Race as a Weapon

Earlier this week, the Senate and the House, controlled by massive Democratic Party majorities, sent a bill to President Obama's desk to re-authorize the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, you know, the Act symbolic of President Bush's "shredding of the Constitution". I was planning to make special note of the hypocrisy of the Democrats who voted to re-authorize. (Recall, back on September 14, 2009, Obama sent a letter to Congress asking for re-authorization).

However, in researching the vote authorizing President Obama to continue to shred, I came across this:

H.RES.1085
Title: Honoring and celebrating the contributions of African-Americans to the transportation and infrastructure of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] (introduced 2/22/2010)
Latest Major Action: 2/24/2010 Passed/agreed to in House.
Status: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 419 - 0 (Roll no. 65).

As I wrote six months before CJOTSCOTUS Roberts plagiarized me, we will never be a color-blind society until we are a color-blind society.

Those who use race as a weapon, and their enablers, remain the impediments.

Boston Globe Editorial Board Looks More Like America

For some time, the last few times on May 30 and June 27, 2009, I noted how non-diverse, for those obsessed with skin color, the Boston Globe Editorial Board was.

I routinely remined my friends at the Globe that the Editorial Board was all-white and all-male.

Well, I'll be darned if there was not an editorial attacking Tiger Woods in yesterday's issue. I quickly flipped to the Editorial Board profiles' page to see if the composition of the Board had changed. It had!

Are you ready for this? To the six previously liberal, white, males, the Globe added:

Mr. Scot Lehigh - liberal, white, male.
Ms. Joan Vennochi - liberal, white, female
Ms. Joanna Weiss - liberal, white, female, and
Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson - liberal, black, male

Now the Boston Globe Editorial Board can lecture us on its idea of diversity, without being raging hypocrites, because the Board now looks much more like America . . . even though it doesn't think at all like most of America.

The Accelerant

My call of January 21, 2010 is accelerated by the announcement of 2012 Democratic Party Presidential candidate Evan Bayh (D, IN).

ZACKlyRight Inspiring Georgia Right to Life

In back-to-back posts on June 20 and 23, 2007 and again in a post on June 10, 2009, I suggested African-Americans might want to re-think their monolithic support for Democrats given the rabid support the Democratic Party has for abortion-on-demand; in all three posts I cite the Centers for Disease Control (you'll see why I mention this in a moment).

I encourage everyone to (re-)read those posts by using the index in the right margin.

Here is the Associated Press story as it appeared in my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, on February 15, 2010:

Ga. billboards link abortion, race
By Associated Press February 15, 2010

ATLANTA - The message on dozens of billboards that went up across the city last week is provocative: Black children are an “endangered species”.

The eyebrow-raising ads depicting a black child are an effort by the antiabortion movement to use race to rally support within the black community. The reaction from black leaders has been mixed, but the “Too Many Aborted’’ campaign, which so far is unique to Georgia, is drawing support from other antiabortion groups across the country.

“This campaign is in your face, and nobody can ignore it,’’ said the Rev. Johnny Hunter, national director of the Life Education and Resource Network, a North Carolina-based antiabortion group.

The effort is sponsored by Georgia Right to Life, which also is pushing legislation that aims to ban abortions based on race.

Black women accounted for the majority of abortions in Georgia in 2006, even though blacks make up just a third of the state population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nationally, black women were more than three times as likely to get an abortion in 2006 compared with white women, according to the CDC.

“The language in the billboard is using messages of fear and shame to target women of color,’’ said Leola Reis of Planned Parenthood of Georgia. (End of Associated Press article.)

Luge

Leaning is not a sport.

Wall Street Journal Again Plagiarizes ZACKlyRight

I attach the Wall Street Journal's caution about plagiarism at the bottom for comic effect. My first post noting Obama's reassertion of President Bush appeared in this space on November 11, 2008. Before November 2008 was over, I posted a handful more times on Obama's Bush reassertions. Click through the months coming forward from November 2008 and every third post or so seems like I'm again noticing President Obama sounding like President Bush - I even note when other major, national names parroted my words: The New York Times, Sen. Rick Santorum, Daniel Henninger, I even think Karl Rove was in there once.

This was the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial in yesterday's issue:

Cheney's Revenge

The Obama Administration is vindicating Bush antiterror policy.

Dick Cheney is not the most popular of politicians, but when he offered a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's approach to terrorism last May, his criticism stung—so much that the President gave a speech the same day that was widely seen as a direct response. Though neither man would admit it, eight months later political and security realities are forcing Mr. Obama's antiterror policies ever-closer to the former Vice President's.

In fact, the President's changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues, and it is on those that it is suffering the humiliation of having to walk back from its own righteous declarations. This is Dick Cheney's revenge.

***

Begin with Mr. Obama's executive order, two days after his inauguration, to shut the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year. The President issued this command before undertaking a study to determine how or even whether his goal was feasible. In his May speech, Mr. Obama declared, "The record is clear: Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security."

Mr. Obama's deadline has come and gone, and Guantanamo remains open. In part this is the result of political opposition from Americans—including many Congressional Democrats—who understandably do not want terrorists in their backyards. Another problem is that European allies, while pressing for Guantanamo's closure, have been reluctant to accept more than a handful of detainees who are deemed suitable for release. The upshot is that Congress may never appropriate the money to close Gitmo, and Mr. Obama never mentioned the prison in his State of the Union address.

The Administration similarly has been backing away from its intention, announced in November, to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other enemy combatants in civilian court a few blocks from Ground Zero. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who at first endorsed the trials, has since reversed himself and urged the Administration to "do the right thing" and move the trials somewhere else, preferably to a military base.

The same day, New York's Senator Chuck Schumer asked officials to find another venue. Within hours, Mr. Obama ordered the Justice Department to do just that, and Mr. Schumer has since said any trial shouldn't be held anywhere in New York state. Meanwhile, bipartisan support is growing in Congress to block money from being spent on any civilian trial for KSM, anywhere.

The Administration seems to have thought no more deeply about the potential legal pitfalls of civilian trials than about the security and logistical problems. Mr. Obama himself responded to criticism by suggesting that what he had in mind was a series of show trials, in which the verdict and punishment were foreordained.

When NBC's Chuck Todd asked him in November to respond to those who took offense at granting KSM the full constitutional protections due a civilian defendant, the President replied: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." Mr. Obama later claimed he meant "if," not "when," but he undercut his own pretense of showcasing the fairness of American justice.

There is a real possibility, too, that convictions would be overturned on technicalities. KSM and other prospective defendants were subjected to interrogation techniques that, while justifiable in irregular war, would be forbidden in an ordinary criminal investigation. When Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, asked Attorney General Eric Holder what the Administration would do if a conviction were thrown out, Mr. Holder said: "Failure is not an option." A judge may not feel the same way, and the Administration is derelict if it is as unprepared for the contingency as Mr. Holder indicated.

In the event of an acquittal or an overturned conviction, it would be entirely legitimate under the laws of war to continue holding KSM and the others as enemy combatants. But this would defeat the moral rationale of a trial and require the Administration to explain why it was continuing to detain men whose guilt it had failed to establish in court.

A third policy under increasing criticism is the Administration's approach to interrogation. In August, Mr. Holder announced that he had appointed a special prosecutor to investigate—or rather re-investigate—allegations of abuse by CIA interrogators. At the same time, Mr. Obama declared that responsibility for interrogating detainees would shift from the CIA to a new, FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which would employ only tactics that are "noncoercive" or approved by the Army Field manual.

Then came the attempted Christmas bombing and the revelation that the new interrogation group is not fully operational and won't be for months. Not that it would have had a chance to question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. On Mr. Holder's order, investigators immediately classified him as a criminal defendant. After interrogating him for just 50 minutes, they advised him of his right to remain silent, which he promptly exercised.

Fifty minutes was plenty of time, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assured "Fox News Sunday" viewers last month: "Abdulmutallab was interrogated, and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation." Mr. Holder told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a letter last week that Abdulmutallab "more recently . . . has provided additional intelligence to the FBI"—which is encouraging if true, but makes Mr. Gibbs's earlier assurance look empty.

Meanwhile, one of Scott Brown's most potent campaign themes in Massachusetts was his line that "Some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree." Mr. Brown even endorsed waterboarding.

***

As long as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for keeping Americans safe, Democrats could pander to the U.S. and European left's anti-antiterror views at little political cost. But now that they are responsible, American voters are able to see what the left really has in mind, and they are saying loud and clear that they prefer the Cheney method.

Mr. Holder has nonetheless begun a campaign to defend his decisions on Abdulmutallab and KSM, telling the New Yorker last week that "I don't apologize for what I've done" and that trying KSM in a civilian court will be "the defining event of my time as Attorney General."

Given that he still can't find a venue and that even Democrats are having second thoughts about the spectacle, Mr. Holder may well be right that the trial will define his tenure. Before this debate is over, he may have to explain why he's decided that the best place to try KSM really is a military tribunal—in Guantanamo.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008.

Obama Validates ZACKlyRight

"I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11." - President Barack Hussein Obama, February 7, 2010, commenting on the Fruit of the Boom Christmas Day Bomber.

I think there are more important things for the public to understand but I appreciate the President's validation nonetheless.

My Depths! Relying on the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, for Validation!

Before I get to the punchline of today's post, I really need to re-publish my post from June 19, 2009 - my prescience really is extraordinary!

(Begin Re-production)

Filibuster-Proof Senate; Republicans Can Only Hope!

I'm not researching it but I think very shortly some court in Minnesota is going to require the governor of that state to certify liberal extremist Al Franken as the next senator from that great state.

Sen. Norman Coleman would then have to decide if he wanted to further contest the fact that absentee ballots that went AWOL during the recount miraculously reappeared and provided the margin of victory for Franken.

Fast-forward to Franken being sworn-in. This would give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to ram through any legislation they wanted in the Senate as Republicans could no longer filibuster, or threaten to filibuster.

The sooner this happens (read: Coleman, don't appeal!) the better FOR REPUBLICANS.

You will know I'm ZACKlyRight with this call becasue almost immediately after Franken is seated, if not sooner, the Obama-Biden administration will be dismissing the monumental legislative advantage. And, about 10 minutes after the Obama-Biden administration dismisses the event, listen for the liberal extremists who control the media to immediately parrot the dismissal.

Or, maybe the secret is out earlier if the thoughts in this post get a wide distribution.

First, ponder the embarrassment if the Emperor cannot pass any meaningful legislation with a filibuster-proof Senate. Well, the thing is, he won't. There are enough responsible Democrats, three or four, who will be the Republics firewall. The Obama-Biden administration knows this so in advance of being embarrassed, it has to lower expections.

Second, and I'm not being morbid just a realist, the former Ku Klux Klan member, Robert C. Byrd, is very frail. A majority cannot nastily strong-arm a minority and then not expect the maximum reaction when the advantage is lost, so just maybe, the majority shouldn't press the advantage too aggressively. Franken is picked by his state's Supreme Court to be the next Senator from Minnesota. Sen. Reid, over-joyed with his filibuster-proof Senate, jams through a bill authorizing the release of DOD photos showing terrorists being treated roughly. Sen. Byrd dies. Oops! No more filibuster-proof Senate until the next Senator from West Virginia is chosen. Well, in West Virginia, the governor appoints vacant Senate seats. The governor of West Virginia is a Democrat, so, yes, another Democrat will get appointed. However, until that person is selected and seated, the business of the Senate will continue. Even if the vacancy is only a month, Republicans can make things extremely difficult for a Democrats who abused their majority.

This scenario repeats itself with Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts does not permit gubernatorial appointments. So, if Senator Kennedy were to pass, his seat would remain open until a special election could be conducted. The Kennedy scenario is interesting as his illness could keep him from the Senate floor thus preventing him from voting to end a Republican filibuster. His presence in the Senate actually hurts his Party if he routinely cannot make it to the floor.

As so many Democrats and liberals quietly celebrated US military deaths in Iraq so that they could demagogue the deaths leading up to the Novermber 2006 and 2008 elections, I wonder if the same Democrats are praying as hard for Kennedy as I am especially in this period prior to Franken being sworn in.

So, do not look for the Democrats to abuse the filibuster-proof majority if they get it and look for the Obama-Biden administration to dismiss the advantage as soon as it's gained.

Look for the Republicans to highlight how ineffectual the Democrats have been with the White House, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if they ever get it.

(End Re-production)

So, two days ago, licking his wounds from yet another states repudiation of President Barack Obama, arguably the most stupid US Senator in the history of the United States, Sen. John F. Kerry, said that the Democrats losing in Massachusetts was a "blessing in disguise" and, "I'd rather have the Republicans have to be responsible - either they are going to be part of the discussion or they are not."

I know I'm open to an inconsistency here but Sen. Kerry does validate my June 19, 2009 post.

Now, to a much more powerful takeaway from Sen. Kerry's quote:

Does this mean the Democrats have some responsibility for the United States' 'illegal war' in Iraq given that so many, including Sen. Kerry, voted for war?

Does this mean the Democrats have some responsibility for the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001?

For NCLB?

For the Prescription Drug Act?

For military tribunals?

For the Bush tax cuts?

For FISA extension (Obama voted "yes" in 2008)?

(The list is endless given President Bush never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.)

N0? Not according to the demagogues who write the Democrats talking points? Thought so.

Obama's Pettiness II

In addressing Senate Democrats yesterday, President Obama implored Democrats to continue to push their extreme agenda even without participation from Republicans, “We’ll call them out when they say they want to work with us and we extend a hand and get a fist in return.’’

As we know, the Republicans have never given President Obama a fist but you have to love the President's ugly and suggestive imagery in the face of the massive repudiations he's received in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Save for a rogue finger, I think the only fists President Obama consistently receives are from his friends Kin Jung Il, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama’s Pettiness

Excerpted remarks by the President in State of the Union Address; U.S. Capitol, January 27, 2010

THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans . . . (Americans) are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness . . . In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength . . . We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade – what some call the "lost decade" – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation . . . Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy . . . At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door . . . Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office . . . From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again . . . So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics . . . That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula . . . My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination . . . We have come through a difficult decade . . . .” (End of excerpts of Obama’s pettiness.)

Then these beauties by the petty Obama-Biden Administration in a Wall Street editorial by Vice President Biden on nuclear weapon proliferation and the maintaining of the US arsenal, “Among the many challenges our Administration inherited was the slow but steady decline in support for our nuclear stockpile and infrastructure, and for our highly trained nuclear work force . . . For almost a decade, our laboratories and facilities have been underfunded and undervalued . . . The budget we will submit to Congress on Monday both reverses this decline and enables us to implement the President’s nuclear-security agenda . . . This investment is long overdue . . . .” Vice President Biden’s petty broadside was published January 29, 2010, just to days after President Obama's petty State of the Union Address.

Or maybe I’m the one being petty for noticing.