Just before the release of the film, Jack Warner decided to offer a screening to an old friend from California then living in Washington D.C. - President Richard Nixon. Perhaps looking ahead to his re-election, Nixon objected to the song "Cool, Cool Considerate Men," which casts the southerners and conservatives of 1776 in a considerably bad light. Though no conservative himself, Nixon knew he had to garner the votes of the 1972 audience, and didn't want to chance alienating the Republicans who had voted for Barry Goldwater just eight years before. So he asked Jack Warner to remove the song, and Warner agreed - even pledging to destroy the negative.

Luckily for us, Warner either broke that promise and hid a copy of that scene for posterity, or a copy was hidden away by someone else. In any event, it has been returned to the film in the DVD version. What is ironic, when looking back on this 30 years later after Nixon saw it first, is that the play as a whole doesn't seem to indict today's Right nearly as much as today's Left.

The height of the tension in 1776 comes not from "Cool, Cool Considerate Men," but from the haunting "Molasses to Rum", when Edward Rutledge of South Carolina - a slaveholder, and the most significant obstacle to the adoption of the Declaration, even over the "Cool Conservative" John Dickenson - points out that the businessmen making the slave trade possible are not the southern plantation owners, but the ship captains of New England. For the southerners, it was the height of hypocrisy for New Englanders to think that slavery was exclusively a "southern" problem. In a telling bit of dialogue, screenwriter Peter Stone seems to speak through Benjamin Franklin in defense of those Founding Fathers, the liberals of his day, and by association all of us when we're being dealt with by those of differing opinions.

These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about. They're proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies, and whether you like it or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation you hope to create. Now, either learn to live with them, or pack up and go home!

But for me, the most telling turn in political fortune since Nixon asked Warner to cull the song, comes earlier in the film, right in the middle of "Cool, Cool Considerate Men." John Dickenson observes of John Hancock, "You're a man of property - one of us." But the fact of the matter is, Hancock was a self-made man. Not only that, but he made his money illegally, smuggling past English blockades and tax collectors to the colonial black market - quite a "corporate raider" of a different sort. So it is especially ironic when Dickenson later notes: "But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." That's exactly why Hancock stood with the patriots, and why modern Americans have swung to the tax-cutting Republicans. "To the Right, ever to the Right, Never to the Left, Forever to the Right."

UPDATE: As if irony wasn't good enough, confluence seems ready to join in the fun.

While I was celebrating American independence, the Cool, Cool Considerate liberals - who I referred to as "harping dilettantes of the Blue-state northeast and... the Hollywood elite who make up the wealthiest of today's 'men of property,'" - were holding yet another rock concert to blackmail those evil corporatists who just don't care so much for Africans the way they do.

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania (oh, when will the irony stop, John Dickenson?) told us on Sunday that President Bush's Supreme Court nominee better not be a Originalist because... well, those bastards who wrote the Constitution were slaveowners, dontcha know.

(Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987) had original intent, and if his original intent stood, we'd still be segregating the United States Senate with African Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Listen as Red Skelton reads, and explains the meaning of the Pledge.

Happy Independence Day!

Of course I am paraphrasing the spurious remarks of Mexican President Vicente Fox concerning the work his citizens are willing to break into this country in order to take.

Having learned such an enduring lesson about insensitivity from the fallout over Fox's comments, the Mexican government has released an equally offensive set of stamps depicting blacks.

Seen here, the stamps would create a firestorm in the USA, unless they had been suggested by Sen. Byrd (who is a Democrat and therefore immune from any previous or future racial transgressions, it would seem, but I digress).