The Black Republican

I grew up in New York and New Jersey not long after Kitty Genovese was murdered. I have such vivid memories of that story being repeated over and over again, I never knew until just now that it happened four years before I was even born. Indeed, that incident was one of the things that eventually drove my parents into "white flight" mode, eventually moving us out to the New Jersey countryside.

Michelle Malkin used this memory to great effect tonight, reminding me why I shouldn't sit by and let Jeff Goldstein's problems go without mention. Jeff has now received a little bit of help from our PayPal account, and I'm sure he'll be needing anything you can spare.

But that doesn't mean the Kitty Genovese Appeal isn't a cheap shot at my conscience, Michelle.

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

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

I wasn't going to approve this comment, because it violates our posted policies. It's neither pertinent to the thread nor constructive, but simply repetitive ad hominem attacks and repeated claims that the commenter is "more conservative" than the president and conservative politicians in Congress. He doesn't explain what "conservative" means to him, or what his "conservatism" is supposed to mean to us.

Thankfully, a day off and time to kill presents a refreshing opportunity for a heavy fisking. As such, it has earned its own post.

And you think that Bush and this current genre of Republican lawmakers are somehow conservative???

I've gone back into our archives, and while at some point I've probably suggested the President was some breed of conservative, it hasn't happened recently. So you seem not to be reading carefully what we write, and you're just hanging on some misinterpretation of who and what we are based on some superficial perusal of the site. The fact that you're having a hard time addressing issues directly, and just spout meaningless rhetoric backs up that assessment. In point of fact from my review of previous articles, most often I seem to refer to the President in contrast to most mainstream conservative values.

That all said, Bush is clearly more conservative than, say, Rudy Giuliani. The various members of Congress you refer to, of course, run the gamut of the various strains of conservatism. And while I prefer some versions of conservatism more than others, I'm not opposed to having a fairly big tent under which we can argue about which flavor of conservatism is best, and where individual conservatives can disagree with one another (even within each school) on individual issues. You can't make a majority party by being too rigid, but if you're too accepting of any and all apostasy, there's no point to having a party in the first place. The key to progress is fairly balancing ideological rigor with democratic consensus-building.

This is no longer the republican party of Abraham Lincoln.

I could lecture on this small sentence alone, probably for days. You are absolutely correct, and this is absurdly obvious on so many levels. The fact that this is no longer the same exact party of Lincoln is sometimes a good thing - starting with the fact that I'm allowed to join at all, despite being a tradition-minded Catholic. To one of the GOP's founding factions, the Know-Nothings, my forebears were a scourge to defend against. This is why the subtitle of this blog specifies the enduring principles of the party, and not rigid adherence to all its founding principles - especially those that time and wisdom has proven to be impractical, stupid, or un-American.

The question is, of course, what values did the Founder hold that we need to perpetuate? I'll leave that for individual study and not belabor the point here.

The wasteful, unconstitutional and treasonous actions of this president and Republican lawmakers are all the evidence anyone needs.

Some actions have indeed been wasteful (spending) and unconstitutional (campaign finance laws). But treasonous? Hardly - unless you have a very broad definition of treason, in which case I might agree with you as long as you would agree to prosecute all cases of treason in order of decreasing severity. This should put you back in my camp, in opposition to the Leftist Democrats, would it not? Shouldn't we reserve this kind of scorch-and-burn rhetoric for those who most truly deserve it? Otherwise, your divisiveness is "giving them aid and comfort".

Well, what have we here? That, sir, is the definition of treason directly referenced in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The last 5 years have been like watching history in the making.

A statement so profound, Yogi Berra is dying at the thought he didn't come up with it first.

Once these neoconservatives infiltrated the ranks of the republican party, they steered it away from a conservative party that is somehow of, by or for the people.

Last I checked, we still had these things called "elections" that determine how a government is "of" and "by" the people. And when that government is no longer "for" the people, the next election allows a new one to take its place. It's really an ingenious system, you should try studying it sometime so you can understand better how all this works.

Bill Clinton was far more conservative then Bush and the country prospered under his administration.

Oh, man. You should go into comedy with this routine.

First: There's this place in Washington D.C. where a bunch of people sit down and make laws. It's called Congress. Long story short, you might want to learn a little bit about what they do and how they affect what the President does, and vice-versa. The Republican Congress Mr. Clinton had to deal with had a little something to do with your mistaken understanding of the history of the 1990's.

Second: What part of the government Mr. Clinton DID have control over, were butchered, bombed, and bombed again. His appointees frequently rolled over while he took a nap.

Third: Family values

The track record over the last five years is proof that the Republican party is now the party of the rich corporate elite and large corporations.

"Proof"?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It is ironic that the Republican party has had the chance to show the world what they are made of since they siezed political power and it is the total opposite of what they claim they are for. Bush & Cheney have successfully pimped the presidency and turned the Senate into an auction house for special interest legislation to the highest bidder.

"Siezed political power" - so now you're one of the "stolen election" nuts, too? For a "conservative" you talk a lot like George Soros.

Bush snubbed the NAACP for years and now all of sudden when his approval ratings are rock bottom it is convenient for him to start talking to the NAACP.

Actually, his approval ratings hit rock bottom a while back, and seem to be coming back up a little. But even if he was looking for ways to bring his approval up, do you really think it makes sense to court the NAACP? How is this "convenient" in any way? Are you suggesting he should or shouldn't be talking to the NAACP? What's your point exactly?

Now that he can no longer hide behind the lie of conservative values and jingoistic patriotism, his filthy reflectin is out in the open. Of course, he still seems to get away with using Christianity as a shield to ward off criticism when his treasonous misdeeds are exposed.

I'd respond to this if I could find some coherent thought behind it. Has your "reflectin" been tippin' the Jack Daniels?

Since the bulk of the religious right wing of this nation is one dimensional in its voting habits and will vote for any charleton who claims to be moral or against abortion, potential republican candidates still have that going for them.

So now you're a secular pro-abortionist? Is this what you think "more conservative" means?

I'm a thousand times more conservative then you can imaging.

I'm fairly certain that someone several times more conservative than me could spell several times better than me as well. You don't seem to qualify.

The only difference between those like me and our current republican lawmakers is the fact that I really am conservative and they are conservative only in word.

So you think politicians are liars? That's not "conservative", that's common sense.

Their actions are very anti-conservative and worse then thier own corrupt presentation of liberalism as they seek to manipulate the impressionable who simply don't realize what that word really means.

So... corrupt presentation of liberalism = anti-conservative? Basic algebra tells me that when you cross out the -1 on each side of that equation, you get liberalism = conservative.

Brilliant. You have a bright future ahead of you as Professor of Logic at Ward Churchill University.

These three headlines, courtesy of The Drudge Report, tell you all you need to know about Howard Dean. Says Howie: "He (pointing) hates Jews, she's (again pointing) a commie, and there is too much divisiveness coming from those hateful Republicans!"

Ooh, and though I take a big risk using the word... it seems Howie also has hutzpah!

Hat tip to The Drudge Report for the headline screen shot and Michelle Malkin for the link to the Mark Levin Fan post!

I strongly suggest this piece by Tunku Varadarajan as "Recommended Reading".

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

This should be another installment of Tiptoes on Tuesday, but I'm a day late. I was going to call it "Tiptoes on Tursday" as a (lame) publik-skul-edukashun joke, but I'm about 12 minutes shy there, too.

In any event, Ace finds an email that's either slick satire or sick, lazy MSM whoring. Yah, right - it's gotta be the latter.

Funny thing happened while reading the comments, I travelled to Che-Mart, where you too can assuage your "Trust Fund Guilt".

One of Che's ads looked quite interesting, and I ended up at The People's Cube, where I lost about 45 minutes of my life reading about The Newspaper of Sedition, American History lessons, vintage filmmaking, and the heartbreak and disappointment of a son gone bad.

Enjoy, comrade!

UPDATE: In related news... "(N)obody is more of an expert when it comes to cruel restrictions on lifesaving." - James Taranto

Sue, a coworker of mine, heard this yesterday, so when I found it I just had to post it. All I can add is: Tony Snow - The right man for the right job, at the right time! And as another friend, Dan, said to me in response to this link: It’s about time someone told Helen Thomas "get your facts right."

Hat tip to Sue, Michelle Malkin and, of course, Outside The Beltway

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

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

Two of the best analyses of the ludicrous lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Plame have been especially blogworthy: a lovely new tune by The Right Place and a "photo exposé" by Jim Treacher. Enjoy.

I've got a new toy. NewsGator (which I'm now using as my feed reader, having dumped Bloglines) allows you to set up an RSS feed based on the results from an Internet search. So as an example, if I had a blog devoted entirely to cranberries, I could search for new mentions of "cranberry" across the net.

I've been watching the results of my new keyword search feed, and you might guess what word - what name - I chose as my keyword.

In a post at Ezra Klein, John from Dymaxion World quotes an interview by Dave Roberts with Jeff Goodell, who in turn mentions our patron.

I haven't the foggiest idea who any of these people are either, but they all do an extremely good job of sounding breathless and important.

DR: You mention Americans' ignorance about where electricity comes from.

JG: Everyone I talk to can tell me the price of a gallon of gas to the tenth of a cent, but I've not found a person -- except for one guy at a reading last night who had a solar panel -- who could tell me what they pay for a kilowatt of electricity. We're completely divorced from the price. If you look at electric power bills, you will see they often make it very difficult to know exactly what you're paying.

In any event, Mr. Goodell makes the following point:

When I was working on this book as I spent some time looking at slavery debate. During the slavery debate there was all this stuff: oh, you can't abolish slavery, the farms will collapse, what are you going to replace this labor with, we don't have people, who's going to pick our cotton, everything's going to fall apart. The great thing Lincoln said is, that's not the issue. The issue is, is it right or is it wrong? You make that decision first and then you decide how to do it. Global warming is reaching that moment.

Given the times, I'm neither surprised nor overly alarmed at their reach. We've got more important things going on, and most people seem aware of that. But all in all, I wish these guys would leave Abe's name out of it.

There's a point where there's not enough duct tape, and there's a point where there's no point to manufacture it in the first place.

Welcome to The Twilight Zone.

LGF

As a blog dedicated to the founder of our Grand Old Party, the original Black Republican, and the Great Emancipator, I could not let an article titled Emancipation Proclamation On Slavery Today to go by without comment.

My comment: Bravo! Mr. Rummel, and anyone else reading this, please send a copy of this Proclamation immediately to The President, Tony Snow, whoever the new presidential speech writer is, Senate and House Republicans - hell, send it to Senate and House Democrats as well! Send this to anyone who can read, and if there is someone you know who cannot read - read it to them.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no Slave, must consent to enslave no one. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under in [a] Just God, could not long rule a State. All honor to Jefferson-to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of Tyranny, Oppression, and Slavery

Therefore, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the reality of The Declaration of Freedom of Humanity, I issue this Emancipation Declaration.

All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, whereof their absolute Dictators are then in open Rebellion against a People's God given Rights, thenceforward, and forever shall be considered free; and the executive governments of all the democracies, including as necessary their military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and promote in actuality the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their Freedom from Slavery.

That day, that action, that fact of emancipation led many great people to perform great acts of courage, discovery and intellect, and allowed them to dream of better days not just for themselves, but for everyone. Relegating the slavery of monarchism, fascism, communism, and Islamofascism to the dustbin of history might be a dream, maybe even a pipedream to some, but I for one believe it is a dream whose time has come.

Dean

Good news: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been renewed.

Bad news: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been renewed.

I strongly suggest this piece by The Black Madonna as "Recommended Reading".

In an uncharacteristically long post, Allen Forkum opines on the immigration debate.

Are there things we can all agree on? Certainly border security should be a priority, especially after 9/11, right? And we should respect "rule of law" and not encourage illegal behavior, right?

Yes, all true ... generally speaking. But the specifics of the immigration issue are crucial. Unfortunately, much of the opposition to "illegal immigration" seems to evade the full context, namely that the right to immigrate is restricted by government quotas and that that artificial restriction is the primary cause of the problems related to illegal immigration. Worse still, judging by complaints I've read about the prospect of raising the limit on immigrants allowed into America, some people are simply using the phrase "illegal immigration" as a euphemism for "too many immigrants."

Notice that we don't commonly talk about, say, "illegal homeowners" or "illegal students." Why? It's not because homeowners and students are fanatics for rule of law. It's because there are no government quotas limiting the number of home buyers and education seekers. If there were, if only a small number of houses were permitted to be built every year, if only a small number of people were allowed to attend school, then we'd be hearing about "illegals" who forge construction documents and smuggle students in station wagon dashboards.

It's a problem, and it needs a solution. But it's been a problem for quite a while, and I don't see a failure to resolve the issue as doing a whole lot of additional harm - except to my ability to stay attentive.

Did you know John Murtha has a challenger for re-election?

For the love of all that's holy, do what you can to help send Diana Irey to Congress.

Ace

In a July 5th interview which came to my attention as I listened to Laura Ingraham's radio show this week, Norah O'Donnell interviews and lambastes the radial leftist and media darling Cindy Sheehan. In question after question O'Donnell challenges Sheehan's positions and actions. And, I attribute O'Donnell's ability to be so aggressive with the airhead Cindy to Ann Coulter's book. Coulter has exposed both the liberal media, and those who use their relationship to victims as a shield against criticism. And thanks to Coulter's work, those media types who are willing to go after the truth are now free to assert themselves. Bravo Coulter!! And, as you'll come to appreciate from reading the interview, bravo O'Donnell!

"Cindy. Let me begin by asking you, you know, Americans may hate the war, but they don‘t necessarily hate the president. How do you expect to get change by going around the world and trashing the president of the United States?

CINDY SHEEHAN, ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST: Actually, I don‘t hate the president, either. And I don‘t trash the president; I trash the president‘s foreign policy, which is fundamentally and inherently wrong and immoral. And I don‘t tell people around the world anything that they don‘t know.

O‘DONNELL: But you called him “the biggest terrorist in the world.”

So you are trashing the president."

That exchange, if related in the terms used on the old Batman television show would go something like; "Kapow!!! OOF! SMACK!!! AH!, BAROOM!!! But, Norah wasn't finished.

"O‘DONNELL: Cindy, you have just begun a two-month hunger strike.

Isn‘t this really just more of a publicity stunt?"

And then, revealing more of Sheehan's naive self-indulgent campaign:

"O‘DONNELL: But do you honestly expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or the president of the United States to say, Cindy Sheehan is going on a hunger strike and so I‘m going to end this war?

SHEEHAN: Well, that would be nice, ..........................

O‘DONNELL: And nor, quite frankly, do you see members of Congress—and you claim to not be in the fringes, to not be an extremist, and yet what members of Congress support you in your policy?"

SHEEHAN: Well, ..............................

O‘DONNELL: And in the Senate?

SHEEHAN: In the Senate, well we would have many supporters in the Senate too.

O‘DONNELL: Who? Who?

SHEEHAN: John Kerry.

O‘DONNELL: John Kerry supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (?)

Did he tell you that?

I wonder if that is the same John Kerry who can not find the guts to release his military records from his service days? Without them how we ever know where he served?

"O‘DONNELL: Well, in fact, the bill that Senator Kerry has proposed went down in flames in the Senate.

SHEEHAN: Yes, it did but, you know, only—you know, in Vietnam, there was only a few senators at first, and then it turned around."

O‘DONNELL: Let me challenge you on this, Cindy, because what you‘re calling for is, in fact, an extreme position, because there are very few members of Congress who support immediate withdrawal. You would, if you could, fly a bunch of planes over there, pick up all our troops and take them home tomorrow, if you could, if it was in your power. There is no one in the United States Congress, Democrat, Republican or Independent who would do that.

PUNCH!! STAB!! ROUNDHOUSE!!! flop.

And then came the part that closely links with the recent furor over Ann Coulter's new book, and her contention within that book that Sheehan, Murtha, the Jersey Girls et al are getting a pass from the media. Norah honors Casey Sheehan for his service, and mentions that Cindy lost him as a result, without indulging in the now too familiar pattern of allowing that loss to insulate Cindy from Cindy's own words and deeds.

"O‘DONNELL: You speak very passionately about your cause. You lost a son in Iraq. We honor his service and sacrifice. But you‘ve been traveling the world—Scotland, Spain, Venezuela, Ireland, Australia, Austria—how does that help the cause when, again, you‘re around the world trashing the president, calling him a terrorist, calling him worse than Osama bin Laden. How do you honestly expect to affect change with those types of remarks?"

Before Ann's book came out, who in the media would, or could, have attacked this woman in this way? O'Donnell showed her up in so many ways, and the airhead stubbornly stuck to her radical agenda, oblivious to the fact that she should have been ashamed of her stance and her answers. To get the full effect of Sheehan's lack of intellect one need only to listen to the interview and the air between her synapses is revealed. (the video is supposed to be there, but even after I updated Internet Explorer it would not load, perhaps you will have better luck, if luck is what I should call it.)

Dean has found a great history quiz at the National Constitution Center, featuring our patron, and spotlighting some of the historic decisions he had to deal with in public life.

Somehow, I've missed this and failed to comment on it before now. Perhaps because compared to the Ohio and Pennsylvania governors' races and the Maryland Senate seat up for grabs, the competition in the 13th Congressional district in North Carolina might seem like small change to our friends in the MSM.

But there's absolutely nothing inconsequential about Vernon Robinson.

Son of one of the famed Tuskegee Airmen and a former Air Force officer himself, Robinson lost his bid for Congress in 2004 during the Republican primaries, while being targeted by the Winston-Salem Journal with an editorial titled "Jesse Helms is back! And this time, he's black". Robinson, undeterred, actually adopted the attack as a badge of honor and used it as his campaign slogan. This past May, Robinson fared a lot better, winning the Republican nomination in the Democratic-leaning 13th district by a wide margin. He will face off against Congressman Brad Miller (D) in November.

The last time we visited with Mr. Robinson, he was inadvertently giving us a lesson in Civil War history. Now it's his chance to teach us about science fiction... although, unfortunately, Mr. Robinson is encountering far more liberal studies than science from his opponents, and not so much entertaining fiction at all.

The Black Republican wishes Mr. Robinson well, and pledges to do what we can to support his campaign.

Jimmy Akin

Welcome to Internet Vocabulary 201, class. Today's word is frisch.

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans by John Hawkins

Hawkins does a fine job of listing the examples, both past and present, where Democrats have impeded the freedoms of black Americans, and he also does justice to the ways in which Republicans keep coming to the rescue of those same citizens.

"Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down."

He makes the case that the Democratic Party has this history of not really supporting blacks, while mouthing off that it is the other Party that is racist, and the facts simply do not bear this out. The Republican Party has been the greatest political friend American blacks have ever had. .

Ann Coulter, this is taken from her "secret interview" with the NY Times, explains it this way,

" NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?

A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.

Thus -- and obviously -- the abolitionist movement was fueled by Christians, much as the anti-abortion movement is today.

I'm sure in the year 2106 some future Ann Coulter will be asked to explain why some Christians had abortions 100 years earlier. Christians sometimes lapse into the church of liberalism by doing bad things, just as liberals sometimes lapse into our church by doing good things."

Just as with the Right, the Left seems to be taking a cautiously optimistic view of the new Chief Justice.

(A)fter a year, Roberts has had remarkable appeal in this position as the non-legislating umpire he described during his confirmation.

Roberts has a conservative mind but a diplomat's nature. His abiding concern is to keep the court within bounds on legal, rather than ideological, grounds. Because that is so, he has the capacity to draw votes from both sides on controversial and pedestrian cases alike.

Kennedy's theorizing reveals a mind of great intelligence but makes it more difficult to strike bargains with him. O'Connor knew what she wanted as a specific outcome, so the liberal and conservative coalitions could make reasonable bids for her affections. Kennedy as a solo act poses the perennial Father's Day dilemma: You know the old man needs something, but darned if you can put your finger on it.

It is exactly the ideal of a neutral, "non-legislating umpire" that conservatives are looking for in Supreme Court justices. It is this facet of their jurisprudence (in stark contrast to most of their colleagues) that has engendered such appeal for Justices Scalia and Thomas in conservative circles, and to secure our loyalty George W. Bush pointed to them as the standard by which he would appoint new justices.

But, the Left would argue, Scalia especially is far from neutral in the ideological wars. Here too we find agreement, albeit from a drastically different perspective. When Scalia (and to a lesser extent, Thomas) strays beyond non-ideological jurisprudence, his opinions are written from the perspective of an ideological conservative. As I have repeated often to friends and neighbors: who are we to argue if the most ideal jurist on the high bench meanders beyond our judicial philosophy to agree with our political philosophy? As long as the Court isn't made up entirely of conservatives, causing such a stray to veer too far to the Right, we're not going to have too much of a problem with it. And as long as the Court persisted in straying too far to the Left - and while there was no better exemplar among the justices - conservatives were more than happy to experience schadenfreude every time a liberal was forced to read a Scalia dissent.

The arrival of new Chief Justice Roberts, and his just slightly newer colleague Justice Alito, have upset the status quo in more ways than just replacing one conservative Chief Justice with another, and replacing center-right O'Connor with someone less likely to side occasionally with the Left. So far, Roberts and Alito seem well on their way to supplanting Scalia and Thomas as the conservatives' jurisprudential paradigm. They prove their credentials by appearing to be to Scalia and Thomas' left (to those who can't understand anything other than Left-Right), while simultaneously being even more devoted to discerning the law distinct from their political affiliation.

While both men have a long way to go yet before we can judge their effect on the Court fairly, it does appear that the President has done exactly what he promised us he would do. And I couldn't be happier.

I strongly suggest this piece by Kimberley A. Strassel as "Recommended Reading".

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

Were you reading Slate today?

At Right Wing News. I have no words to say.

Relapsed Catholic

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

Good news from Michelle about Yale's "Taliban Man".

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

More delightful news about North Korea's missile launch on July 4.

Japan's conservative mainstream daily Sankei said that Japanese and U.S. defense officials have concluded that the Taepodong-2 had targeted the U.S. state of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, after analyzing data collected from their intelligence equipment....

(Unidentified Japanese and U.S. government) officials decided that the missile was pointed at Hawaii from its angle immediately after launch and the altitude it reached, after analyzing data collected by destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar combat system and RC-135S electronic reconnaissance aircraft, the newspaper said....

But Pentagon officials said Thursday that the brief flight of the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful technical data, including its intended target, its payload and whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile.

...are waiting for your phone call.

I'm trying a new news aggregator, and so far so good... I'd missed this most eloquent entry from the end of June, blogged by David Frum:

A Reader's Three Word Response to Hamdan:

... summary battlefield executions.

Why is it that in The Washington Post, even patriotic, flag-waving opinion pieces written by Air Force officers end up being liberal tax-raising, anti-war whines about the Bush administration and the Republican Congress?

I'm just askin'.

TBR EXCLUSIVE! Outlets reporting this story MUST cite TBR!

Critics of the Bush Administration late on Wednesday charged that longtime supporters on the editorial board of The Washington Times were found to have plagiarized their July 4 editorial. The piece, which appeared prominently as the lead and only editorial on Tuesday, is currently being analyzed by experts known to be familiar with the original source documentation - apparently an obscure, 18th-century political tract that some inside observers say has not been seen in the nation's capital for some time.

The panel of eminent historians and journalists, hired by an impartial and unbiased coalition of newsmedia outlets seeking to authenticate the breach of journalistic standards prior to publication of the accusations, have yet to reach a definitive conclusion on the matter, but sources speaking on condition of anonymity expect the final report to be damning. One official who declined to be named added that there may also be evidence tying the publication of the editorial to the Administration, which had allegedly hatched and coordinated the plot to drum up support for the failing war in Iraq.

According to independent analysts at prominent universities reached by this publication, and who are also familiar with the source document, the original was a piece of parchment reprinted and circulated in early America as an attempt to rally support for an inconsequential conflict that at the time threatened to erupt into a full-scale police action. Administration officials had hoped the language of the editorial would stir patriotic fervor amongst a war-weary public, the same way it did centuries ago while many Americans still owned Negro slaves.

The Bush Administration offered no comment when asked to supply the government's response to the reporting, but the Times strenuously denied allegations of race-baiting.

TBR EXCLUSIVE! Outlets reporting this story MUST cite TBR!

Ace

An old friend makes an appearance in a Michael Goodwin column, courtesy of a Doris Goodwin book.

(T)here are many striking similarities to our current problems, including how the war divided the North and how Lincoln's opponents tried to exploit military setbacks for political gain. There is even a faint echo of freeing the slaves in America's efforts to liberate Iraq and build a stable democracy....

Author Goodwin (no relation), who has written about the Kennedys, the Roosevelts and Lyndon Johnson, weaves a compelling narrative that shows Lincoln mixing noble sentiment with flexible tactics and political horse-trading to keep public support for the war. Part of her clear admiration for Lincoln is that he brought three of his rivals into his cabinet to build what we call today a big tent government.

Along the way, she presents personalities and conversations that ring as modern as the recent Senate debate on quitting Iraq. During a carriage ride, Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward, agreed, Goodwin writes, "that one fundamental principle of politics is to always be on the side of your country in a war. It kills any party to oppose a war."

I love to read the opinion-column prose of James Taranto, and I'm fascinated by the personality of our new Chief Justice, John Roberts. So a column by the former about the latter is an unexpected treat on Saturday morning.

The editor of OpinionJournal.com all but calls Roberts naive for his "minimalist" goals, and points out effectively that the CJ's theories on the idea of how to create a meaningful ruling have more than a few holes in them. But throughout, Taranto retains nothing but respect for the rookie after his first season in The Big Leagues. And with a sly wink and a nod at the end, he seems to admit that one man's naïveté is another man's patient idealism. Younger by almost twenty years than the average age of the rest of the justices, Roberts appears to have plenty of time to argue his case.

I strongly suggest this piece by Gabor Boritt, Civil War Institute, Gettysburg College as "Recommended Reading".

With a 4-day weekend at hand, you may see some strange stuff from the site, as I try again to fix various problems and update the templates. We will return to our regularly-scheduled lethargy shortly. :-)

UPDATE (Saturday 2:25pm): IE sucks.

UPDATE II (Saturday 9:45pm): If Microsoft made vacuum cleaners, David Oreck would be out of a job.

UPDATE III (Sunday 11:08pm): Have I mentioned that IE sucks like a newborn hippo on his mother's teat?

UPDATE IV (Monday 3:47am): Good news: front page looks to be done. Bad news: the rest of the site is still hosed. Let me know what you think of the layout so far.

UPDATE V (Monday 6:42pm): Individual entry pages are mostly rebuilt, but there's a bug somewhere preventing the TypeKey login from appearing. I've put in a support tickey at SixApart, so meanwhile I'll work on the Monthly and Category Archive pages, and the Search templates.

UPDATE VI (Monday 8:51pm): TypeKey login is now fixed.

UPDATE VII (Tuesday 6:53pm): Monthly and Category Archive pages are done, including a new Category page for Recommended Reading that includes an automated phrase explaining that each entry is "Recommended Reading", instead of showing a bare link. The code used on this page is also seen on the Individual Entry pages for those posts, as well as on the Monthly Archive pages.

Also, a bug was found and corrected in the Recent Comments block on the front page, which was preventing links from anchoring directly to the respective comments.

Next - and hopefully last - I've got to check the System modules for things like Comment Preview and Trackback Listing, and modify anything that's broken. Beyond that, I've just got a lot of cleanup of back entries that I've been putting off for a long time. It's necessary but not system-related, so it'll get fixed when I get to it.

UPDATE VIII (Tuesday 9:52pm): Done! Please let me know if you see anything broken or out of place.