Reverse Racism?

Liberal extremist, former Vice Presidential candidate and Sen. Clinton supporter, Geraldine A. Ferraro wrote the following in a column that was published in the Boston Globe on Friday, May 30:

“Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.”

Reverse racism? That’s different from racism how? It’s not, of course, but then Ms. Ferraro is an idiot.

Ms. Ferraro also wrote:

“As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.”

You have to love these liberal, white Democrats. When Republicans are attacked with all kinds of hate for daring to speak on race issues it’s all good. But, when Reagan Democrats have to endure the same garbage now they call “foul”? Maybe the ugliness the Reagan Democrats have experienced during the 2008 Democratic Party nomination campaign (I think Ms. Ferraro is putting herself in this crowd) will ultimately have a positive impact on the honest race relations conversation this country still sorely needs.

When Sen. Obama loses the November election we'll see how passionate he really is about "healing" our Country and having such a conversation. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Who's Interest Should U.S. President Pursue? Duh!

Submitted to the Boston Globe on Monday, May 26:

Editor,

Thank you for publishing Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams' commentary reminding us that the Bush Administration is pursuing the interests of the United States at the diplomatic conference to ban cluster bombs (US subverts the cluster bomb ban, May 24, A13).

I know some hate-America Americans don't understand this but many Americans desire that the President of the United States pursues the interests of the United States. (End of letter.)

And, who played whom? President Bush shared his displeasure that Israel would negotiate with Syria and Pavlovian Syria is now negotiating with Israel. My Boston Globe insists such negotiations are in the interest of the United States. Okay.

Corporal Tibor "Ted" Rubin, United States Army

On this Memorial Day, the remarks of President Bush presenting the Medal of Honor to Corporal Tibor Rubin on September 23, 2005:

THE PRESIDENT: Laura and I welcome you to the White House. This is a special occasion for our nation. We're here to pay tribute to a soldier with an extraordinary devotion to his brothers in arms, and an unshakeable love for his adopted homeland of America.

Corporal Tibor "Ted" Rubin's many acts of courage during the Korean War saved the lives of hundreds of his fellow soldiers. In the heat of battle, he inspired his comrades with his fearlessness. And amid the inhumanity of a Chinese prisoner of war camp, he gave them hope. Some of those soldiers are here today, and they have never forgotten what they owe this man. And by awarding the Medal of Honor to Corporal Rubin today, the United States acknowledges a debt that time has not diminished.

It's our honor to welcome Ted's wife, Yvonne; daughter, Rosie -- a 2nd grade teacher, I might add -- (laughter) -- Frank and Lai, welcome. Glad you all are here.

Mr. Vice President, thank you for coming. Mr. Secretary, we're proud you're here. I appreciate Senator John Warner, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Congressman Robert Wexler, of Florida -- welcome. Thank you for being here. Former Congressman Ben Gilman and Georgia are with us. Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey; Pete Geren, acting Secretary of the Air Force; "Admiral G," Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is with us. General Pete Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the United States Army. And, Rabbi, thank you very much for your blessings.

I want to thank Ambassador Andras Simonyi, the Ambassador of Hungary to the United States, for joining us -- proud you're here. Yes. (Laughter.)

So honored to have the four Medal of Honor recipients with us: Barney Barnum, with the United States Marines; Al Rascon, the Army; Bob Foley, the Army; and Jack Jacobs, of the Army. Proud you're here. Thanks for being here.

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for bravery that a President can bestow. It is given for acts of valor that no superior could rightly order a soldier to perform. And that is what we mean by "above and beyond the call of duty." By repeatedly risking his own life to save others, Corporal Rubin exemplified the highest ideals of military service and fulfilled a pledge to give something back to the country that had given him his freedom.

Born in Hungary in 1929, Ted and his family were rounded up by the Nazis and taken to concentration camps when he was just 13 years old. He was taken to Mauthausen Camp in Austria, where an SS officer told the prisoner, "You, Jews, none of you will ever make it out of here alive." And many did not. Before the war was over, both of Ted's parents and one of his sisters were lost in the Holocaust. Ted Rubin survived the camp for 14 months, long enough to be liberated by U.S. Army troops on May the 5th, 1945.

These American GIs gave Ted his first real taste of freedom. Their compassion for the people in the camp made a deep impression on this teenage survivor. It was his first experience with soldiers who were fighting to protect human life. That day Ted made a promise to himself, if he ever made it to America, he would show his appreciation to this great land by enlisting in the United States Army. He did move to America after the war, and the young immigrant made good on his pledge. Even though he was not yet a citizen, he volunteered to serve his new nation in uniform, and seven months after taking the oath of a U.S. soldier, he was sent to Korea.

The conditions were brutal, the fighting was intense, and the bitter cold was unrelenting. And it was in these grueling circumstances that Corporal Rubin impressed his fellow soldiers in the 1st Cav Division as one of the best ever to wear our nation's uniform.

Those who served with Ted speak of him as a soldier of great skill and courage. One night near the Pusan Perimeter, Corporal Rubin had been assigned to hold a hill that was essential to the 3rd Battalion safe withdrawal. For 24 hours this lone rifleman would defend the hill against an overwhelming number of North Korean forces. By his actions Corporal Rubin inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, saved the lives of countless soldiers, and gave the unit time to withdraw.

Those who served with Ted speak of him as a soldier who gladly risked his own life for others. When Corporal Rubin's battalion found itself ambushed by thousands of Chinese troops, the Americans' firepower soon dwindled to a single machine gun. The weapon was in an exposed position and three soldiers had already died manning it. That was when Corporal Rubin stepped forward. He fought until his ammunition was gone. He was badly wounded, captured and sent to a POW camp. He risked his life that day to protect his fellow American soldiers, and his heroism helped many of them escape.

Those who served with Ted speak of him as a soldier whose many acts of compassion helped his fellow GIs survive the nightmare of imprisonment. As a teenager, Ted had taught himself how to survive the horrors of a Nazi death camp. He was resourceful, courageous, and unusually strong. And in Korea, he drew on these qualities to help keep many of his POWs alive. Whenever he could, at the risk of certain execution, Corporal Rubin would sneak out and steal food rations from the guards, and then he shared them with his fellow soldiers. Throughout this ordeal he nursed those who were sick back to health, and said the Kaddish prayers for those he buried.

And when his captives offered to release him to Communist Hungary, with the guarantee of a good job and nice clothes and plenty of food, Corporal Rubin refused. He said, "I was in the U.S. Army, and I wouldn't leave my American brothers because they need me here." Ted's decision was in character.

As a Jew and non-citizen serving in uniform, he had experienced prejudice in the Army. And he knew that the America he fought for did not always live up to its highest ideals. Yet he had enough trust in America's promise to see his commitment through. He saw it as his personal duty to live up to our nation's promise, and by doing so he set an example of what it means to be an American.

Many heroes are remembered in monuments of stone. The monuments to Corporal Rubin are a legacy of life. We see his legacy in the many American families whose husbands, fathers, and sons returned home safely because of his efforts. We see his legacy in the free and democratic South Korea that grew on the soil of his sacrifice. And we see his legacy in a new generation of American men and women in uniform who were inspired to their own acts of courage and compassion.

Today, we remember the mother, father and sister that Corporal Rubin lost to an unspeakable evil. We admire the determination of a young man who sought to repay his American liberators by following in their footsteps, and we recall the selfless acts that gave his comrades strength and hope in their darkest hours.

In the years since Abraham Lincoln signed into law the bill establishing the Medal of Honor, we have had many eloquent tributes to what this medal represents. I like Ted's description. He calls it "the highest honor of the best country in the world." And today, a grateful America bestows this award on a true son of liberty. (End of remarks by the President in presenting the Medal of Honor to Mr. Tibor Rubin.)

Diplomacy? No Diplomacy? Diplomacy? No Diplomacy?

The column I reference is actually Sen. Biden blustering against President Bush's address before the Israeli Knesset where he warned of appeasing terrorists.

Editor,

I was pleased to see liberal extremist, Sen. Joseph Biden (D, DE) acknowledging the diplomatic efforts of President Bush and the Boston Globe having the journalistic integrity to publish the quote (Biden comes out punching, May 23, A15)?

Sen. Biden said, "The day before the President spoke (in the Knesset), his own secretary of defense called for engaging with Iran. His secretary of state has done so repeatedly. The President himself authorized American diplomats to meet with ther Iranian counterparts about Iraq. And he struck a deal with Libya's Khadafy and wrote polite letters to North Korea's Kim Jong Il . . . ."

That "deal with . . . Khadafy"? It was just for Libya to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program. But why share this in the column? Journalistic integrity only goes so far, I guess. (End of letter.)

White House Reponds to NBC Hatchet Job

From whitehouse.gov (which definitely doesn't have any copyright infringement concerns):

Steve Capus
President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President's remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel's question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.'s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie
Counselor to the President

President Bush's Address to the Knesset

The liberal extremists in the media, proving yet again they are relying on the Obama campaign to frame its stories, made much of President Bush's address to the Israelis Knesset and his warning to not appease terrorists.

Immediately below is the full text of President Bush's speech. Please read the entire text so you can make up your own mind about the theme of the speech. For those pressed for time, I bolded and highlighted phrases the liberal extremists in the media conveniently ignored.

Following the speech are any one of three letters the Boston Globe could print opposite the many letters I'm sure will be published condeming President Bush's warning about appeasing terrorists.

Please read the entire text:

The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush to the Knesset of the only stable democracy in the Middle East: President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach. (Applause.)

It is a rare privilege for the American President to speak to the Knesset. (Laughter.) Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer -- to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. (Laughter.) My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon. (Applause.)

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust -- what Elie Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. (Applause.) When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words."

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It's also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles -- shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. (Applause.)

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.)

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. (Applause.)

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. (Applause.)

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see:

Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar -- the key to the Zion Gate -- and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people."

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless. (Applause.) (End of speech by the Presidnet of the world's only super-power declaring, in the strongest of terms, his country's loyalty to the State of Israel and apparently offending those on the Left.)

The letters:

Editor,

I thought your readers might be interested in a few of the much more relevant words from President Bush's address to the Israeli Knesset, "And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world. The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty . . . Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side . . . We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse th em . . . Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you . . . For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon . . . The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror . . . And (Israel has) built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side."

But I completely understand why, until this letter, you kept these words from your readers. (End of letter #1.)

Editor,

In a speech where President Bush said, "For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," the Boston Globe thought the story was President Bush "attacked" Sen. Barack Obama because the President also declared the world must not appease terrorists ("Bush warns of talks with "radicals", May 16, A1)? Are you mad?

The Boston Globe has done its readers, many who will vote for the next President, a great disservice. (End of letter #2.)

Editor,

In "Bush warns of talks with "radicals" (May 16, A1), where President Bush actually warned of appeasing terrorists, Boston Globe Staffer Sasha Issenberg ignorantly writes, "Delaware Senator Joseph Biden . . . described Bush's remarks as . . . a "long-distance Swift Boating" of Sen. Obama, a reference to Republican attacks in 2004 against Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's military record in Vietnam.

As people acquainted with the facts know, those who questioned Sen. Kerry's fitness to be commander-in-chief in 2004 were 300 decorated Vietnam veterans, Democrats and Republicans, and not partisan Republicans.

And, as the overly-sensitive Sen. Barack Obama and his enablers are proving, Democrats are peerless in their unwarranted offense-taking. Here's a tissue, Sen. Obama. (End of letter #3.)

Racist Democrats to Select Next President

The letter I submitted to the Boston Globe today:

Editor,

So, Clinton supporter Susan Kincaid of West Virginia thinks Sen. Clinton "has a better chance in November than (Sen.) Obama. I think there's still a lot of racism in this country and I think that would hinder him" (W. Va. Clinton fans want her to stay and fight, May 14, A8).

The exit polls in Ms. Kincaid's beloved West Virginia show her state's white Democrats picked Sen. Clinton 74% of the time. I'm sure Ms. Kincaid does not think any of her white Democratic friends are racists; surely they all have perfectly good explanations for why they prefer the white candidate.

Exit polls in some earlier Democratic primaries show blacks picking Sen. Obama more than 90% of the time.

News flash to Ms. Kincaid and other in-denial Democrats: there are racists in the Democratic Party. (End of letter.)

Sen. John McCain will be the next President of the United States of America. And, part of the reason will be because Ms. Kincaid is correct, "there's still a lot of racism in this country". Little does she know how much a part of it she and her Democratic friends are.

Hopefully the realization that there are Democratic racists and black racists will be the catalyst for an honest discussion of race relations in this country.

Correlation - Michelle Obama and Rev. Wright

It's been 327 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq; more than 497 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory.

Also, it's been 344 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists.

Though I applaud Sen. Barack Obama condemning the behavior and words of Rev. Wright, I'm puzzled by the silence on the matter by Mrs. Michelle Obama, who has not been shy about speaking her mind on every other topic.

Sen. and Mrs. Obama attended the same Church for 20 years. They chose to expose their daughters to the hateful words of Rev. Wright.

It was Mrs. Obama who earlier this year said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

I suggest there is a correlation between the Obama's attendance in Rev. Wright's Church for 20 years and Mrs. Obama's lack of pride in our country.

To what extent does Mrs. Obama's beliefs impact her husband's? The country just had to know First Lady Nancy Reagan frequented an astrologer, is there as much interest in the radical beliefs Mrs. Obama apparently harbors?

Finally, related to the post immediately below, Air Force One, with Harrison Ford, alludes to Article 4 of the 25th Amendment.

President Hillary Rodham Clinton

(I'll pause so most of you who just vomited can clean yourselves up; I apologize for the rude title.)

So, I was reading the Constitution again. The 2nd Amendment still says Americans can own guns, the 5th Amendment still says Americans can execute human garbage and the 14th Amendment still does not say a "health care provider" can stick a scissor in the skull of an unborn baby for the purpose of removing the brain to collapse the skull to extract the body from the carrier. Then, I read an Article of the Constitution I had never read before . . . because it's one of those crazy, ridiculous Articles worded more like it belongs in Major League Baseball's rule book than in the U.S. Constitution. Here is Article 4 of the 25th Amendment and the reason that Sen. Barack Obama would never consider Sen. Hillary Clinton as a bona fide option for Vice President:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments (read: Cabinet) or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. (End of Article 4 of the Twenty Fifth Amendment.)

Yes, the Cabinet, appointed by President Obama (assume Sen. McCain did have a televised nutty during a Presidential debate) should be loyal to him but it's Hillary Clinton for goodness sakes! Why would you ever doubt what she would be willing to do to become President?

Okay, Vice President Clinton could never get 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (or could she?).

I googled "Article 4 25th Amendment" and a few other words trying to come up with a movie or novel that used this as the basis of a plot line and all I could come up with was a William Saffire novel, Full Disclosure (1977), and the television series "24". The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967. But still, in 40 years no one (other than Mr. Saffire) thought this mechanism to steal the Presidency was the basis for a good novel?

Okay, now I'm off for Mother's Day weekend; I hope you enjoyed the exposure to what I think is a truly obscure part of our Constitution.

Pro-Constitution Justice Stevens

For almost three weeks I’ve been toting around an article I ripped out of the April 18, 2008 New York Times, the big sister to my Boston Globe (both are owned by the same company). The title of the article is, “After a 32-Year Journey, Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment.”

I just wanted to make a(nother!) simple observation about how the liberal media completely distorts fact. You wanna take a guess what the article has to factually acknowledge? You guessed it, Justice Stevens had just voted that Kentucky’s lethal injection form of execution was constitutionally sound.

The will of the people no longer frustrated, let three-drug cocktails flow!

One can almost hear Sen. John F. Kerry, “I voted for capital punishment though I really am against it.”

The above quote is my imagination but Justice Stevens did say, “Learning on the job is essential to the process of judging”, Justice Stevens and the author of the column suggesting Justice Stevens' moves from conservative principles to liberal principles is the process of “learning”. Again, I have no idea what dopey liberals think “capital crime” means as used in the Constitution.

Anyway, Justice Stevens cannot leave the bench soon enough. Recall, I earlier predicted he might resign prior to the November election to make his appointment a campaign issue.

And, let’s hope President McCain does have a litmus test as Presidents Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Kennedy) and Bush 41 (Souter) clearly did not.

There's a good chance nothing until Mother's Day so Happy Mother's Day to the Moms.

No Really, Publish the Idiots

This, I'm not kidding, is a letter the Boston Globe thought worthy of publishing on Saturday, May 3:

I FIND it infuriating that our commander in chief can find time to yuk it up on a television game show and engage in comedic routines at the White House correspondents' dinner while our troops are in harm's way. His nose should be to the grindstone, working 24/7 to solve this horrible human tragedy he has chosen to initiate. All other matters should fall by the wayside. The many people whose lives have been devastated by his decision to wage the hell of war deserve better. Just the appearance of our president not having the full weight of our terrible daily reality on his shoulders is, in my opinion, extremely inappropriate and disrespectful to us all. Get to work, Mr. President, and don't stop until you end this nightmare you started (Letter, May 3, A14). (End of idiotic letter.)

My letter in response:

Editor,

Your decision to publish a letter suggesting President Bush is "infuriating" for finding the "time to yuk it up on a television game show" was unconscionable, shameful and blatantly dishonest for its grotesque blindness to the facts of the "appearance" (Letters, May 3, A14).

President Bush taped, in the White House, a 1 minute greeting and good luck wish to a contestant on "Deal or No Deal". The contestant was a highly decorated soldier who served three tours in Iraq.

Of course, the facts of the "appearance" don't support the hate-Bush-all-the-time zealotry of liberal extremists so I completely understand why the context of the "appearance" was hidden from your readers. (End of letter.)

Facts Don't Matter to Liberal Extremists

Two letters I submitted to the Boston Globe in the last two weeks.
Editor,

Ms. Joan Vennochi’s column bemoaning “the facts didn’t matter” to critics of recent Democratic presidential candidates was hysterical for its irony (Obama’s patriotism, April 20, D9).

Ms. Vennochi wrote, “The GOP turned (Gov.) Dukakis into a civil liberties-loving elitist who let convicted felons free to strike again.” As people familiar with the facts know, the victims of convicted murderer Mr. William Horton paid for the campaign ads that reminded voters of Gov. Dukakis’ ridiculous furlough program. People familiar with the facts also know that Gov. Dukakis refused to meet with Mr. Horton’s non-murdered victims, Mr. Cliff Barnes and Ms. Angela Miller, which contrasts greatly with the widely unknown fact that President Bush did once meet privately with Ms. Cindy Sheehan.

She also wrote, “In 2004, (Sen.) Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, came under attack from fellow veterans who questioned the legitimacy of (Sen. Kerry’s) combat medals . . . .” People familiar with the facts know the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth are decorated veterans as well. It is also a fact that President Bush and everyone in his Administration acknowledged Sen. Kerry’s honorable service and acknowledged the Senator as a bona fide American war hero.

Her defense of Vice President Gore’s typewriter piloting during the Vietnam War while simultaneously belittling President Bush’s Vietnam-era ability to take-off in, fly, and land a military jet turns logic on its head.

On one point Ms. Vennochi is correct, “The ability to undermine a campaign has nothing to do with logic, fact or confidence.” This statement is proved by Democrats’ and the liberal media establishment’s grotesque demagoguery of words the President never spoke, “mission accomplished,” and their grotesque manipulation of words Sen. McCain did speak, “100 years,” to give just two examples. (End of first letter.)

And a quick-hitter:

Editor,

A more accurate title for Mr. Peter Canellos' column about current national Democrats' disdain for the working class and the same Democrats' masterful manipulation of economic woes would have been "Democrats must renew con on working class" (Democrats must renew bond with working class, April 15, A2). (End of second letter.)