The Black Republican

To borrow a line from James Taranto of the Opinion Journal, What Would We Do Without Experts?

What does this study (by a psychologist who teaches at Berkeley and began his research twenty years ago no less) tell us, given that most of the pundits on the Sunday morning shows and talking heads in the MSM are left leaning at least and outright liberals at the most? I think it tells us just what Louis Menand of the New Yorker concludes, and what conservatives have been saying for years... "Think for yourself."

Jane Galt via Dr. Reo Symes at Ace of Spades

I strongly suggest this piece by Ben Shapiro as "Recommended Reading".

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Joe Lieberman as "Recommended Reading".

Actor Bruce Willis has visited the Iraq war zone, has offered a million dollar bounty for the capture of top Al Queda leaders, and now is set to honor our soldiers with a true portrayal of the good works they have done.

"I am baffled to understand why the things I saw happening in Iraq are not being reported,” he told MSNBC, the American news channel."

Willis plans to make a film based on the exploits of the "Duece Four", (1st Battalion, 24th Infantry), and may star as their commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Erik Kurilla.

"He is expected to base the film on the writings of the independent blogger Michael Yon, a former special forces green beret who was embedded with Deuce Four and sent regular dispatches about their heroics".

Small Dead Animals

I strongly suggest this piece by The New York Sun as "Recommended Reading".

Ace (Daschle pic from Ace's archives)

On today's Fox News Sunday Senator Carl Levin took a logical stumble as he attempted to walk the party line on the Iraq War troop levels.

After Levin criticized the administration for not putting enough men into the Iraqi theater, the show's host, Chris Wallace, reminded Levin that the Democratic line now is that the troops need to come home. And then asked which is it, there are too few there, or we need to bring them home?

Levin responded that there were too few troops before, and too many now.

So, how did we get to a situation where he now estimates we have too many troops if we had too few? To accept Levin's conclusions one must then assume that we have achieved a military position over there where we now have too many because the force we had there has over-achieved and succeeded in its mission. I am certain the Secretary of Defense will appreciate the compliment, but, doubtless would point out that we never had too few in the first place.

I am equally certain that if challenged on his stumble, Levin would seek to re-balance with a reply that a too small force achieves more, and thus a draw-down to zero will cause us to achieve total victory. Nonsense. We have made progress with the force level the adminstration has provided. President Bush takes the advice of the Defense Department on this matter (troop level), and thus far has been well served. We are seeing progress in Iraq, even if the President's domestic enemies refuse to concede the point. I trust that we will draw down our force level in reaction to the increased stability in Iraq, but only after stability is achieved not as a method to achieve stability.

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

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

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

Read this!

It seems that in 1993, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) was one of the movers and shakers in Washington DC urging then President Clinton to pull out of Somalia. You remember Somalia right? The "Blackhawk Down" incident! So he and his cronies get Clinton to pull us out of Somalia, and then in 1998, Osama bin Laden sites Somalia in his declaration of war against the United States, declares that it is proof as to why al Qaeda will defeat us, and uses that as motivation to this day as to why his fighters should not give up hope even though they are suffering massive losses. And now, the same John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) is urging that we pursue the same course in Iraq that we did in Somalia.

Huh?

If Osama bin Laden used the US pullout of Somalia as a source of motivation and propaganda in 1998, wouldn't logic dictate that he or some other jihadist wannabe would use a pullout of Iraq in the same way? And if that is logical to assume, isn't it also logical to conclude that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) is actually helping Osama and his ilk achieve their goal at most, and as a tool for motivation and propaganda at least?

Sorry, I forgot: Democrats don't like logic - gets in the way of their world view!

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

In today's Best of the Web, James Taranto comments on the vote in the House of Representatives this past weekend to continue the Iraq campaign.

Late Friday night the House took a vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 403-3 against, with Murtha among the 403....

Some Republicans have labeled Murtha a "coward," which strikes us as unduly personal. But he does seem to lack the courage of his convictions.

In one scene, just before the great battle began to turn horribly wrong for the Confederates, Sheen recites a monologue as Lee issues instructions to his deputy commander, James Longstreet.

General, soldiering has one, great trap. To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love.

We do not fear our own death, you and I. But there comes a time... we are never quite prepared for so many to die. Oh, we do expect the occasional empty chair, a salute to fallen comrades. But this war goes on and on, and the men die, and the price gets ever higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us.

And there is the great trap, General. When you attack, you must hold nothing back. You must commit yourself totally. We are adrift here in a sea of blood, and I want it to end.

Sheen's portrayal of Lee speaks to us now, in this age. We can shirk our duty and give up our country and its ideals, or we can fight for it. Fighting courageously will not assure us victory, but at least gives us hope we can achieve it. We "must hold nothing back," because we, like Lee, "want it to end." But should we lose our nerve, we must be "prepared to lose all of us," because the enemy will be at the gates, and they have shown us they will offer no quarter and show no mercy.

Seven Score and Two Years Ago,

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom"

In following the lead of Rep. Murtha D-Penn the Democratic Party elites have shown once again why America does not trust them to defend this country. Murtha's message, as the Democrat message always is, was a confusing montage of tugs at heart-strings fueled by pessimism and defeatism.

The Democrats know that they have a deservedly poor reputation on National Defense issues, and were eager to back Murtha's position because it endorsed their own strategy of capitulation, while allowing them to walk in the light of Murtha's service to this country (37 years a Marine). In truth, most of them hate the military, would not have it in our schools, and would do everything possible to dissuade all young people from serving. When Murtha offered his own resolution on 11/17 they immediately pointed out his military career as evidence that his views were presented by a pro-military Democrat, and they wanted to be seen under the umbrella of his heroism as well. They are afraid to be whom they really are, and that is why so few of them voted their hearts on H. Res. 571 today. ("Three Democrats, Jose Serrano of New York, Robert Wexler of Florida and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, voted for withdrawal. Six voted present: Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington; Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and Major Owens of New York; Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and William Lacy Clay of Missouri.")

The Democrats in the Congress voted to give the President permission to go to war, only because they sensed the sentiment in the country would not allow them to obstruct, at that time. So, they voted to do the right thing, even though they did not really want to, knowing that they could snipe at the President afterwards. Their votes then, and now, were based not on their convictions, but rather on their political appraisals. We saw through them then, and we see through them today. They don't care if America is weak; they are more interested in their War on Bush, than our War on Terror.

This resolution, H. Res. 571, did not allow any wiggle room. And, during debate before the vote the Republicans countered Murtha's service with veteran after veteran who declared that we must stay the course.

It was so important to call their bluff on the Murtha resolution, and its simplistic proposition, and this vote today did that. It forced the Democrats to do the one thing they fear most, put themselves on the record. (Rep. Duncan Hunter was not satisfied to allow this to be a voice vote, and at his request it was a recorded vote) Now, we can point to this vote each time a lib calls for retreat. And we can clearly and irrefutably state that staying the course is the real mainstream position.

Drudge is linking to a news item that House Republicans are forcing a vote on Rep. Jack Murtha's Iraq-pullout bill that everyone expected had no hope of seeing the floor.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

...By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

The article includes this absolute gem: "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no immediate reaction to the planned vote." That's gotta be the first time since she took over the minority that the darling of San Fran has shut her big fat mouth.

Senator Chuckie Schumer of New York State, one of the more disingenuous people on the planet, weighed in on the nomination of Sam Alito the other day. And, as comparison to Alito, he referred back to the work on the Supreme Court of Sandra Day O'Connor, time and again.

"Now, it's sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor who would unify us."

"The president had an opportunity to nominate someone in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream, albeit conservative, who would unite the country, not further decide us. At first blush, Judge Alito does not appear to be a Sandra Day O'Connor."

"Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will serve until the position is filled."

"I'd say this is a more serious decision than the vote on Judge Roberts, because Sandra Day O'Connor is such a swing vote."

"This is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come."

Reality Check part B: If Sandra Day O'Connor was the Solomon they insinuate her to be, the other eight Justices would not have been needed for the last twenty five years; we could have just let Sandy decide all of the cases. So, according to the Democrat's thinking, we wasted the salaries paid to the other eight over the last quarter century. We could have just let Sandy decide everything with her balanced, swinging vote; and we could have used the money saved to throw a keg party, I suppose. Now, that is swinging.

Well, isn't this precious! The 9th Circuit Court says teaching children to be Muslims is fine with them!

Christian students and parents cannot sue a school district where some seventh-graders pretended to be Muslims for three weeks during a course in world history, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

Brooke Carlin encouraged her students to play at being Muslims - adopt Muslim names, recite a line from a prayer and give up candy or television to simulate fasting, for example. Students were permitted to opt out. On the final exam they were asked to critique elements of Muslim culture.

However, not all is lost! There may be a silver lining to all of this.

San Francisco U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the suit two years ago, saying Carlin was merely teaching and not indoctrinating. Hamilton found that the students did not engage in actual religious exercises.

The 9th Circuit upheld her decision in a five-sentence ruling, saying only that the activities weren't "overt religious exercises" that would raise concerns under the First Amendment prohibition of "establishment of religion."

Right!

Hat tip to Sue and Stop The ACLU

I was asked this morning to post the following:

Allow me to express my sincere apologies to all TBR readers out there who are frustrated by the nearly complete lack of postings. Chris and Steve determined this morning that this seeming complete lack of interest is because of me. You see, everyday Chris and I start the day out discussing various items that we see in different blogs as well as in the MSM. Because he is far more passionate about these things than I am, I both encourage and allow him to carry on until he wears himself out. This has been by design. If this "morning vent” does not occur, he sits at his desk and mopes all day which, in turn, casts a shadow all over my day.

I see now that I have been selfish. I hope you can forgive me for my selfishness. I will cease to encourage the morning release and will allow him to vent again in his forum.

With my sincerest apologies...

Sue

I strongly suggest this piece by Louis Freeh as "Recommended Reading".

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

The future has arrived, and its name is Open Source Media.

OK... one look at the website name and I know going in that this is parody, but why does the logic employed by this - ahem, writer - sound exactly like that of so many people I see protesting in Crawford, Texas or hear on Sunday morning network news shows? I think some enterprising independent film maker could make a fortune with a movie documenting how this kind of thinking actually goes on - and often in front of TV cameras no less! I've even got a suggestion for the title. Call it: Dr. Moonbat or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Michael Moore!

John Derbyshire over at The Corner

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

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

As usual, the smartest man in the country - Thomas Sowell - articulates so easily and with such grounded common sense the root cause of most conservative's frustrations, all I can add is "Yea! What he said!"

If the Republicans are not willing to fight for the things that people elected them to do, then some of the people who elected them may not turn out to vote for them at the next election.

People who have for years not only voted for the Republicans, but donated their time and money to the Republican party, who have volunteered to stuff envelopes, man the phones and walk the precincts to get out the vote on cold election nights, deserve something better than Senators who wimp out at crunch time.

If the fate of the legal system in this country is not enough incentive for Senate Republicans to show some backbone, maybe concern for their own re-election will be.

No less than the Los Angeles Times proclaims: Nominee Has Some Unexpected Supporters:

Former federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time.

"As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito. I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to Lewis.

"I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench. "Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference."

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time. Scott at Slant Point was tipped off to a blog called Stop The Republicans, and its only post, "The History of Republican Evil". Those Dem bastards finally found out about us and are now trying to expose "our diabolical plan".

I strongly suggest this piece by WorldNetDaily as "Recommended Reading".

Following a link from GOPinion today, I was led to a very interesting piece on originalism at The American Thinker by J. Peter Mulhern, referencing an earlier article by Mr. Mulhern and a rebuttal by Steven M. Warshawsky. If you have the time, I recommend each of these visits to hear a fair argument on the merits, though I have some bones I could pick with Mr. Mulhern's interpretation of how an originalist views his own judicial interpretation.

In the course of reading, and with my usual cross-referencing at sites like Wikipedia and FindLaw, I came across an excellent refutation of originalism by Justice John Paul Stevens.

The original understanding of the type of "religion" that qualified for constitutional protection under the Establishment Clause likely did not include those followers of Judaism and Islam who are among the preferred "monotheistic" religions Justice Scalia has embraced in his McCreary County opinion. The inclusion of Jews and Muslims inside the category of constitutionally favored religions surely would have shocked Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story. Indeed, Justice Scalia is unable to point to any persuasive historical evidence or entrenched traditions in support of his decision to give specially preferred constitutional status to all monotheistic religions. Perhaps this is because the history of the Establishment Clause's original meaning just as strongly supports a preference for Christianity as it does a preference for monotheism. Generic references to "God" hardly constitute evidence that those who spoke the word meant to be inclusive of all monotheistic believers; nor do such references demonstrate that those who heard the word spoken understood it broadly to include all monotheistic faiths. Justice Scalia's inclusion of Judaism and Islam is a laudable act of religious tolerance, but it is one that is unmoored from the Constitution's history and text, and moreover one that is patently arbitrary in its inclusion of some, but exclusion of other (e.g., Buddhism), widely practiced non-Christian religions. Given the original understanding of the men who championed our "Christian nation"--men who had no cause to view anti-Semitism or contempt for atheists as problems worthy of civic concern--one must ask whether Justice Scalia "has not had the courage (or the foolhardiness) to apply [his originalism] principle consistently."

In another portion of the same Wikipedia article, Justice Scalia is quoted from a news account of a speaking engagement echoing Winston Churchill:

It's not always easy to figure out what the provision meant when it was adopted...I don't say [originalism] is perfect. I just say it's better than anything else.

Like the current debate in the political sphere, opponents of originalism have to take note of the perpetual failure of Democrats to state what they are for, not merely what they are against. Increasingly, judicial activists are "for" whatever strikes their fancy - and that is proving to be a lousy basis for jurisprudence.

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

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

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

In case you haven't been following it, a group of bloggers, columnists, reporters, editors and journalism professors have banded together to... well, it's not quite clear at this point exactly what it is they're about to do, but it appears to be an attempt to start a new form of blogging syndication. The venture, initially called Pajamas Media but soon to appear under a new name, was started by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs). They even have an editorial board (!) made up of an eclectic bunch of big names, including Jane Hall, Michael Barone, Tammy Bruce, David Corn, Marc Cooper and John Podhoretz. Contributing blogs include Vodkapundit, Protein Wisdom, Dean's World, Volokh Conspiracy, Baldilocks, and Michelle Malkin.

Wait... did I say, Michelle Malkin?

Okay, okay - while I'm very interested in what's being hatched at Pajamas Media, this post is really just an excuse to post this publicity photo of Michelle. Can you blame me?

I guess it's inevitable. Get sidetracked by a hurricane and the tantrums of teenage offspring and just about anyone will jump on top your bloggy grave.

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

I strongly suggest this piece by Max Boot as "Recommended Reading".

Robert Gordon, writing at Slate is concerned about Sam Alito's record. Not just because he's conservative, but he's so horribly consistent about it.

Of course, caveats apply. All of the cases (described earlier in the story) are more complicated than short summaries can capture. In any given case, Alito's position often seems reasonable; it is the accumulation of consistent results that surprises....

If you are the sort of person who believes conservatives are always right, Alito's consistency in many matters will cheer you. Maybe it will even send you into the same earthly rapture that America's right has experienced since Monday morning. But if you are the sort of person who believes that conservatives and liberals both tell some of the truth and neither tells all of it, you may prefer the sort of conservative judge who ventures out of camp more often.

What is almost as enlightening is Gordon's confusion regarding the concept of "activism". In keeping with the lead set up by their Democratic allies, the MSM appears ready to tar conservative rulings as "activism" if a judge overrules any legislative action, even if it's clearly unconstitutional according to the text or original intent.

Yes, Alito shares Justice Antonin Scalia's ambivalence toward judicial activism. Both men tout their own restraint in deferring to majorities that step on individual rights (including a woman's decision whether to bear a child). Both men also act aggressively to override majorities that touch states' rights like sovereign immunity from lawsuits. And neither Scalia nor Alito has really explained how to reconcile the criticism of activism on one front with the embrace of activism on the other.

But... Scalia has actually proved to be less adventuresome than Alito in curtailing congressional power....

When Antonin Scalia starts looking good, you know you're in trouble.

That's a question that was being answered at Dean's World and Instapundit recently, and apparently They Of The Short Memories have decided to force a closed-door meeting in the Senate to mull the concept yet again.

After she pointed out the Breitbart link at Drudge, I asked my coworker Sue what the closed-door session was about. "Why we went to war," she snorted derisively.

"Don't they- Don't they- REMEMBER?!" I stammered.

But Sue, in her eloquent way, provided just the politically-incorrect answer the Left needs to hear - since they're completely incapable of hearing the proper answers we've provided time, and time, and time again.

With a fake southern drawl, the Michagan native sneered: "They just needed killin'."

I strongly suggest this piece by The Washington Times as "Recommended Reading".

Ok... not only she a hottie, but Michelle Malkin is extremely intelligent, a conservative, a prolific blogger, and the author of what is sure to be a best-selling new book that slices, dices, skewers, grills, and then serves up the Democrats and liberal on a silver platter:

It’s not Republicans taking chainsaws to Democrat campaign signs and running down political opponents with their cars. It’s not conservatives burning Democrats in effigy, defacing war memorials, and supporting the fragging of American troops. And it’s not conservatives producing a bullet-riddled bumper crop of assassination-themed musicals, books and collectible stamps.

It’s not a Republican who invoked Pol Pot and Nazis and Soviet gulag operators when discussing American troops at Guantanamo Bay. That was Democrat Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who kept his Senate Minority Whip position and who continues to blame an "orchestrated right-wing attack" for what came out of his mouth.

It’s not Republicans who suggested that President Bush had advance knowledge of the September 11th attacks or that Osama bin Laden has already been captured. Those notions were advanced by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and current Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

And it wasn’t a Republican who asserted that the war Iraq was "just as bad as six million Jews being killed." That was Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel, who has refused to apologize and whom no Democrat leader has denounced.

The views of unhinged liberals are no longer relegated to the private remarks of a few Democrat politicians or the bloviations of a few fringe figures on the far Left. The syndrome is far more pervasive, intense, and sanctimoniously self-delusional than anything on the Right.

To see just how deeply this unhinged disease has infected the entire party leadership and its liberal body politic, you'll have to buy the book.

Oh yea, stick a fork in 'em... they're done! (I sure am glad we're on the same side!)