The Stakes: The United States Supreme Court (USSC)

As regular readers here know, I’ve been harping on the second most important responsibility of the President of the United States (nominating United States Supreme Court Justices) since the inception of my blog; my inaugural post of August 2, 2005 speaks directly to this.

I’ve written “Elections matter” too many times to count.

And, I’ve written that President Bush will ultimately be regarded by history as a great President in part to fulfilling his campaign promises of 2000 and 2004 that he’d appoint USSC Justices exactly like Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

In the last week or so, the USSC has handed down opinions in three landmark cases that highlight the importance of the 2008 Presidential election.

First, in Boumediene v. Bush, a 5 – 4 Court said that non-citizen terrorists have protections under the U.S. Constitution, the Global Constitution as I think I referred to it (can we collect income taxes from non-citizens?).

In Louisiana v. Kennedy, another 5 – 4 Court said that the People cannot decide for themselves what crimes can be punished by capital punishment. Just as the People can pass laws protecting innocent, unborn, human life, I think the People should be allowed to define punishments for certain heinous crimes.

Finally, in District of Columbia v. Heller, yet another 5 – 4 Court said the 2nd Amendment says exactly what the 2nd Amendment says.

A brief word on how each of these cases relate to the 2008 Presidential election:

In the first case, Sen. Barack Obama hailed the victory for the terrorists. As I noted when I first wrote about Boumediene, this case had extremely relevant precedent; a prior Court, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, said enemy combatants have no such Constitutional rights. This is important because Sen. Obama has steadfastly argued stare decisis to support his extreme pro-abortion beliefs. That is, the Court has already spoken on the matter (Roe v. Wade) and he’ll abide by the precedent. In Boumediene, Sen. Obama applauds the rejection of precedent. And, there in lies the liberal judicial philosophy, “the law says whatever I want it to say.” I’m not going to rely on Eisentrager to support my belief that non-citizen terrorists are not covered by our Constitution; I can do that on the facts.

The facts in Louisiana v. Kennedy are that Mr. Kennedy beat and raped his 8 year-old step-daughter. The State of Louisiana had previously decided such a crime is punishable by death. Sen. Obama expressed a modest disagreement with the Court in that Sen. Obama recognized some deference to the People. But this is merely lip-service. Justices who a President Obama would nominate for the Supreme Court, those with radical pro-abortion beliefs, are precisely the kinds of justices who will not recognize the People’s right to decide what crimes are punishable by death.

Finally, in Heller, Reagan-disappointment Kennedy, sided with the People. This case essentially was to decide whether the 2nd Amendment offered a personal protection to “keep and bear arms”. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, goes through a tedious history of the dictionary to explain the right is a personal right.

Here’s how I would have proved the right was a personal right in four paragraphs (but then I’m not challenged by being unable to read or by being a constitutional law attorney or judge):

The 1st Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 4th Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is undeniable that the 1st and 4th Amendments protect individual rights. It is not credible in any way to argue that the Founders would have used the exact same phrase in three of the first four Amendments and the meaning in the middle reference would be different than the meaning of the phrase prior AND subsequent.

The stakes in the 2008 Presidential election are high. Sen. McCain must make these three Supreme Court decisions campaign issues and he must highlight the harm that will come to our Country if Sen. Obama is elected. Call it “fear” politics, but it is also the truth. In an era of so many landmark 5 – 4 decisions, the direction of the Court will be set for years by the next President.

Bush Still Tolling Bell for Iran

It’s possible everything that can be written about the U.S. Supreme Court’s protection of violent child rapists will be written before I get my chance but I can’t let this post on supressing nuclear weapon proliferation go another day.

Please go read my June 3, 2008 post. Really, go ahead, I’ll wait ‘til you’re done before I continue. C’mon, it’s just a few posts down, go read it!

(While you were gone I was listening to O.A.R.’s “Hey Girl” live version; I had way more fun as I wasn’t reading Boston Globe trash.)

So, on June 2, 2008, the Boston Globe wrote, “The public's anger at Ahmadinejad for his disastrous economic policies has now found expression in the upper reaches of Iran's power elite. Larijani can be expected to castigate Ahmadinejad not only for measures that drive up inflation and unemployment but also for making truculent public statements that increase Iran's isolation and subject it to crippling banking sanctions.”

In an editorial on June 21, the hate-Bush-all-the-time Boston Globe wrote, “The only responsible US policy at this point is to engage directly with Iran, to determine if there is any package of political and economic rewards its leaders will accept as compensation for forgoing nuclear weapons.”

Yes, you read that correctly, the Boston Globe wants to "reward" Iran.

Next and finally, I’m not kidding, this was in a news story, in its entirety, buried in the Boston Globe from June 24 that the Globe picked up from the Washington Post:

Iran nuclear program faces new sanctions

Paris - The European Union approved new sanctions against Iran yesterday, including freezing the assets of its largest bank, in a continuing effort to force Tehran to curtail its nuclear development programs and fully cooperate with international inspectors.

The new measures signal growing impatience among European leaders with what they see as Iranian foot-dragging in negotiations over halting uranium enrichment. Iran says the program is purely peaceful, but many Western countries contend it is secretly geared to developing nuclear weapons.

The EU sanctions, approved yesterday at a meeting of the 27-nation bloc in Luxembourg, come on top of three sets of sanctions against Iran imposed by the United Nations Security Council in the last 18 months and a slew of sanctions levied unilaterally by the United States (read: most recently by President Bush) over the last two decades.

The new measures include an asset freeze on Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank, and other businesses connected to the country's nuclear and weapons programs, and a travel ban on high-level Iranian officials involved in those fields, according to an EU official who declined to be quoted by name. The identities of the businesses and officials, who will be denied visas to EU countries, are to be announced today.

The United States (read: President Bush) slapped sanctions on Bank Melli - and on Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat - in October, asserting the first two institutions helped finance Iran's nuclear programs and the third financed terrorism.

Newspapers in Tehran reported last week that Iranian officials, concerned that the EU was preparing to follow suit and freeze Iranian assets, recently transferred as much as $75 billion in assets out of Europe.

The increasingly hard-line European stance complements continuing efforts by a group consisting of the United States (read: President Bush), Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, and the EU to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium in exchange for a package of political and economic concessions. On June 12, the group proposed wide-ranging negotiations on a broad array of issues, but stipulated as a precondition that Iran had to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, steps that could be part of a nuclear energy or weapons program. (End of Washington Post article.)

As I’ve written before, President Bush will be regarded by history as a great United States President.

Leaders lead.

The New York Times Endangers CIA Agent

My (news)paper, the Boston Globe, picked-up a story from the New York Times News Service, a sister organization as the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times, that told of a specific CIA Agent’s success in interrogating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), the most senior al Qaeda terrorist in U.S. custody in Cuba.

This was how the New York Times News Service explained using the CIA Agent’s name 10 times in the story . . . in the last paragraph of the story:

“General Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, and a lawyer representing (CIA Agent) asked that he not be named in this article, citing privacy and safety reasons. The New York Times, noting that (CIA Agent) had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request.”

Note that the New York Times does not say that this particular Agent had been previously named.

The CIA Director asked that the Agent’s name not be mentioned citing safety reasons and the New York Times declined the request.

The liberal extremists who dominate the mainstream media were apoplectic when an aide to an aide of the President forgot the day he told the truth about another CIA Agent who was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 yet the most liberal newspaper in America declines a request by the CIA Director to not name an Agent who interrogated KSM?

Again, the extremists who dominate the print media show their colors.

Ignoring the Law is Wrong too!

Not long after 19 terrorists murdered 2,700 Americans and about 200 nationals from other countries, the United States Senate passed the PATRIOT Act by a vote of 98 - 1. When Attorney General John Ashcroft abided by the Act he was vilified by the liberal extremists. No matter that 44 Senate Democrats voted for the Act.

About a year ago, Congress passed and the President signed a law that called for a national nuclear terrorism czar. As of today, President Bush has not nominated anyone willing to have her/his name smeared. Also today, the Boston Globe published a front page story acknowledging the President has not yet complied with an obligation.

Please note my notes to the author of the article.

My letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

I really thought the title of Mr. Bryan Bender's article on President Bush's reluctance to appoint a nuclear terrorism czar should have been "Bush Spares Qualified American Democratically-controlled Senate Smear Job (Bush fails to appoint a nuclear terror czar, June 22, A1)". (End of letter.)

Note to Mr. Bender: For a second, forget President Bush is a Republican and consider the accolades he'd be receiving if he was a Democrat and he orchestrated:
a. Libya's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program,
b. Iran's increased isolation from the rest of the world thus producing the election of Ali Larijanni to Parliament speaker (does the Globe forget its own editorial - A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad, June 2, A14?), and
c. through Six Nation agreements, putting North Korea on a glide path to nuclear disarmament,
as he has.

I've often cited the October 8, 2004 debate exchange between President Bush and Sen. Kerry to support that President Bush precisely addressed what was agreed to that night. How can the evidence suggest anything but?

If a President Kerry had accomplished to date what President Bush has done, "President" Kerry would be hailed as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time.

President Bush's accomplishments stand in stark contrast to the proliferation of the nuclear programs in Libya, Iran, North Korea, AND CHINA during the Clinton years. (End of notes to first letter.)

Below is my unpublished letter to the Boston Globe that I sent four days before the one year anniversary of Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory in Iraq. I asked the Globe to hold it until June 20. Obviously, the Boston Globe did not publish it.

Editor,

Since it is clear Sen. Hillary Clinton will insinuate herself in the 2008 Presidential campaign and as American soldiers are still fighting a war in Iraq, I think we should revisit Sen. Clinton's words from one year ago today at the Take Back America conference: “The American military succeeded” in Iraq, Sen. Clinton thundered.

More than 522 American military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory (icasualties.org).

President Bush never said "mission accomplished" and he is ridiculed incessantly.

Sen. Clinton did say the United States "succeeded" and except for this letter no one would know.

Liberal media bias anyone?

And, make no mistake, the bias has cost and will continue to cost American military personnel their lives as President Bush's job of prosecuting the war with more domestic and global support was made more difficult by cowardly partisan politicians and their friends in the liberal media who traffic in lies and distortions. (End of second letter.)

So This Is What Victory Looks Like One Year Later

Today is the one year anniversary of Sen. Hillary Clinton's declaration of victory in Iraq.

Since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory more than 522 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq.

Bush Diplomacy Fingerprints Everywhere

My letter to the editor of the Boston Globe today:

Editor,

These were just some of the headlines from articles in your newspaper on Tuesday, June 17, 2008:

• Bush ends tour of Europe productively, A3, Los Angeles Times
• NATO trying to gauge readiness of Ukraine to join, A3, International Herald Tribune
• Sadr’s followers vow to support security mission, A4, Associated Press
• High-ranking Israeli, Palestinian officials meet Rice, A5, Associated Press
• Lebanese changes get US backing, A5, Associated Press
• Israel, Syria end talks, plan further discussions, A5, Reuters

The Republican National Committee could not have cobbled together such a tribute to the diplomatic efforts of President Bush and his administration; I’m sure the truth upset your liberal readers. (End of letter.)

The first story highlighted that our European allies are on-board with ramping up economic santions on Iran in order to get Iran to comply with United Nations resolutions regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The second story is self-explanatory. One of our strongest alliances is about to grow by another formidable country.

The third story highlights that Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr would not resist Shi'ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's military crackdown on Shi'ite gunmen in Amarah, a Shi'ite stronghold with loyalties to al-Sadr.

The last three stories were about some small countries, you might not ever have heard of but that are at the center of much global turmoil, meeting . . . not fighting.

Diplomacy breaking out everywhere!

The Scalia Dissent
More Americans will be Killed

As I’ve written here too many times to count, and as the johnny-come-lately media will now start to parrot, the President’s power to nominate U.S. Supreme Court Justices is the President’s second most important power.

Presidential elections matter; boy, do they ever.

As anyone who reads this blog already knows, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) decided this week that the United States Constitution does not just protect United States citizens, it also protects non-citizen terrorists who would kill us all if they could.

What I’m going to try to do with this post is pull the highlights from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Boumediene v. Bush coupled with my commentary. The opinion is 25 pages as the USSC publishes it but probably more like 12 pages narrative as we would format it; still too long to ask you to read, especially if you consider my commentary.

Justice Scalia begins with a very short history lesson:

“America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen.”

The passage above is strikingly similar to my post of March 28, 2008; maybe Chief Justice Roberts, who has paraphrased me in the past, suggested Justice Scalia should visit ZACKlyRight.

Justice Scalia continues:

“The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays on the Nation’s Commander-in-Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

It will most certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Justice Scalia continues:

“In the long term, then, the Court’s decision today accomplishes little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being of (terrorists) that the Court ostensibly seeks to protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating. At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield . . . These mind you, were (terrorists) whom the military had concluded were not (terrorists).”

The ruling pretends to only cover those 260 terrorists remaining at Guantanamo. In the long term, Justice Scalia is arguing that terrorist captured on the battlefield will not be imprisoned closer to the theater of war, most definitely in conditions less comfortable than Guantanamo, recall the terrorists at Guantanmo are afforded all kinds of comforts, they’ve even had a book of poetry published since their capture. The short term impact cannot be ignored. Prisoners deemed to be non-terrorists returned to the battlefield to kill. What can be expected of the 260?

In addressing that two co-equal branches of our Federal government, the Executive and Legislative, heard prior Third Branch concerns over the imprisonment of terrorists at Guantanamo (“Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek authority he believes necessary”), the Executive and Legislative Branches enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) and the Military Commissions Act (2006), 12 Senate Democrats joining all but one Senate Republican to pass the latter:

“Turns out they (the four Justices who suggested the President return to Congress seeking authority who now believe non-citizen terrorists are now protected by our Constitution) were just kidding.”

The footnote related to the quote immediately above is worth reproducing in its entirety:

“1 Even today, the Court cannot resist striking a pose of faux deference to Congress and the President. Citing the above quoted passage, the Court says, “The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how to best preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism.” Ante, at 69. Indeed. What the Court apparently means is that the political branches can debate, after which the Third Branch will decide.”

Justice Scalia continues:

“We (the USSC) have frequently stated that we owe a great deference to Congress’s view that a law it has passed is constitutional.”

I cannot discuss Scalia’s dissent and not mention Johnson v. Eisentrager. This World War II era case is widely recognized as the precedent setting case for the terrorists at Guantanamo and Justice Scalia spends quite a bit of time discussing it in his dissent. I reproduce Justice Jackson’s words from his Eisentrager opinion that Justice Scalia used in his dissent:

“We are cited to [sic] no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ (of habeas corpus) is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity has been within its (this or any other country’s) territorial jurisdiction. NOTHING (Blogger’s Note: all caps for emphasis is mine) in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.”

Justice Scalia continues:

“Eisentrager thus held – held beyond any doubt – that the Constitution does not ensure habeas aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign (read: Cuba).”

Justice Scalia concludes:

“And, most tragically, it (the opinion) sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Eighty-eight year-old Justice John Paul Stevens sided with those who think the non-citizen terrorists at Guantanamo should be protected by the Global Constitution.

A post on liberal extremist Sen. Barack Obama’s politically expedient view of stare decisis is forthcoming.

Elections matter. Boy, do they ever.

Cell Phones and Operating a Motor Vehicle

I think if people want to be able to talk on a cell phone while driving that they should be qualified.

I think if people want to legally operate a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone, they should pass their driving test while talking on a cell phone and get a Class Cell Phone driver's license.

Obama's Encore

It's Time for Another Obama Race Speech
By Juan Williams
The Wall Street Journal
June 6, 2008; Page A15

Now what? How does Barack Obama, fresh from claiming the Democratic nomination, put Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger behind him, before they ignite yet again and blow up his general election campaign?

How does he pre-empt advertising images, sure to be circulated by his opponents, that link him to outrageous racial rhetoric and fears that he is open to the most radical left-wing ideas – including using the power of the White House to exact racial vengeance?

There is no doubt that Rev. Wright's inflammatory racial rants hurt Sen. Obama badly during the primaries. His once-ascendant popularity with white men faded in a flash after Rev. Wright emerged as a walking contradiction to the candidate's claim to be above the old racial divides.
Even this week, at Mr. Obama's moment of historic triumph, a quarter of voters in Montana and a third of voters in South Dakota said the senator's 20 years of membership at Trinity United Church – the scene of racial rants by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger – was an important issue for them. In both states, more than half of these voters voted against him.

Since Rev. Wright became an issue in March, the senator's favorability rating, according to a Pew poll last week, has dropped eight percentage points. The sharpest slippage was among white women who explained that their problem with Mr. Obama has to do with "personal attributes," more so than his race. The major personal attribute unveiled during that time was the senator's close relationship to Rev. Wright and the likes of Father Pfleger. Now, with the general election contest beginning, there will be more white voters, including the all-important swing voters. They'll have to decide whether they are willing to see beyond race and invest their trust in the young, biracial senator who seeks to be their president.

Mr. Obama's strategies for dealing with the racial demagogues in his past have failed. The first strategy for dealing with Rev. Wright's proclamations – including damning America and offering baseless charges that the government was spreading AIDS among black people – was to say he was absent from church. Then Mr. Obama equated Rev. Wright with a crazy uncle to be found in every family. Then he asked for a pass, saying that everyone has heard their pastor, priest or rabbi make statements they don't agree with.

When this didn't work, the senator made a major political speech on race relations – a subject he'd avoided, to prevent being boxed in as the "black" candidate. The Philadelphia speech in March was most notable for what it did not do. Mr. Obama did not condemn Rev. Wright as a racial provocateur. Instead, he made it a point of virtue to stand by his minister of 20 years. He said Rev. Wright was a member of an older generation of black people still stung by their years of humiliation under segregation.

Incredibly, the speech was celebrated by supporters and most of the press. Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, said it would "go down as one of the great, magnificent and moving speeches in the American political tradition." The New York Times editorialized that "Mr. Obama's eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government."

Well, that speech didn't end the controversy, either – because Mr. Obama never spoke honestly about Rev. Wright's sermons as destructive and racist. Instead he offered soaring talk about the nation, as a matter of faith in God and one another, needing to "move beyond old racial wounds." His only criticism of Rev. Wright was to chide him for a "profound mistake," of speaking "as if no progress had been made" on race.

And his poor judgment in remaining a member of Rev. Wright's church? Mr. Obama skated by with appeals for other people to have serious conversations about race. Instead of turning his fire on racial pandering in his own church, he criticized those who would "make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with [Rev. Wright's] most offensive words."

Allies rallied to the senator's side, arguing that the controversy was really all the fault of TV news programs that played the reverend's bellicose "sound bites" too often and out of context. But in a matter of weeks, Rev. Wright went on another rant, this time at the National Press Club in Washington. Only then did Mr. Obama condemn him for racially offensive jeremiads. And last week, Father Pfleger – with his mocking of Sen. Clinton and claims that whites all over America are crying because they feel a black man has stolen the nomination – has renewed the bitterness. His rant has also called a new round of attention to Mr. Obama's long ties to unsavory racial characters both inside and outside the church. In response, the senator has resigned from the church.

He has to do more.

The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.

To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.

Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.

Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.

Mr. Williams is a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News.

Racist Democrats Will Elect Next President II

On May 14, 2008, I first addressed the blatant racism of white Democrats (black Democrats appear to be as racist as the whites but they won’t be electing the next President, so they are not discussed here further). I did not go into depth on my thoughts on May 14, so I go just a little further now.

There is no discernable difference in the policy positions of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. None. I read about 2 hours of newspaper, magazine and on-line political stories a day. With this level of exposure, I cannot describe or explain one policy difference between the two. I think true policy wonks can see some daylight between the two Senators’ nationalized health care programs (Sen. Obama, apparently, enamored with the lines sick people face in his beloved Canada). I’m skeptical that even 1,000 of the 30 million people who voted in Democratic primaries can explain a policy difference between the two. If a supporter of either reads this post and can explain a difference, it would be most welcome.

So, what divided the Democrats? Race. No, ifs, ands or buts about it. White, non-college educated Democrats did not vote for Sen. Clinton because of sexism or a perceived policy position difference.

In the lead up to the general election, the liberal extremists who dominate the media will try to portray the Republicans as the racists but this is will be a massive, despicable lie. The filth will not help the healing process and will only further fan the flames of race relations in this Country.

White, and most Black, Republicans will support Sen. John McCain precisely because of policy differences between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama.

I’m not going to list all the differences between the two here because it will read like an RNC talking points memo and I don't get my thoughts from the RNC but let me certainly highlight continuing the surge success in Iraq versus not, extending the Bush tax cuts or not, and appointing another Roberts to the United States Supreme Court versus appointing President Bill Clinton or Sen. Hillary Clinton.

White and Black Republicans will vote for Sen. John McCain on policy. Imagine the converse, a Republican disavowing his or her policy beliefs to vote for Sen. Obama because he is black. THAT would be an indication the Republican practices racism and may be a racist.

I’m not going to deny there are racist Republicans. Of course there are. Some will even mask their racism by hiding behind bona fide policy differences to substantiate their support for Sen. McCain. But, these racists will still be voting their policy beliefs.

Many white Democrats will vote for Sen. John McCain because they are racists. These white racist Democrats will subordinate their political beliefs to their racism. These white racist Democrats, in what may be a very close election, will elect the next President.

This post does not tell a happy story. As pleased as I will be that Sen. McCain will be our next President, that racist Democrats will elect him is an ugly and distasteful truth.

President Bush Tolled the Bell

Before we get to today’s thoughts, today does mark the one year anniversary of Sen. Clinton declaring in a Democratic Party debate that the United States is safe from terrorism . . . just thought you'd all like to know that you had nothing to worry about.

Because I enjoyed it so much, the picture of President Bush chest-thumping an Air Force Academy cadet (see June 1 post). AP Photo/Charles Dharapak


In my entire life, I don’t think I ever got angry in a conversation with a liberal extremist; they’re so bloody stupid that laughter is always the first emotion and not anger. Well, I sense that in the time between today and the November elections, there is a chance I might encounter anger. And, betraying my long held belief that I don’t need profanity to make my points or to be funny, I think there is chance, in an impulsive moment, I may post profanity here.

Yesterday, my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, published the following asinine editorial; it’s short so I re-produce it in its entirety:

A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad

STATE DEPARTMENT officials commonly complain that without an embassy in Iran, the United States cannot decipher the opaque workings of the Islamic Republic. This may be true in a general way, but no classified intelligence sources are needed to grasp the importance of last week's lopsided election of Ali Larijani to the powerful position of Parliament speaker.

The pragmatic Larijani, a former chief of Iran's National Security Council and lead nuclear negotiator, has been an outspoken foe of hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His ascension spells a promising power shift within Iran's faction-ridden political system. Larijani is very much a devotee of that system, but one who makes no secret of his belief that dialogue and deal-making with the West offer the surest means to secure Iran's national interests.

Larijani is known as a favorite of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His smashing victory in the parliamentary vote suggests that the legislators knew they were doing the will of Khamenei, the ultimate decider in Iran's theocratic republic.

This tilt toward Larijani suggests that the supreme leader has begun to respond to popular disenchantment with Ahmadinejad. The public's anger at Ahmadinejad for his disastrous economic policies has now found expression in the upper reaches of Iran's power elite. Larijani can be expected to castigate Ahmadinejad not only for measures that drive up inflation and unemployment but also for making truculent public statements that increase Iran's isolation and subject it to crippling banking sanctions.

The best news is that Larijani's elevation may foreshadow Ahmadinejad's defeat in the presidential election scheduled for June 2009. If he is replaced by Larijani or another pragmatist - and if the United States, too, has a pragmatic president by then - a bargain may be struck to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran. It will take deal-makers to make such a deal. (End of editorial obviously written by an idiot and edited by an idiot and then published by idiots.)

Isolation and crippling banking sanctions are not passive actions. They didn’t just happen because Ahmadinejad made “truculent public statements”!

The letter, as toned-down as I could make it in hopes of getting published:

Editor,

In celebrating the election of Ali Larijanni to Parliament speaker in Iran, you wrote the lopsided election was due largely to Iran's increased "isolation" from the rest of the world and "crippling banking sanctions" (A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad, June 2, A14).

You then take your usual cheap shot at President Bush, suggesting we need a "pragmatic" President to deal with the future leaders of Iran.

Who does the Boston Globe think is leading the global effort to isolate Iran? Who does the Boston Globe think is the muscle behind the banking sanctions?

President Bush tolled the bell for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, plain and simple.

If Sen. Obama was President today, he would have met with Ahmadinejad with no pre-conditions, thus giving Ahmadinejad credibility and making the prospects for his defeat in June 2009 much less likely. (End of letter.)

Commander-in-Chief

A ZACKlyRight first. Almost three years into writing this blog and I post my first picture. And what a great shot.

President Bush and U.S. Air Force Academy graduate Theodore Shiveley, from Plano, Texas, bump chests during the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony, Wednesday, May 28, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colo. AP Photo/Charles Dharapak