"With malice toward none..."
April 18, 2004
Archive Hamas leader Rantisi dead
I haven't said much about Israel lately, so I thought I'd take note of the death yesterday of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the leader of the terrorist death cult known as Hamas - just weeks after taking charge of the organization. It appears he was the victim of an ayassination. (I hope now my membership in the Lizardoid Guild is secure for a few more weeks....)
April 17, 2004
Archive Let's take them for their word II
Andrew McCarthy does an excellent job in National Review Online explaining conflicts of interest and how Democrat commissioner Jamie Gorelick's participation in the 9/11 commission is completely untenable. But what bothers me is how inept even the Republican members are, most especially Chairman Thomas Kean from my old home state of New Jersey. The utter vapidity required for any public servant to say, "people ought to stay out of our business" is incredible. That a member of a fact-finding commission would say it is laughable. That the chairman of that commission would say it is nothing short of disgusting.
You don't want us in your business Mr. Kean? Fine with me. Now get out of our business. Take this commission and whatever it says - regardless of what it reveals about either party, either of the involved presidential administrations, and whomever it seeks to blame - and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. You'll hear nothing from me from now on but how totally irrelevant and illegitimate this bag of wind is. The whole thing's a fraud.
April 16, 2004
Archive Spirit of America!
Tired of sitting on your hands watching the events ebb and flow in Iraq? Want to make a difference? Well here's a way you can help the cause... without leaving your keyboard. And, if my guess is correct, the deeds of those reading this may just help show that the blogosphere is truly a great untapped resource and a force to be reckoned with. So when you help with this effort, be sure to credit the blogosphere for getting the word out!
Archive Defend Nation From Gorelick
Congressman Sensebrenner has been calling for Jamie Gorelick to resign from the 911 Commission. Bravo, finally, our tax dollars at work!
Sensebrenner is right, Gorelick (Deputy AG under Reno/Clinton) should not be on the panel any more than Cheney, Gore, Clinton, Bush, Reno, Ashcroft, Tenet, Freeh, or Richard Clarke should be on it. And for the same reasons!
She should have known that her previous work made her an inappropriate choice, and she must know that she should be a witness. So, in addition to her conflict of interest we can now surmise this about her, that she is either crooked or an idiot! The suggestion in the article Gorelick's Wall that she may have raised the "wall" to prevent a full investigation of Clinton campaign contributions, and thus created the information sharing restrictions that eventually led to the intelligence service's failure to detect and prevent 911, makes the former a likely choice! Either way, she must go, and it is to the discredit of the entire panel that she hasn't been unamimously removed already.
I sent the following message to Mr. Sensebrenner this morning. I provide his e-maill address with the hope that you will also contact him with your support to remove Gorelick.
sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
Representative Sensebrenner thank you for your efforts to get Jamie Gorelick to resign from the 911 Commission. I have been watching in stunned disbelief as this body has made a sham of the investigative process, now this Gorelick conflict of interest puts a topper on the mess. She must go, and, for my money, the committee is useless (at this time) and can disband none too soon.
I found this article last night, Ms Gorelick addressed an ABA seminar on the subject of intelligence gathering methods while she was Deputy AG. http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/nslr/s96panel.html
This is further, and non-classified, evidence that she was involved in setting policy on the issue she is now "investigating"; you are correct she should be a witness.
She made this interesting remark:
JAMIE GORELICK: "I think Reid's point is well-taken. I do agree with Jim that the wall cannot come down...."
Please pin their ears to the wall on this one!
Richard D. Jones
Naples, FlUpdate: Always glad to acknowledge our readers; Bithead has an expanded view on this matter.
April 15, 2004
Archive The first shall be last...
This day has come - and it isn't even September yet.
Many moons ago, I invited Steve Johnson - one of my best friends and the inspirational kick-in-the-pants who got this blog started - to come on board and participate in our commentary as a contributor. I had speculated that it would take almost a year for his bio to be posted on our About Us page, but he surprised me by coming up with one in just under half that time. He has written the following as an introduction:
OK... about a year ago, Chris asked me to write up a short bio to let readers know who I was, and a convergence of events has finally prodded me enough to actually do just that. The events I speak of directly relate to me, to the fact that I am a conservative, to the person to whom this site is dedicated, to Chris himself, the person who worked so hard to make this site a reality.... and to today's date - April 15th.I can hardly begin to thank Steve for his friendship and patience, especially when I incessantly pester him for his opinion of my work here.
First, of course, it's Tax Day. As a conservative, this day always serves as a reminder that government takes far too much of what we earn, which in turn encourages me to fight wherever I can to limit government intrusion into all our lives.
Second, it is the anniversary of my commissioning in the Army. That event added me to a fraternity of inspiring individuals, and has given me a great appreciation for all those men and women with the courage to wear a uniform.
Third, it is also the anniversary of the death of Abraham Lincoln, the "Black Republican" himself, who paid the ultimate price for daring stand up for the principals on which this country was founded!
Fourth, and not the least, an increased bit of vitriol being aimed at Chris today for himself daring to thumb his nose at the liberal elite and take up the mantle of "The Black Republican." Anyone can carp and whine when no one dares challenge them, but the people who believe in their ideals are not afraid to give their full names and stand to face the fire. I would no sooner abandon Chris when he is attacked in comments on this blog than I would abandon my command and fellow soldiers in battle.
Well, that's about it. If I think of more I'll add it later... sometime in the next few years, I'm sure! Oh, and as soon as I find a good picture (I'll ask my wife) I get that posted too!
I would be remiss not to make one more comment, especially to reciprocate the kind words above. In the spirit of (not quite) full disclosure and as a fair warning to all who may visit here, I urge anyone with malice in their heart not to make grand presumptions about race and prejudice based on ideology (or any other criteria) when dealing with Steve. His compassion knows no boundaries and his commitment to interracial understanding is beyond question, but he is quite capable of defending his interests with surgical wit and a brutal intensity. Doubt any of this at your own peril.
Archive Take A Bow
Geo. W. Bush was ahead of the curve on anti-terror. Surprising statement? Not when you consider that all of the facts coming out of the 911 Commission are pointing toward a failure of communication between the two top counter-intelligence bodies, the FBI and the CIA, as the major flaw in the system; and the Bush administration did not need the advise of this ill-timed and unbalanced commission to know what to fix. The problem was obvious, a culture of left-wing paranoia had steadily deteriorated the ability of the protectors from talking to one another, and the Patriot Act was the solution. Common sense told the Bush people that barriers to inter-agency communication had to come down, and so in an act of leadership, Bush had them do what was right; if not popular! The result is that we are on course to have a capable counter-intelligence umbrella: George Tenet told the 911 Commission screwballs that if we stay on the present course for five more years we can have our international intelligence network at an acceptable level at the end of that period, (the restrictions on the CIA had so severely decimated our intelligence service that it will take that much longer to repair it).
GWB didn't need no stinkin' committee to tell him that he had inherited a lousy intelligence service, 9/11 made that undeniably obvious, and he didn't no stinkin' committee to know the fix, tear down Gorelick's Wall. Take a bow Mr. President, this is just one more example that you have the right vision to get our defense in shape! You had the fix in place before the old time Washington pols even had the notion to waste our time, and insult our intelligence with a mock investigation. You da man!
Archive Here we go again
Shows you how much I watch ABC News: I wasn't aware that Bob Zelnick had left back in 1998. Now working as chairman of the Department of Journalism at Boston University, he also moonlights as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. In yesterday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he opines on who is to blame (a popular word this week, no?) for the GOP losing black votes for the last 40 years. His answer sounds a lot like "blame the victim".
For years, my sense has been that black political leaders have traded nominal advantage for the real political clout more eclectic political allegiance could provide and embraced government "solutions" that impede the next great wave of African-American progress.Zelnick ends with the observation, "It is not the Republicans who are lost."
Perhaps his ire is directed toward those he describes (charitably) as "black political leaders", but I still don't like the sound of it. Republicans need to reach out to the black community, not point fingers. We can't very well cite high welfare and illegitimacy statistics in the black community for support (even though former Democrat Senator Pat Moynihan predicted those problems over 30 years ago) and expect to entice even one voter to switch to the GOP. Instead, we must continue to hold up traditional Republican ideals like building a strong national defense and keeping taxes low, but carry the message to the increasing numbers of black middle and upper-middle class workers who can see the benefit of voting Right - if we can just inspire them with a sincere appeal that we mean to include them in the rising tide of prosperity.
The more black Republicans we can inspire, the more Black Republicans we can recruit, the less people will make fun of me with the quip, "Oh, you're the one?!"
April 14, 2004
Archive United We Stand - Wictory Wednesday
I can only assume that the exposure of the last few links I've gotten is what has brought a slight surge in the occasional - and quite confused - queries from the passing liberal. Today I received an email with nothing but a subject line that said: "How can you write about the black republican???" I think my answer, while redundant with my previous explanations of our work here, bears repeating.
As anyone who can read the top of the left column will find out, the name of my blog is a direct reference to the nation's 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, who was called that by his Democratic opponents (most notably, Stephen Douglas) as a racial epithet. They were saying, in effect, "For all your support of emancipation for the South's African slaves, you might as well be black too, you Republican!"
I've adopted the name for myself - not because I think I have any special insight into what it means to be a black man in America today - but simply to remind people that the Republican Party was founded on the principle that the Constitution should protect ALL people, regardless of race, color, or national origin, and that the culture of racism that divides one American from another by skin color should be abolished. For that "sin", Democrats labeled Lincoln "Black".
Times have changed, haven't they? Now, Republicans are commonly referred to as the racists in America, and men like Trent Lott stupidly reinforce that impression on occasion. And Republicans cower in fear that they'll be stigmatized by the dreaded "R" word, tiptoeing on the issue of race, making things worse by implying that we have no defense against the charge.
How can I write about the black Republicans (and black conservatives)? How can I not? Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Armstrong Williams, Michael Powell... They're all great Americans. Why should I not support their efforts, and cheer on their achievements? Because Republicans can't relate to blacks? Why? Are they not Americans like me? Or are they somehow different, because of their skin color?
Lincoln supported admirable people of his day such as Frederick Douglass, and he was vilified for it. If Democrats want to call me names, they can use the same name they used to attack Lincoln. I will wear the name proudly.
At the same time, I would encourage other Republicans to adopt the moniker as well. Recalling the values that our conservatism is meant to revive, if someone asks what wing of the party you're from, tell them you're a Black Republican. And I think I know someone who already fits right in amongst our ranks.
Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you and help fight the devisiveness of the race-baiting Left.
If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign. And don't forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
April 13, 2004
Archive Who Watches the Watchers?
Well, anyone with an eye for good commentary, that's who.
Watcher of Weasels is part of an excellent roundtable of political (and other kinds of) commentary called the Watcher's Council. Each week, they post nominees for their best posts (and the best of non-members), then vote on and proclaim the best of the best. This week's winners do a great job of putting Iraq in perspective and putting Daily Kos in its own despicable perspective.
I suggest you keep an eye on the Watcher.
Archive Your Democratic Party
As I've pointed out countless times, it wasn't until the 1930s that the Democratic Party began to use the rhetoric of racial politics to try to separate that portion of the electorate emancipated by the Black Republicans and subjugated by Democrat-inspired Jim Crow laws from the Party of Lincoln. Even after the end of The Great Depression and WWII, Republicans could count on blacks to vote in fair numbers (though not majorities) for their candidates. But in 1964, after Republicans finally received the help of a Democratic president to correct the legacy of Reconstruction, and after the first Republican presidential candidate rose to prominence on a conservative platform, the role reversal of the two parties was complete (despite the fact that "conservative" does NOT equal "antebellum"). Except for the occasional anachronism struggling to remain in the Democratic ranks, the Democrats cemented their control of the black vote.
Unfortunately, Republicans accepted this fact too easily, and aided by some of the less reputable members of our party, occasionally aided the misunderstanding of what modern conservatism is all about. As we try to show here, and as other pro-black conservatives have tried to explain, the Republican legacy of Lincoln should not be tarnished by our concept of conservatism, which is not antebellum but a hearkening back to the Progressivism of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. More importantly, for all our mistakes, Republicans still dream of an empowerment of all peoples, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity. Meanwhile, our opponents regularly use racial politics to divide this nation, while persisting in putting up roadblocks, attempting to keep some people a permanent part of racial minorities instead of assuming their rightful place inside the American melting pot.
So it should come as no surprise that occasionally the most disgusting and negative echoes of the Democratic heritage come forward to show their um... true colors. (hat tip: LGF)
So Democrats, look at what your party says about people with a certain skin color who don't "think properly" according to your sacrilegious liberal creed. And be careful what you say - if you step out of line, you could be next on their hit list.
EDIT: In case the above images unexpectedly disappear, I've archived them here and here.
Archive Let's take them for their word
I've saved a copy of the St. Petersburg Gabber ad that Drudge reported on today, just for posterity. I'll lay aside questions about the legal implications for later. For now, I just have to ask: does this mean we can now question their patriate-ism?
April 12, 2004
Archive A Real Man!
What's up with...Ted Wade? C. Ray Hall describes a hoops pioneer who quietly accepts his place in history.
Wade took deep offense, he said, and fired back: "I'm nobody's Black Achiever. I am an achiever. Black, white has got nothing to do with it. I am an achiever. I've been a success professionally my whole life, and I just ripped their ass. I really tied into them. And then they explained to me that what they're doing is setting up role models for the black children. That just kind of cut the ground right out from under me. So I ended up their Black Achiever."
April 11, 2004
Archive Right for the wrong reasons
Blogs for Bush has made a case against the Democrats for suggesting a draft. I would agree, but only on the point that we don't want or need a draft, and that the Democrats are just trying to muck up the military with the rest of the country with the turmoil a draft would cause.
I personally think we need more men - but not necessarily because we need more in Iraq. My military history prof back in college made a great case for the danger we're getting into by maintaining smaller and smaller standing forces, and relying more and more on the Guard and Reserves. The caution not to leave our military in a state of eternal wimpiness left a strong impression on me. With today's technology, we just can't afford to wait around for six months to a year - like we did after Pearl Harbor - waiting for our troops to be trained and transported into theater. We need a larger Army, Navy, and Air Force, period.
But from the recruitment news, filling a newly funded Armed Forces should not be a problem, even while maintaining an all-volunteer military. Remember - before instituting a draft, Presidents have usually made a call for volunteers. In the Civil War, for example, the Union didn't start calling for draftees until 1863.
As things are now, can you imagine what would happen if the President made a national address and asked for volunteers? There would also be the added benefit that a huge swell in the number of military personnel would cause more and more people to snap out of the pre-9/11 mindset they've slunk back into. The whole aversion to a war mindset reminds me of the trouble John Adams went through with the Continental Congress, wonderfully depicted in the play 1776:
Fat George has declared us in rebellion, why in bloody hell can't they?!
Archive Perspective Is A Good Thing
After seeing Richard Ben-Veniste's performance on Fox New Sunday this AM I was treated to a commentary by Jane Galt concerning the relevance of the investigation. In my view the 9/11 Commission has too frequently devolved into a political sound-bite machine, a most unworthy fate for such an potentially important body. Ben-Veniste proffered, as evidence that he hasn't been partisan during Committee work, the clever (or so I am sure he believes) defense that since he does not now, and has never has had ambitions to hold office that his work must not be partisan. Smart as a backstabber, spinning faster than a gyroscope, he answered a question about partisanship with a response about personal gain! No one asked if he was going to receive politcal gain from his work, but rather whether he was acting to the political gain of one party through his questioning! Mr. Chris Wallace, where do I sign up to cross examine the witness?
Jane Galt's piece, Notes from Washington, helped me lower my blood pressure. Here's a sample:
For the commission, especially, it's an unacceptable answer; they simply cannot turn to a frightened American public and tell them that it's really too bad, but we live in a scary world.
April 10, 2004
Archive Kerry's last Catholic leg
As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.
Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)
Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.
In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.
The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?