The Black Republican

I don't know what it is, just what exactly has spurred this feeling so strongly today, but I am declaring today an Emergency Memorial Day here at TBR. Perhaps it's the fact that the "spiritual advisor" for a man that has an all too real chance to be the next American President is preaching a philosophy of "God Damn America" as opposed to "God Bless America" - and nobody in the MSM seems to care. Or perhaps it's because I feel wounded in my soul by the disrespect some Americans show toward the Military (the ones fighting to preserve their very right to be disrespectful, BTW). Perhaps it's because I know that with the coming elections the future of this grand experiment we call The United States sits upon the edge of a knife.

Whatever the reason, I can say with absolute confidence that, in some place and at some time, on this date in history an American died as a champion for Freedom and to further the cause of Liberty. And today - like every day in my life - I thank God for His Grace allowing me to be born an American, and I thank Him for and pay tribute to those that have fought and strove, lived and died, that this country and the ideals of Liberty and Freedom persevere - not just for Americans, but for the world.

Toward that end, I draw your attention to tonight's the Glenn Beck Show (7pm & 9pm, EDT) where you will hear the story of... America (Hat tip to Fury's Fiancee), and America's finest.

For SFC Stube and his brothers and sisters in arms who have given and continue to give, and to those who have given the last full measure of devotion, to and for this country and to all who love freedom...

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the USA.

There is an excellent short essay by Jim Manzi at The Corner explaining the difference between conservatives and (note the small-L) libertarians, and pleading for Republicans to heal the rifts between the latter and social cons. As the social-con flip side to Manzi's 'middle of the road, but leaning libertarian' position, Mr. Mazi's essay is well-received. This is very close to the argument the people at the American Conservative Party website took before I danced away from their tune, but rather than take a hard line demanding I favor his libertarian-leaning stance, he eloquently makes the case that we find a way to till a common ground together. It's this kind of rapprochement that will get the conservative movement past its current contentiousness and back on track.

Dave Price over at Dean's World is right, this is what happens when the Socialists are put in charge of things best left to the private sector. And something similar to the British NHS and Canada Health Act are what Hillary, Obama and Edwards (and, I hate to say, maybe even some Republicans) are all proposing for this country - Nationalized healthcare.

Ace has it right, that if any of these people come to power I guess what we will end up with is some sort of combination of Nationalized and Socialized healthcare system - sort of a National Socialist healthcare system...

As close friends know, there are some subjects that I have a strange affinity for. When it comes to Presidential history and the Founders, my personal favorite - despite this blog and its topic - has always been John Adams. I've memorized most of the play 1776, and despite having no acting skill whatsoever, an intense fear of the stage, and only a fair voice, would jump at any opportunity to play the lead if I had the chance. David McCullough's biography of the man is a cherished gift.

So... as they say at AoSHQ, I'll be in my bunk.

That's the phrase that Tom Brokaw used to describe the American sheeple searching for answers to all their problems, and pronouncing "the end of dogma", which has been in effect "since 1980". A certain icon of conservatism was elected President of the United States that year, so we can draw some deductions which dogma he's referring to. Conversely, we suppose that the MSM's mouthpiece thinks the liberalism of Hillary and Barack isn't itself prone to dogma.

Yah, whatever Tom. Aren't you supposed to be retired? Why don't you go play golf or something equally harmless? Meanwhile we sheeple have some work to do looking for more fonts of dogmatism.

Today, M.L. King Jr. Day, is also traditionally the day when we here at The Black Republican start thinking forward to another birthday, that of our 16th President, the founding President of our party, and the namesake for this blog. As has been our habit, on that day we will present to some great American our award for The Black Republican of the Year - honoring him or her for dedication to efforts emblematic of our principles. For those unfamiliar with the award, it need not be given to someone of a given race, color, or national origin, or even of a given political party or ideology. The idea is not to pick our favorite pundit, politician, or personality, but to honor someone who has motivated the nation and its political discourse in some positive way that we can tie back to those ideas we think important.

Sometimes when I have announced nominations open for the award, I have offered suggestions of my own, but this year (thanks to overwork) I will simply ask for suggestions in the comments. As I come up with ideas of my own, I'll post them there.

This speech was given 44 years ago. Amazing how true it is today.

Especially today.

Continue reading "The Great Communicator" »

The most moving holiday message of the year. (You might want to grab a tissue.)

Merry Christmas.

I am greatly disturbed by some attitudes when it comes to choosing a presidential candidate. I keep hearing, "I like (enter candidate name here) but I'm not voting for him because he can't win."

If our founding fathers had this same mentality, on June 7, 1776, when Richard Henry Lee's resolution was received by Congress urging them to declare independence from the British Empire, it would have been voted down "because we can't win". Never before, in the known history of the world, had this radical idea been successful. If it weren't for those brave men who adopted the idea and acted upon this no-win idea, we would not be the country we are today.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some are so concerned about being with the winner that they will put aside their basic beliefs to simply be on the winning side. After all, back in 1776 they had a term for the people who were determined to be on the winning side: they were called turncoats.

All elections are important, especially this Presidential election. To sacrifice what you think is right simply to cast your vote for the candidate that others say will win, regardless of your beliefs, is a complete waste of your vote. When you enter that voting booth in January, February, or whatever month your state's primary is held, vote for the candidate of your choosing because if you don't vote for him, he can't win.

I have been too busy with work lately to get very interested in, excited by, or aggravated about politics, or to require the services of my usual de-stressing agent of this website. But I have been following the course of the presidential primary in both parties, and have a feel for where things are going. Or rather, I have a feel for the train wreck we're headed for, with no idea if there will be anyone alive after the crash.

In my opinion, the recent surge by Mike Huckabee is a sign that the most extreme of the evangelical conservatives still weren't satisfied with the field they had after the entry of Fred Thompson, and have finally thrown their weight behind a second tier candidate to bring him up to the next level. This basically fractures the Republican Party from the three original camps that our national conservative coalition was based on back in 1980, into a multitude of different political campaigns, with each campaign getting some measure of one or more of the original parts. That original Big Three was, of course: Anticommunism, Classical Liberalism, and Traditionalism.

Ironically, the least changed of these groups in terms of membership is the one whose internal focus has had to undergo the biggest transition since its origin. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the acceptance by the Chinese of certain free-market reforms, anticommunism as such has ceased to exist as a movement. But today's National Defense conservatives rightly determined that our victory in the Cold War would not mean everlasting peace, but merely a change in targets. For the most part, the anticommunists of old are those leading the charge against the jihadis we fight today. The hardest core of the this faction still supports John McCain despite his slide from prominance, but a considerable number have been drawn away by effective leadership displayed by Rudy Guiliani during the WOT.

Skipping over Classical Liberals for a moment, Traditionalists have probably been the ones most diffident in the current campaign, never seeing anyone who fully championed their causes. While originally this part of the conservative coalition was the most undefined and nebulous, over the years it has morphed into some significant sub-groups that are often referred to as parts of the coalition in their own right today. Of course, that's mostly because the MSM thinks this camp is coexistent with these sub-groups and there is no real differentiation between them. After all, everyone in the Traditionalist camp is a gun-toting pro-life evangelical Hispanic-hating member of the 700 Club - right? Not quite. As I've said, a sizable number of the evangelicals are drifting toward Huckabee at the moment, but quite a few traditionalists (including some evangelicals) have thrown their lot with Mitt Romney, the only major candidate married only once. Those most concerned with immigration issues originally supported several of the lower tier candidates like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, but most are being drawn away by Fred Thompson, who has taken a strong stand on the border in his policy statements. Interestingly, heavyweight Pat Robertson has decided that the threat from jihadis trumps any differences over religious issues and has thrown his support to Guiliani.

Then we come to Classical Liberals. The home of the fiscal-restraint supporters and libertarian-minded advocates who had been so aggravated with our free-spending Congress that they managed to turn it back over to the Democrats, this camp was also originally the hiding place of those old-money country club Republicans who were otherwise left out of the Reagan coalition. That is not to say this was the weakest part of the coalition - exactly the opposite. This is the glue that ties all other parts of modern conservatism together, and where most of us keep at least one foot, if we lean toward some other camp. Because it is through the diversity we gain through liberty and tied together in federalism that allows the coalition to work as a team. Before Fred Thompson arrived on the scene, this was the most fractured of all the groups, because one major candidate was conservative for a liberal city, another for a liberal state, and a third whose idea of liberty is restricting free speech during an election. Thompson's strong advocacy of federalism has attracted many of these people, but possibly not enough to earn the nomination. And a small minority of these, the strongest of the libertarian-minded folk, have a champion of their own who spurns any other label. Which is where this whole tale has been headed....

For the past couple of months, a rather apolitical friend from work (whose own website has always been a featured link on this page) has begun to drift slightly toward the Republican Party because of the outspoken libertarian advocacy of candidate Ron Paul.

I will say clear and bluntly that it is my belief that Congressman Paul is naive of those threats that could kill (and need I remind everyone have already killed) a great many Americans, and his radical isolationism is a throwback to some of the worst times in Republican history. That said, his defense of libertarian principles must be sincere (IMHO), and is something I generally agree with, even if not to the severe extent he takes it.

Yesterday, in what may have been jest, this friend I refer to said that supporting a dark horse Republican candidate like Ron Paul means he should have a login here at The Black Republican, and that he should have posting privileges. And so I throw open the gates of our little world to our newest contributor: Doug Heavener. Please take everything Doug says with a grain of salt, because he is not exactly a poster child for the mainstream of our brand of political thinking. But this could be fun.

Not all Americans are born in this country, and not all who are born in this country are Americans.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a role model for all who live in this country - native or immigrant - but particularly for black women. This is what you can become if you ignore those who try to subjugate and belittle you... a true Hero, and an inspiration to others.

Mary Katharine Ham via Townhall.com

OK, I've been on vacation the past week and a half and am just now trying to do some catch-up. To that end I have compiled a list of some observations over that time:

Continue reading "A Pseudo Religion, Real Racism, and True Terror." »

"Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973."

You might say that I made a leap of judgment by claiming that 86% of Americans believe Congress sucks, but I beg to differ. Only 14% have a "great deal or quite a lot of confidence", and any other rating for an institution with so much control over ours lives (in a time of war no less) is so sub-standard that it equates to the colloquial term; so Congress sucks! And while I am not afraid to point out that this Congress is run by Democrats, party affiliation alone is not the cause of our displeasure with these bums. Whether they have a D, or an R, or an I in front of their names they are not getting the job done. On the whole they seem to lack common sense. They are easily swayed by political correctness. And, mostly they worry too much about winning re-election and making side deals under the table. When they do attempt to pass a bill it gets loaded with pork, which they now call by a new name, earmarks, in the insulting belief that we are too stupid to see that we are being taken.

They regularly behave less like Statesmen and more like confidence men. They use the English language in such a way that native speakers need an interpreter to sort out what their Congressman has just said. And then you find that you don't like half of what they meant and don't trust them to keep their word on the other half. Need I go on?

Basically, there is little wonder that Americans are discouraged by this bunch of insider trading, lying, demagogue, propagandists. After all, we are paying for that government, and it isn't that one we are sold each election year. Or is it? I'll have to wait for the translation.

Btw, there is a portion of our money that we feel is being used well.

"By way of contrast, 69% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military, which tops the list."

Wow! The liberal left could really learn something from this guy. THIS is what "Speaking Truth to Power" is all about! This guy is actually putting himself in jeopardy saying these things. But that is what always happens when you tell the truth about those that truly have power - you run the risk of having them use that power to squash and silence you. The only risk ever experienced by the liberal elites who claim to be "Speaking Truth to Power" is that of getting a splinter from carrying a sign or blisters from marching too long.

Liberals are cowards. They want to run from a war they were all too happy to help get started, and could never even imagine saying the things this guy does for fear of angering Muslims... and thereby endangering themselves. Two quotes often come to mind when I think of the cowardice and perfidy of the left:

"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils." --General John Stark

"Cowards die many times before their deaths, The valiant never taste of death but once." --Shakespeare, From Julius Caesar

Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg at NRO.

The following is a partial list of unlikely events whose chances of proving true are greater than are the odds that the current immigration bill will solve the open border situation.

Videotape proves existence of Loch Ness Monster

Sandy Berger tells whole story, wasn't covering up Clinton's mistakes.

Radical Islam is a religion of peace.

Laywer TB patient had greater good in mind.

Valerie Plame tells the truth.

Creationists prove Earth is 6000 years old.

Not making the list is the seemingly impossible news that the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album is forty years old. Where have all those years gone? (A live cover for your listening/viewing enjoyment here)

In 1858, South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond, a wealthy plantation owner, made the following statement on the floor of the US Senate in which he laid out his Mudsill Theory in support of the continuation of slavery:

In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill.

It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill.

...the American economy would suffer tremendously. I don't know who's going to cut all those lawns, I don't know who's going to do all this laundry, I don't know who's going to dig all those wells, and pick all that fruit...

When I heard Juan say these words I felt as if someone had just slapped me across the face. I could not believe that a man who identifies himself with the African-American community (even though he was actually born in Panama) could actually verbalize an argument espoused by antebellum proponents of slavery.

I'm not sure if Juan is aware of the historical parallel and irony his words betray - because I think if he did he would not have uttered them - but it is obvious his words provide evidence that there is a segment of this country that believe as he does, that the prosperity of this country is dependent on the perpetuation of a semi-subservient under-class of people.

Now, just as then, people that believe this are just plain wrong. Our country, our society, and our government were not built on the mudsill of an under-class of people, but on the bedrock of the Constitution and the rule of law, the Liberty that document enshrines, and the hard work and ingenuity of all who have come to these shores. To suggest anything else, whether consciously or not, is but an erosion of those principals.

I guess George Santayana was right...

I sent the following terse email to the "Immigration" mailbox of my Republican senator:

Subj: All I want to know is...

Do you really want to be a 1-term senator?

Look, I'd prefer that we do all those things we keep getting told won't work: build a fence, deport every illegal currently inside our borders, make the crime a felony, etc. But in our republic, what I want isn't what we get; it's what can be hammered out in legislation... which then has to be enforced. You're right, we don't see anyone enforcing the laws. But enforcement is the job of the policing authorities under the jurisdiction of the executive. All we can expect from the legislative branch is the promise of tougher laws and oversight.

The immigration issue today doesn't quite reach the same level as slavery did, but it's weakening us tremendously. Just after the mid-term elections, I observed:

The idea that the leadership of my party is so ignorant of the political dynamics occurring within the rank and file is... well, it's beyond my ability to characterize effectively. Hell, I was even one of the Republicans trying to convince people that comprehensive immigration reform wasn't such a bad idea, and even I can see that handing the Democrats a victory on that issue now will completely capsize the Republican ship.

It appears the surge is working.

Terrorists bemoan recent setbacks in 'War on Freedom'
Call on bin Laden to cut his losses
May 1, 2007
Sources: Rooters News Agency and Non-associated Press

Following the deaths of both Abu Musab Al-zaqawi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the decimation of the ranks of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the growing unpopularity of foreign insurgents among Iraqis, some senior terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda have called upon Usama Bin Laden to withdraw all of his troops from Iraq by October.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and Al Qaeda attacks are failing to bring an Islamic state to the country, spokesman of the Salafist Group for Preching [sic] and Combat, Harry Sheikh Reidari, said Thursday. "I believe ... that this war is lost, and continuing attacks are not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme blows to our network in Iraq recently," Reidari told journalists. "Iraq has diverted resources from our greater 'War on Freedom'. It would be best if we withdrew, leaving only a small force to train Iraqi jihadists, and redeployed our other forces to Afghanistan to continue with a Holy War that everyone can support."

It's hard to suggest that Mark Steyn has outdone himself again when you've read his stuff so much, and seemingly said such a thing a hundred times. Yet here we are again.

This week, both the House and the Senate voted for defeat in Iraq. That's to say, Congress got tired of waiting for deadbeat insurgents to get their act together and inflict devastating military humiliation on U.S. forces. So America's legislators have voted to mandate the certainty of defeat. They want the withdrawal of American forces to begin this October, which is a faintly surreal concept: Watching CNN International around the world, many viewers unversed in America's constitutional arrangements will have been puzzled by the spectacle of a nation giving six months' notice of surrender. But the cannier types in the presidential palaces will have drawn their own conclusions.

On Friday over at NRO - an old conservative bastion I used to respect, but which I am increasingly coming to dislike as a playpen full of children - Ramesh Ponnuru decided to take pot-shots at Fred Thompson over federalism. After rereading all the commentary in both directions, this strikes me as more than a simple case of a columnist trying to disrupt the nascent candidacy of someone I support.

It may just be me, but Ponnuru seems convinced of one of two things. Either he believes the fawning groupies who read NRO and tell him he is simply brilliant, and he needed to take on the growing popularity of Mr. Thompson to further burnish his own ego, or he's rooting for one of the other candidates running for President and decided it was time to reduce Mr. Thompson's threat level. More probably it was both. Regardless of motive, Mr. Ponnuru clearly has more at stake here than advancing his view of our ideology, and it is this kind of distraction from the dispassionate refinement of good policy from conservative theory that is annoying me most about conservative pundits lately.

Either for the thrill of the joust or sensing the importance of debating the concept at hand - and no doubt to face down the brush-back and show that he is no paper tiger - Mr. Thompson took Ramesh's challenge and offered a perfectly reasonable response that was properly dismissive without being rude.

Ponnuru not only returned the volley with more smoke and mirrors, he acted like a juvenile ass in the process.

I found Senator Thompson's stand on principle to be honorable, and it is clear the votes in question that he cast were made with an intention to set aside the complex and sometimes illicit dance of beltway horse trading in an attempt to spark an important dialogue on the vital balance of powers in our federal system.

I wish Mr. Ponnuru and NRO would make more of an attempt to engage in a respectful discussion of conservative ideals, and less time attacking other Republicans who dare to dismiss their beltway narcissism masquerading as ideology for the venal pastime it has become.

UPDATE: Fred has taken the discussion over to TownHall.com, and Ramesh has responded again

Senator Thompson has another essay on federalism, this time at Townhall. There he explains some of the goods that federalism serves. It allows states to be "laboratories for democracy" and to reflect their citizens' distinctive views. All true.

But sometimes federal action is required to make it possible for states to attain those goods. When big-city mayors, including Rudy Giuliani, sued gunmakers for, well, selling guns, Congress responded by passing a law blocking those lawsuits. Senator Thompson voted with the majority, and he was right to do so. Tennessee law can't reflect the values of its people if its laws are effectively being set by New York City's gaming of the legal system. Federal action was required to stop that from happening. Thompson saw that then; I just wish he saw that the gun case was the tip of an iceberg.

What an ass.

This deserves to be posted in its own right, but if you check out the thread at LGF where I found this, you'll get this extra-sweet treat in the comments:

I don't see these guys jumping out a window leaving an old man to hold the door shut.

A University of Colorado student empathizes with the killer at Virginia Tech, is it such a reach to imagine that he attended Ward Churchill's lectures?

The Drudge Report

We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by. - Will Rogers

Hat tip to JackStraw via Ace

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
LONG WAR
GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
LONG WAR
GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
LONG WAR

Rush

Opinion Journal

I've just finished watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, a program produced by Channel 4 in Great Britain ( Ace), which is a fantastic rebuttal of Al Gore and his environmental propaganda opus, An Inconvenient Truth. It explains, in excruciating detail, how corrupt bureaucrats and activists have managed to buy off a few scientists, intimidate most of their otherwise-sensible colleagues, and perpetuate one of the biggest lies in human history, mainly by feeding the insatiable appetite of the dinosaur media for reality-TV melodrama.

After detailing the real science that disputes most of the manufactured disaster scenarios peddled by the likes of Gore, one of the soon-to-be-pariah scientists interviewed for the program summed up the politics driving the whole affair.

The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because, by the mid-80's, a majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now, when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions....

When I left... it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like, I said, "You guys - this is one of the elements in the periodic table, you know? I mean, I'm not sure if that's in our jurisdiction - to be banning a whole element."

The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the (Berlin) Wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use "green" language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science.

Dr. Moore and the others appearing in the special - each of whom speaks directly to the science related to his field - finish off the discussion by highlighting the effect anti-capitalist and anti-globalization efforts are having on the poorest of the poor in Africa and other developing regions. The producers point out the brutal fact that even the most basic amenities we take for granted in the West today are built upon our use of energy, especially electricity. Without it, there is no heat, no air conditioning, only open fires to cook with, barbaric medical care, and no modern industry to lift the populace out of poverty. As James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist and the Director of the Inter Region Economic Network, points out, "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel... is going to power some railway train network."

One would expect that the liberal bleeding hearts who continuously tell us we need to feed the hungry around the world, and who tell us the reason we aren't doing enough is because of our racism and bigotry, would take the side of the downtrodden peasant folk in the African bush, and that they would endorse doing whatever it takes to improve their lot. But these same liberals insist on promulgating the global warming agenda that dictates the use of expensive "clean" forms of energy instead of the relatively cheap and plentiful coal and oil reserves found in Africa. This mandate prevents the great majority of Africa from advancing out of poverty the way the rest of the world has. "Let me make one thing perfectly clear," says Paul Driessen, author of the book Green Power, Black Death. "If we're telling the Third World that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, 'You cannot have electricity.'"

A forceful and persuasive discussion, cutting back and forth between interviews with Shikwati and Moore, is equally clear about the fate of the African people if the liberals have their way.

Moore: I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticization of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.
Shikwati: One clear thing... is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African Dream. And the African Dream is to develop.
Moore: The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.
Shikwati: We're being told, "Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal." That is suicide.
Moore: I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human. Like, "Okay, you don't have to think humans are better than whales, or better than owls, or whatever, if you don't want to. Right? But surely, it is not a good idea to think of humans as sort of being scum... That it's okay to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die or whatever." I just can't relate to that.

UPDATE: One of the scientists appearing in the program has been told he "won't live to see further global warming" if he doesn't shut up. Is this what the Left means by "Academic Freedom"? ( Laura at the HQ)

A while back, several hundred anti-war activists marched on the Capitol in Washington D.C. and decided that it was within their rights to paint propagandizing messages upon the Capitol building steps. These same people have planned another event for March 17th, but this time they have chosen to gather at the Vietnam Memorial Wall to begin a march to protest America’s involvement in the Iraq war. In reaction to this, an organization has been formed to ensure that these "protesters" don't feel inclined to vandalize (desecrate) the Vietnam Memorial (or any of the other War Memorials in and around the D.C. area) the same way they did the Capitol steps. This group is called A Gathering of Eagles and they are inviting all Americans to join them:

Gathering of Eagles is an act of love by thousands of veterans who choose to honor the sacrifice of the fallen by guarding the memorials from those who would desecrate them on March 17th in a “peaceful” anti-war rally in Washington D.C.

It is also an act of war, a call to action for every American who chooses to stand and say “No more!” to those who would spit on our veterans and ridicule their service to our nation.

Every one of us are eagles, symbols, clutching both olive branch and arrow, peace and war. To do less - to embrace the power of one without balancing it with the power of the other - is to deny the very principals upon which this country was founded.

This is the problem I have with these "anti-war" activists. They are completely ignorant to the fact that the peace and freedom they enjoy - the peace and freedom that allows them to be "anti-war" activists and march on the Capitol - was purchased with the blood of heroes and the fighting resolve of Veterans. There is no one on earth who desires peace more than the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine or Guardsman during wartime, but these brave volunteers accept the hard fact that they may have to fight, and possibly die, to achieve that peace. They also understand that there is no better way to ensure a lasting peace than to make yourself so strong that none would dare try take that peace from you.

There is something we can do here on the home front to help those who are fighting abroad achieve the peace we all desire - we can fight the insidious enemies that would undermine the efforts and besmirch sacrifices of our military. If you, like I, cannot join the Gathering of Eagles physically in Washington on the 17th, but still wish to lend them your moral support, please sign their petition.

Have you seen this presentation?

Very interesting, no? And not one word about the added effects of illegal immigration either.

This year we have selected an historian as the recipient of our annual award, which is given each February to someone who reflects the spirit of the original "Black Republican" Abraham Lincoln. We try to make the announcement on the anniversary of Mr. Lincoln's birth, February 12th; this year we needed a few extra days to complete the presentation, so this post has been backdated.

So, without further ado, I present The Black Republican OF The Year Award recipient for 2006; Victor Davis Hanson.

A noted historian, Mr. Hanson is also one of today's preeminent social commentators. One cannot read any of his writings without finding him to be informed, fair, and dedicated to reporting the world as it is, while others report as they would have us believe it to be. He pulls no punches, he plays no favorites.

Five years after September 11, and three-and-a-half years after toppling Saddam Hussein, the U.S. is almost as angry at itself as it is at the enemy. Two quite antithetical views of the war on terror — and indeed, the entire American role in the Middle East — are now crystallizing.

Ideology and political affiliation are no longer necessarily touchstones to either opinion..........

Republican realists are welcomed by liberal Democrats, who want nothing to do with the neo-Wilsonian neo-conservatives that once would have seemed more characteristic of liberal’s erstwhile idealism. It is not just that public intellectuals, politicians, generals, and journalists have different views, but their views themselves are different in almost every 24-hour news cycle. Even the Bush administration at times seems torn, gravitating between both schools of thought.

When Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman pulled up to Savannah, Ga., after his legendary March to the Sea in December 1864, he was savagely slandered in the Southern press as a renegade leader of a "vandal horde."

But at that same time, leading Confederate officers privately appealed to him, hoping he would guarantee the safety of the relatives they had left behind in Savannah. Why, Sherman wondered, would his sworn enemies trust that such an enemy might be kind to their loved ones — unless they knew that their own slurs about him were mere rhetoric?

That same sort of pretense is evident in the Middle East, where the leaders of countries and organizations hostile to or critical of the United States often trust us far more than they let on.

In a flash of succinctness he begins and ends his advice within the title, and then fills the body with examples of historical successes which only occurred when the principles held to their core beliefs and trusted that with continued effort the right outcome would transpire. Brilliant writing, on point references, impeccable advice.

Leadership takes many forms. One need not be elected to be a leader. But, to be a leader worthy of that title in America one needs to be unwaveringly committed to the truth, and anchored in reality. VDH is all of that. Honest. Out in front. And anchored in a realism which only comes from knowing the past, (George Santayana would be proud) and a desire to see his fellow men avoid making the same mistakes as have their predecessors. With every essay he speaks power to blather; a trait we more of in these times of incoherent judgment, media manipulation of the news, and a very real threat to our existence.

Victor Davis Hanson exhibits integrity, judgment and discipline. His motivation is unselfish. He wants all lives bettered. Abraham Lincoln lived his life in that same way, "with malice toward none, with charity for all".

Yesterday was the birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan, a president so great his like may never be seen again in my lifetime. In honor of this 96th anniversary of his birth, yesterday Mark Levin played a speech on his radio show that Mr. Reagan gave way back in 1964. In its time, it was perhaps the greatest description of conservative philosophy ever delivered, and its power and eloquence have not receded over the years. In fact, I was particularly struck by the fact that - with the exception of replacing the Soviet Union with radical Muslim extremism as the great Evil of our day, and taking into account the increased size and cost of federal spending - NOT ONE WORD fails to be just as true today as the day it was spoken.

Unlike neo-liberal platitudes that must be retooled to account for every inane crisis they choose to exploit, and unlike their "facts" which must be constantly redefined to fit into their socialistic utopianism, conservative values are timeless, and this recording is something every American should hear to drive that concept home. Listen and imagine that every point Mr. Reagan is making about liberalism and tyranny, so true in our world today, was spoken over 42 years ago.

Friends, conservatives, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the The Republican party, not to praise them;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with the Republicans…. The noble Harry Reid
Hath told you the Republicans were corrupt:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously will the Republicans answer it….
Here, under leave of Harry Reid and the rest,
(For Harry Reid is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men and women)
Come I to speak in the Republican's funeral…

Continue reading "This may be a bit too 'nuanced' for the Dems to understand..." »

The debate at Dean's World continues, with a response from Dean. In one curious passage, he tries to make a parallel that undermines his case, I think.

But hiding your head in the sand and pretending there is no Islamophobia problem would be like, in the 1950s, hiding your head in the sand and claiming there were no Communists in America. After all, McCarthy was discredited--and rightly so--so therefore, there was never any Communist problem?

The problem is, Dean's hypothetical and the question that follows is a common belief among the hard left and their friends in the media. Or, at least, many of them say it's true that there were no Communists in Hollywood in an attempt to influence the American people to believe it. I can't count the number of people who have told me that there never were any communists, really.

As an example, Good Night, and Good Luck certainly leaves the impression that if there were any Communists, they were vastly outnumbered by the false accusations. The KGB archives and the Venona project show us otherwise. Which do you suppose more Americans believe? How many Americans have even heard of Venona, and understand its significance?

Ronald Coleman countered with this insightful comment:

Is every expression of one's ideas entitled to be accepted in the public debate -- even when those ideas themselves are antithetical to such debate and, if adopted, would end it?

That is the concept in play here. McCarthy said, Communism, like Nazism, is beyond the pale. They only want debate so they can end debate.

Modern critics of Islamism say the same about that ideology.

Assuming they are right, do we not agree that democracy is not a suicide pact? Must not the price of admission to the debate be a rolling acknowledgment that there will always be debate?

If not, democracy is not even worth fighting or dying for -- in which case our concerns are moot.

How are we supposed to respond to this? Classical Liberals long ago decided (I think, wrongly) to redefine themselves as "Conservative", and continue the stigmatization project by demonizing Liberalism. It's worked to a lesser extent (less than 20% of the American people will now identify with the label "Liberal"), but at what price?

There's a word with much baggage in American history and culture: lynching. The act of publicly murdering someone "(as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction". A despicable atrocity, casually practiced by despicable and atrocious people. Unfortunately - though you may not hear it said very often - lynching is not a concept confined by skin color as much as it is defined by it.

Or is it?

Today, we learn that it need not be defined by skin color at all. It can be practiced by some people upon others within their own ethnicity. For what? For daring to stand up to despicable and atrocious people, of course.

Where have I read this before?

In the early 1900’s Mary Turner was upset about the lynching of her husband. Mary was eight months pregnant and made a comment that she would get even with those who hung her husband and would sign arrest warrants against the killers. The white residents of Valdosta, Georgia decided to teach her a lesson for being uppity enough to be vocal about her pain. A mob found her tied her upside down to a tree, doused her with gasoline and burned her alive. One of the crowd members took a knife and split her belly open letting the baby fall out. Another member of the crowd smashed the baby’s head with his foot. Then the crowd took out their guns and filled the burning body of Mary Turner with bullets. The Associated Press wrote that Mary Turner had made unwise remarks about the execution of her husband.

The bad news: it's possible that Castro still lives, after all.

The good news: Joe Lieberman can at least be grateful that Uncle Fidel filled out his Connecticut absentee ballot correctly.

LGF

UPDATE: Sean Gleeson makes a convincing argument that the photo was staged some time ago for release now. IMHO, a badly failed attempt to dissuade us from believing in Fidel's present or near-future demise may backfire on the dictatorship-in-hellfireabsentia, and prove even more perilous for Raul.

IMRA reports that a group of young Israeli citizens have written a letter to Minister of Defense Amir Peretz asking to be drafted to fight in the war against Hizballah.

"We are proud of Israel, and its just struggle," the letter reads, "and are prepared to carry out any mission that the IDF gives us."

Nasrallah apparently doesn't know what it means to be a citizen of a free country, but Mr. Nasser does. We pray that God continues to bless Israel with courageous young patriots like him.

Kim du Toit had a lovely idea to oppose McCain-Feingold with some good old-fashioned civil disobedience this year.

Here’s my promise: If a conservative organization wants to run a political ad criticizing any Congressman up for re-election during that 60-day window, I’ll let them run one on this website, for free, right up until Election Day.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I heartily encourage Project 21, the NBRA, and all black conservative candidates to use the services of The Black Republican as they see fit during the coming election season. We will not sit out this election, but we very much intend to sit in for it.