High court slaps down Sotomayor

George Will writes about the Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci case.

Although New Haven's firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly -- 5 to 4. The egregious behavior by that city's government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court's four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.

The undisputed facts are that in 2003, the city gave promotion exams to 118 firefighters, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire "political ramification" if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.

Isn't this so damn typical of the left? Instead of trying to find a way to genuinely elevate the under performing black firefighters (and by elevate I don't mean arbitrarily adding points to their score to make up for "past discrimination" but developing an educational program to help them study and learn and earn a place on the promotion list) they employ the left-liberal's favorite tactic of dragging down the achieves to the level of the lowest common denominator so that an illusion of equality can be maintained and no one has to feel bad about themselves.

Will goes on to discuss the opinions filed by the different Justices particularly Antonin Scalia's contention that ". . . Monday's ruling 'merely postpones the evil day' on which the court must decide 'whether, or to what extent,' existing disparate-impact law conflicts with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law."

That day is coming and is a large part of the reason why we must work to elect men and women who are not only conservative but have the courage and character to endure the most severe criticism from the mainstream media and the beltway establishment.

This ruling by the High Court is yet one more humiliating reversal for Sandra Sotomayor and provides conservatives with yet more ammunition to oppose her elevation to the Supreme Court. However Obama, a Marxist with a bitter hatred of the United States, will only seek another like-minded person to fill the current vacancy on the Court so Republicans will not be able to relax.

Remember we are just six months into the Obama regime and we have three and a half years to go.

Driving in the final stake

I've had a couple of emails asking why I didn't post anything about the cap and trade massive tax increase on all forms of energy (except for those that are already massively expensive like wind and solar).

The short answer is that it it is not a real threat. The carbon tax legislation is being used as a distraction and decoy to get conservatives and genuinely moderate Democrats to exhaust themselves before Obama's socialized medicine scheme comes up for a vote. It is also a sop to throw to radical environmentalists who have this dog and pony show in the House of Representatives to show them how the jackass party is in there fighting for the planet. And it is a way for San Fran Nan to flex her muscles and show the world that the "First Woman Speaker" (tm) is POWERFUL and can move the legislation she wants past Republican obstruction!

Meanwhile the bill is destined to die a quiet death in the Senate because the legislation would ruin the American economy and everyone with a brain (which leaves out the more ardent Democrat rank and file) knows it.

Senators will not ruin the American economy (although they will burden and damage it) because it is the engine of productivity which generates those massive piles of tax revenue the spending of which is the Washington politician's primary source of power.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't call our Senators and tell them to vote against this pile of garbage disguised as legislation. We should melt the phone lines to the Capital switchboard when the Senate takes this up just as we did when the House was voting on it. It wouldn't hurt to drop by your Senator's local office during the July 4th break and register your opinion in person. It doesn't matter if the Senator is there or not a record is kept of each person who visits and the Senator will hear about the people who took the trouble to register their opposition in person.

Tonight's Music

Celtic Woman performs there new song O, America!

The group describes the song as a tribute to the American Dream.

Chloe Agnew said at a recent concert:

"'O, America!' is a dedication to you to thank you for being the first country to embrace us as Celtic Woman. We feel as though we are part of your family now and for that we are very honored and proud. You are our true inspiration!"

And then there were three

One of the lessons from the past few presidential elections has been that governors do far better as candidates than Senators. George W Bush went from the governor's office of Texas into the White House as Bill Clinton went from the Arkansas Governor's Mansion to the Oval Office. Ronald Reagan's last political job before the presidency was governor of California and even the hapless Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia. Not all of these men were good presidents, but all of them (evidenced by the fact that they won) were good candidates.

For this reason the GOP has been looking to its governors to provide a credible challenger to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. Chief among the Republican's potential presidential candidates is Sarah Palin, sitting governor of Alaska and an extremely popular figure among the Republican rank and file.

Another popular GOP governor in Louisiana's Bobby Jindal. Jindal's calm and competent leadership was showcased for the nation during the 2008 Republican convention when a hurricane threatened the Gulf Coast. His performance made a striking comparison to the incompetence and dysfunction of his Democrat predecessor's behavior during Katrina.

Rick Perry of Texas is another strong contender for the 2012 GOP nomination. His leadership of Texas during the current economic troubles has been exemplary (his most recent budget is balanced and reduces spending from the state's general fund).

Until yesterday another rising star among the Republican party's governors was South Carolina's Mark Sanford. By now all of you have heard the bizarre tale of Sandord's unexplained absence from Columbia, or anywhere else in South Carolina, and over Father's Day weekend no less. You have heard of the conflicting stories told by his staff and family about his whereabouts and you have seen or heard about the press conference where he confessed that he was in Argentina seeing a woman with whom he was having an adulterous affair.

Strike one name from the GOP's list of potential presidential candidates.

This is unfortunate for the Republican party in that it has lost a popular conservative politician but it is very good for the GOP that this comes out now rather than two years from now when the presidential race is heating up. By 2011 Sanford will only be a dim memory as Republican hopefuls battle it out in the primaries.

To Sanford's credit I'll point out that he made clear in his press conference that his staff did not lie to the press about his whereabouts. He had led them to believe that he was going hiking so they were only giving out the best information they had. And he did not drag his wife up to the podium with him to "stand by him" like the Democrat governors of New York and New Jersey did when they got caught in their scandals.

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.

Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be involved.)

Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."

Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.

Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be upon him -- "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.

You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.

More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained, "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling."

You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (It also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."

If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president condemned the mullahs?

Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week about Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him) constituted, at best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the fraud.

Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to credit Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian protesters?

The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished anything -- anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who say that believe it.

The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. president is a coward and an imbecile.

Two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was exulting over the "free and fair" national election in Lebanon, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah and voted in the "U.S.-supported coalition." (Apparently support from America is not deemed the vote-killer in Lebanon that it allegedly is in Iran.)

To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some local color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free election would not have happened."

That's what Lebanese voters said.

But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- which he didn't have to go to Lebanon for -- to get a quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that Obama's Cairo speech was responsible for the favorable election results in Lebanon.

"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity and economic progress and education, and this person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was possible."

I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible" and "this little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully than a speech apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.

Obama -- and America -- are still living off President Bush's successes in the war on terrorism. For the country's sake, may those successes outlast Obama's attempt to dismantle them.

Once again Miss Ann nails it.

The sad thing is that those young Iranians who are protesting (and dying) like the United States. They hate the mullahs and believe that every word the mullahs have said to them is a lie - including all the bad stuff about the "Great Satan".

Here is the video of Neda Soltan if you haven't already seen it.

Whose "sovereignty" are protecting anyway?

One thing becomes clear from all the turmoil in Iran. The current Iranian regime does not represent the Iranian people. The current Iranian theocracy is an evil dictatorship which holds on to power only by brutal repression and military force.

So why does president Obama legitimize this fascistic despotism by referring to its chief dictator as "Supreme Leader"? Why does he refer to Iran as the "Islamic Republic" when that is a name imposed on the nation by a regime which the people of Iran desperately wish to be free from?

While on this topic we could also ask why the American left became so incandescent with fury over the United States' "violation" of the "sovereignty" of Iraq when that nation was ruled not by an elected government which reflected the will of the Iraqi people but by a cruel tyrant whom the Iraqi people desperately wished to be rid of.

The only "sovereignty" which the US violated when it invaded Iraq was the sovereignty of Saddam Hussein and the small thugocracy which directly profited from his tyranny.

The United States would not have won its war of independence against England if France had not been willing to violate the "sovereignty" of King George and give us aid.

There is a story in the 18th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew about a servant who received great mercy and then refused to show mercy to another in even a small matter. I think that this should be a cautionary tale for a nation which has received much, and from whom much must surely be required, when we contemplate whether to "meddle" in the affairs of a people who wish only to be free from the torment of a clique of evil old men in religious robes.

Tonight's Music

Rathkeltair performing Dragonfly.

The voice of a god. . .

From Front Page Magazine:

As John Ziegler in his excellent documentary “Media Malpractice” has demonstrated, during the 2008 election the press moved from liberal bias to advocacy. While the New York Times published a highly critical report alleging that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and questioned whether he was eligible to be president because he was born on a military base, they ignored questions about Obama’s eligibility and his extreme inexperience.

Rather than talk about the issues, the media were busy ogling a shirtless Obama and elevating him as the world’s newest celebrity. Chris Matthews even reported that Obama gave him a tingly feeling in his leg, and he stated it was his job to make the Obama presidency a success.

The media have only gotten worse since the election. In recent weeks, Obama made the claim that his stimulus bill has “created or saved” over 150,000 jobs and will do the same for roughly 600,000 jobs this summer. This claim is completely fabricated; even the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics admitted they could not prove how many jobs they have created and saved. Would President Bush have been allowed to con these same journalists by fabricating a story to back up his economic proposals?

The news media have ceased reporting the news; instead they focus on celebrity worship of Obama. On a recent hour-long special with Obama, host Brian Williams asked him no substantial questions, but he got Obama to plug the new “Tonight Show” host, Conan O’Brien. Then Williams bowed down to Obama as they parted ways. If we hadn’t seen it ourselves, we wouldn’t have believed an anchor of a major news broadcast would bow to any president.

But it gets worse, on “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” the editor of Newsweek, Evan Thomas, while calling Reagan “parochial, chauvinistic and provincial,” stated that “Obama is standing above the nation, above the world…he is sort of god.” This is the same Evan Thomas who in 2007 stated, “Our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do.” Evidently the media only bashes the president if he is a Republican.

The media adulation is getting ridiculous. Reese Schonfeld, the former president of CNN, in an article on Huffington Post argued that crazy Obama-haters were driving up Fox’s ratings. These liberal media elites simply don’t get it. The American people want to watch the news, not uncritical praise of Obama’s every move. One Monday this month, Katie Couric drew the smallest audience for “CBS Evening News” since 1991; you would think these folks would get the message. Stop treating Obama like the messiah, or viewers will tune in elsewhere to get their news. Right now people are flooding away from the mainstream media and watching Fox News or tuning into websites such as WorldNetDaily.com. People want objective and factual reporting, not propaganda.

As is so often the case the Holy Bible offers hope and comfort:

And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
-Acts 12:21-23

Metro derails, 2 dead

WASHINGTON - At least two people are dead and nine people are injured after a Metro Red Line train derailed and collided with another Metro train, officials say.

The six-car train derailed and then collided with another train between the Takoma Park and Fort Totten stations around 5 p.m. Monday, trapping several passengers.

The trains are "lodged on top of one another," D.C. Fire and EMS spokesman Alan Etter says.

Rescue crews used heavy duty equipment to cut the train apart to free several people who were trapped. Crews appeared to be done with the extrication process just before 6:30 p.m.

At least 60 people have been taken off the trains, Metro General Manager John Catoe says.

The trains look like "a tangled roller coaster," reports WTOP's Patricia Guadalupe, who is on the scene.

Metro spokesperson Candace Smith calls the scene "terrible."

"One rail car is about a third of the way on top of another rail car," Smith says.

The train was headed toward the Shady Grove station at the time of the accident, which occurred near the Maryland-D.C. border.

Etter tells WTOP rescue crews are setting up for the "possibility of a mass casualty event."

All area hospitals have been advised to expect patients, Etter says.

Our prayers are surely with the injured, the families of the dead and the rescue workers.

I always enjoyed riding the DC Metro. It was clean and well maintained and the layout was simple enough for a tourist with halfway decent map reading skills to navigate

Ending the war

Jacob Sullum in Reason magazine:

During his April visit to Mexico, President Barack Obama suggested that Americans are partly to blame for the appalling violence associated with the illegal drug trade there. “The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” he said. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States.”

Obama is right that the U.S. is largely responsible for the carnage in Mexico, which claimed more than 6,000 lives last year. But the problem is neither the drugs Americans buy nor the guns they sell; it’s the war on drugs our government has drafted the rest of the world to fight. Instead of acknowledging the failure of drug control, Obama is using it as an excuse for an equally vain attempt at gun control.

“More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,” Obama claimed, repeating a favorite factoid of politicians who believe American gun rights endanger our southern neighbor’s security. The claim has been parroted by many news organizations, including ABC, which used it in a 2008 story that suggested the sort of policy changes the number is meant to encourage. The story, which asked if “the Second Amendment [is] to blame” for “arming Mexican drug gangs,” quoted an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives who said, “It’s virtually impossible to buy a firearm in Mexico as a private citizen, so this country is where they come.”

But as Fox News and Factcheck.org have shown, the percentage cited by the president greatly exaggerates the share of guns used by Mexican criminals that were bought in the United States. Fox estimates it’s less than a fifth, while Factcheck.org says it may be more like a third.

If the guns used by Mexican drug traffickers do not mainly come from gun dealers in the U.S., where do they come from? Many of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military and police, often by deserters; some are smuggled over the border from Guatemala; others come from China by way of Africa or Latin America. Russian gun traffickers do a booming business in Mexico.

Given these alternatives, making it harder for Americans to buy guns is not likely to stop Mexican gangsters from arming themselves. The persistence of the drug traffickers’ main business, which consists of transporting and selling products that are entirely illegal on both sides of the border, should give pause to those who think they can block the flow of guns to the cartels.

The futile effort to stop Americans from consuming politically incorrect intoxicants is the real source of the violence in Mexico, since prohibition creates a market with artificially high prices and hands it over to criminals. “Because of the enormous profit potential,” two senior federal law enforcement officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, “violence has always been associated with the Mexican drug trade as criminal syndicates seek to control this lucrative endeavor.”

The more the government cracks down on the black market it created, the more violence it fosters, since intensified enforcement provokes confrontations with the police and encourages fighting between rival gangs over market opportunities created by arrests or deaths. “If the drug effort were failing,” an unnamed “senior U.S. official” told The Wall Street Journal in February, “there would be no violence.”

Perhaps it is time to redefine failure. Three former Latin American presidents, including Mexico’s Ernesto Zedillo, recently noted that “we are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs.” The attempt to achieve that impossible dream, they observed, has led to “a rise in organized crime,” “the corruption of public servants,” “the criminalization of politics and the politicization of crime,” and “a growth in unacceptable levels of drug-related violence.”

Instead of importing Mexico’s prohibitionist approach to guns, we should stop exporting our prohibitionist approach to drugs.

Whenever anyone starts talking about ending the war on drugs you will hear several kinds of basic objections. One is very personal. "I lost my son/daughter or other loved one to drugs and I'll always want to see them stamped out so that no one else has to go through what I/my loved one went through.

This is understandable but far more people die every year because they were driving too fast than because they took drugs. Far more people die from eating a bad diet and from alcohol than from illegal drugs. Do we install speed governors on all cars sold in America that keep them from being driven over 50 miles-per-hour? Do we ban McDonald's and Burger King? Do we bring back the disaster of alcohol prohibition?

It is tragic that some people destroy their lives with drugs but making laws which affect our entire society and which ". . . [lead] to “a rise in organized crime,” “the corruption of public servants,” “the criminalization of politics and the politicization of crime,” and “a growth in unacceptable levels of drug-related violence.” is to take that tragedy and compound it by many orders of magnitude.

Another objection, which comes mainly from the law enforcement community, is that so many police officers have died fighting the drug war that it would seem a betrayal of their memories to give up on the war now. The answer to that is to ask how many more officers have to die fighting a war which cannot possibly won. How many more widows and orphans must be created before we admit that drugs are with us to stay? Every "success" we score in the drug war - every drug shipment seized and every drug lord jailed - only raises the price, and therefore the profits, of illegal drugs and draws ever more ruthless and violent men into the drug trade.

legalizing drugs would take the drug trade out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of legitimate businessmen, the kind of men who battle their competitors with advertising campaigns rather than private armies armed with modern military hardware. Of course some of the drug running criminals will make the transition from criminal to legitimate businessman (like Joe Kennedy at the end of prohibition), but wouldn't we rather have them as tax-paying citizens who settle any disputes with the legal system with lawyers and courts rather than land mines and rocket launchers?

Another argument against drug legalization is that our society will be destroyed or at least damaged by rampant drug use. The argument assumes that so many people will stop being productive citizens if they have legal access to drugs that the fabric of our modern technological society will unravel. Humorist Dave Barry's comment on that line of thought is this, "we have to have a law against f*cking dogs because if we don't then everyone will run out and start f*ucking dogs".

The fact that alcohol is perfectly legal and carries none of the stigma associated with narcotics - yet the vast majority of us manage to avoid becoming derelicts on Skid Row should be enough to refute that line of reasoning.

The fact is that if drugs are legalized there will be some tragic outcomes. Some people who would not have otherwise tried them will and some of them will be come addicted and ruin their lives. Some of those people who would not have otherwise tried drugs in the first place will drive under the influence and wipe out entire families in car accidents. Some will become violent and murder members of their families or police officers or strangers on the street and some will kill only themselves. Some families will be torn apart. Some mothers/fathers/sons/daughters/wives/husbands will be bereaved.

But we need to remember that we are a fallen race and therefore a perfect outcome is impossible for us to achieve. The question is not whether some will suffer if the drug war ends but will the suffering be greater if it continues.

I believe that the answer to that question is yes. The suffering, pain, death and other assorted tragedies spawned by the efforts to stamp out drugs are greater than those caused by the drugs themselves.

Tonight's Music

Part 6 of the Six Mile Bridge concert.

See, it's not all doom and gloom

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama (see trends).

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats Strongly Approve of the President’s performance but only 8% of Republicans share that view. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.

Check out our weekly review of key polls to see “What They Told Us.”

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights.

Obama's approval numbers are vital. If he is above 60% he will pretty much get what he wants from Congress. If his numbers dip below 60% but stay above 50% he will get much of what he wants but Congress, especially the House, will not take the risk of ramming anything too unpopular (like socialized medicine or cap and trade) down the electorate's throat.

A lot of people have been wondering when the "tipping point" would be reached and the public would wake up to the fact that Obama was nothing more than a radical left-wing empty suit with nothing near what it takes to be an even halfway competent president.

I've been afraid that the tipping point would never be reached. I feared that the majority of the nation's population would be so eager to put the country's racial sins behind us that they would just stick their fingers in their ears and say "He's great! He's great!" real loud for the next eight years.

It seems that the genuine and realistic fear of losing their job, savings, home and children's future is enough to shock even socker-moms into some semblance of alertness.

Hope n' Change

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

Whether it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Weather Underground, Central Park rapists, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, welfare recipients, Palestinian terrorists, murderers, abortionists, strippers or common criminals -- liberals always take the side of the enemies of civilization against civilization.

In the view of The New York Times, every criminal trial is a shocking miscarriage of justice -- except the ones that actually are shocking miscarriages of justice.

Thus, in last week's Times, Timothy Egan wrote about a shocking miscarriage of justice being carried out against a "high-spirited" American girl accused of murder by a crazed prosecutor in Perugia, Italy.

Egan's column bears as much relationship to the facts of the case as -- well, I guess as anything printed in the Times. And yet every American news network has embraced Egan's version and is flacking for the accused.

Amanda Knox, her erstwhile boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and another man, Rudy Guede, stand accused of murdering Knox's roommate, Meredith Kercher, on Nov. 1, 2007, at the house Knox and Kercher shared with two other girls in Perugia.

Egan triumphantly cites an "outside expert hired by CBS News" who calls Knox's prosecution, "the railroad job from hell." Egan does not mention that the "outside investigator" is Paul Ciolino of the "Innocence Project," whose investigations always seem to conclude that the accused is being railroaded.

Ciolino's theory of the crime -- adopted unquestioningly by Egan -- is that the third man, Guede, who has already confessed to the crime, acted alone.

Despite Ciolino's careful analysis of the evidence, his theory is contradicted by Guede himself, as well as the coroner and a leading forensic geneticist, both of whom have testified that Kercher's massive injuries could only have been inflicted by multiple assailants.

It is also contradicted by the court's 106-page report, released in January, explaining the judge's reasons for refusing to release Knox and Sollecito pending trial.

Even the "48 Hours" executive producer doesn't endorse Ciolino's preposterous "single knifeman" theory, admitting: "Do we know every piece of data? No. Is there some troubling DNA? Yes."

Hey, does anyone know if CBS hired more than one "outside investigator" to look at the Knox case? Because if Egan considers one CBS "outside investigator" the Rosetta Stone of this case, it would be odd if he didn't mention the conclusions of another CBS outside investigator.

Why yes there was!

The second investigator, Paolo Sfriso, didn't pronounce judgment, but he did cite some of the evidence. The evidence includes:

-- a large kitchen knife, believed by forensic investigators to have caused at least one of Kercher's three wounds, found at Sollecito's house. Despite having been thoroughly washed, the knife had Knox's DNA on the handle and the murder victim's DNA on the blade.

-- a bloody footprint at the crime scene that matches Sollecito's. The floor had been cleaned so that the footprint was invisible to the naked eye, but was revealed with Luminol (just like on "CSI").

-- Knox's bloody footprints, mixed with Kercher's blood, were found in another roommate's room, where a window had been broken to make it look like there had been a break-in -- a theory discounted immediately by investigators. Knox's footprints, too, had been scrubbed but were discovered with Luminol.

-- Kercher's bloody bra strap at the crime scene that had abundant amounts of Sollecito's DNA on it.

Egan explains away the devastating DNA evidence by denying it exists. Delusionally, he writes:

"(I)f Knox and Sollecito had killed Kercher, and were in that blood-splattered room, why is there no physical trace from them on the body? A print? A swap of DNA somewhere? After all, Kercher had died after a brutal strangulation, evidence of considerable struggle, with knife pokes in the neck."

Read the trial transcript, Matlock.

Egan does acknowledge the bloody bra strap covered with Sollecito's DNA, but dismissively writes: "(T)hey discovered Kercher's clasp nearly six weeks after the murder -- a highly suspect and tainted piece of evidence from a contaminated crime scene."

Even the defense isn't complaining about the amount of time that passed before the bra strap was tested. The bra strap was found during the initial search of the crime scene -- which was promptly sealed off -- and then was collected for testing during the second search of the sealed crime scene some weeks later.

True, the defense has tried to minimize all the evidence by throwing out the old "contamination" chestnut, but without proof of systematic contamination of the evidence, this is just a boilerplate defense, much like "but he hit me first." (Next the defense will be vowing to look for the "real killer.")

Egan also dismissed the knife at Sollecito's house with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's DNA on the blade, claiming the knife contained only "a tiny amount of DNA that might match that of the victim." (I know I'm constantly finding small amounts of other people's DNA on the blades of my kitchen knives.)

When the defense tried the "small amount of DNA" argument at trial, forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni replied, "If the blood evidence is a positive match, it is not always important how much there is -- and the material on the blade matches the victim."

Even the accused murderess has a better theory to explain the DNA on the knife. Knox wrote in her prison diary: "I think it is possible Raffaele went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints on the knife."

These are only a few examples of the wildly deceptive account of the Amanda Knox trial printed in the Times. The reason this is important is that this is how the Times portrays all criminal prosecutions: Ruthless prosecutor railroads innocent bystanders for mysterious reasons. (Unless the victim is a late-term abortionist or the accused is a Duke lacrosse player.)

The only difference in the Knox case, compared to run-of-the-mill criminal cases, is that the copious foreign reporting on the case makes it child's play to see how egregiously the Times is lying this time.

I don't know if Knox murdered her roommate, but I am sure that America's news coverage of this case is a crime.

As Miss Ann points out the left considers all criminals (other than people who shoot abortionists or committ "hate crimes" against protected minorities) to be victims.

The Blonde One isn't the only person to comment on this fact. In an American Thinker piece a couple of days ago Robin of Berkley reflected upon an incident in her past:

several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.

I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.

Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)

Robin, a psychotherapist by trade, attributes the left's attitude toward evildoers to Stockholm Syndrome where victims come to identify with and even "love" their tormentors. I have also had this thought. During the Cold War I believed that many liberals simply snapped under the pressure of all those Soviet nukes being aimed at them and began to take the Evil Empire's side in the superpower struggle. They did this in the twisted belief that if they could just get their own side to surrender then the danger would pass.

Some of this seems to be playing itself out in the great civilizational battle between Islam and the West as well. Those on our side who lack the stomach for a protracted conflict (or any conflict at all) cleave to the Islamofascist cause blaming the Crusades or America's support for Israel for a state of mind which has belonged to Islam from its very founding.

Does Stockholm Syndrome explain why the left reflexively sides with evil over good in nearly every circumstance?

In the end it doesn't really matter. For whatever reason the left has sold themselves out to evil. If an idea or practice or ideology is hostile toward what is good then the left will be attracted to it. They will make excuses for its brutality, insist on its moral equivalence with the good and ultimately blame its crimes upon its victims, as the Jewish people are blamed for the Satanic hatred of the Arab/Muslim world.

All we need to remember is that the left is the enemy.

Movie Night

The trailer for The Devil's Tramping Ground. A rock and roll horror story centered on the Central North Carolina landmark.

It should be noted that the Devil's Tramping Ground is an actual place with a supernatural energy every bit as real and powerful as the Asheville Vortex.

Tonight's Music

Part 5 of the Six Mile Bridge concert.

ABC goes further into the Obama tank

From Drudge:

ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

Developing...

ABC's refusal to even air a paid commercial from the opposition is not hard to understand. The god-king has commanded that there be no opposing voice lifted against him while his media shills present his propaganda and his obedient bond servants at the network intend to follow his divine will to the letter.

Welcome to Chicago

From FOXNews.com:

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

"It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled -- based on one occasion out of hundreds," he said.

"I would never say President Obama doesn't have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states," Walpin said, adding that the same holds for Vice President Biden and his "many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media." Obama mistakenly said once on the campaign trail that he had traveled to 57 states.

Walpin concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York.

"The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said.

It will be interesting to see if all the leftists who worked themselves into apoplexy over the fact that President Bush fired a handful of federal prosecutors because they were not doing their job will feel similar outrage over President Obama's firing of this man who was dong his job.

I'm not holding my breath.

Of course this is nothing more than politics Chicago-style. When we elected a gutter crawling Chicago Democrat machine politican to be our president we dug a branch tunnel from the Chicago sewer system directly into the White House and now the sewage is flowing into the Oval Office at high pressure.

33 Minutes

This is the trailer for a documentary produced by the Heritage Foundation called 33 Minutes. It is about the need for the US to deploy an effective missile defense system.

Tonight's Music

Part 4 of the Six Mile Bridge concert.

I'm sorry, so sorry

NEW YORK (AP) - David Letterman said his joke about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter was a lousy joke, no matter how you cut it, and he's sorry.

But the late-night host insisted that what's got people really riled is the misconception over which Palin daughter the joke was about.

On Monday's edition of "Late Show," Letterman explained that the risque joke thought by some to have targeted Palin's underage daughter, Willow, was actually referring to 18-year-old daughter Bristol. The name of the daughter wasn't mentioned in the joke, which was part of Letterman's monologue on last Monday's show.

It was "a coarse joke,""a bad joke," Letterman told viewers. "But I never thought it was (about) anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure, in fact, that she is of legal age, 18."

"The joke, really, in and of itself, can't be defended," he declared.

Even so, the ongoing outcry, led by Palin and her husband, Todd, has centered on Letterman intending to make a joke about the Palins' 14-year-old daughter having sex with a Yankees baseball player.

Todd Palin issued a statement last week that said "any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable."

And Sarah Palin charged Letterman with "sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity."

On Monday's show, Letterman said, "I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?' I've never made jokes like this, as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years."

There are those who said that Letterman would rather quit than apologize to Sarah Palin. But I suppose that the negative publicity was making the network nervous enough that they lowered the boom.

Of course I'm sure that everyone really believes him when he says that he didn't mean that the daughter who was actually at the baseball game was the one who got "knocked up" - at the baseball game - but was actually talking about the daughter who was on the other side of the country at the time. That is the logical conclusion to draw from the context of Letterman's remarks - isn't it?

The conventional wisdom has always been that it is all over for a politician if the late night comics start heaping ridicule upon them. But this time it was the comic who came away damaged and the politician who was elevated. I think this not only says something about the way that ordinary Americans feel about Sarah Palin (they love her) but also about the fact that we are simply tired of the way the entertainment industry is degrading our culture.

We are also tired of the reflexive leftism of the media, news and entertainment and the way they use their access to our living rooms to push their agenda. An agenda which most of us regard as hostile to our best interests.

If I am right we can expect to see more "push back" coming in the months ahead.

News from inside the temple of the god-king

This was just posted on the Drudge Report:

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff



Developing...

This has enormous potential to backfire. The general public already sees the media as being outrageously biased in their coverage of Obama. For them to simply turn over the control of their news programming to the White House, as though this were Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, could very well be the last straw.

I pray that ABC goes through with this. I hope they react to the criticism by getting their backs up and going so over-the-top in their Obama sycophancy that they wind up destroying the ABC news division, the career of Charlie Gibson, the Obama socialized health care scheme and the reputation of the mainstream media in general (what they have left of it).

Left turn?

Gallup has been asking people where they stand on the left-right spectrum and found some interesting results:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

[. . .]

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents -- 45% -- describe their political views as "moderate." Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

There are several interesting things here. One is that the "conventional wisdom" that the nation has moved to the left is pure bull crap. If you will think back to the last presidential campaign you will recall that Obama was running on a platform of fiscal responsibility and promising the vast majority of Americans a tax cut.

That's right. On those all important "kitchen table" issues he managed to get to the right of his hapless boob of a Republican opponent. This was made possible not only by John McCain's incompetence but by a mainstream media which abandoned bias for outright advocacy.

Yet with the worst Republican candidate in the history of Republican candidates and a news media which had transformed itself into an arm of the Obama campaign the Republican still only lost by a few percentage points.

Next please note that those Republicans identifying themselves as "liberal" only make up 3% of the GOP. This should make us wonder how liberal Republicans like Colin Powell have become contenders for the position of "face of the GOP". Since Powell represents only the most minuscule fraction of the Republican rank and file it would seem that only the support of the mainstream media (you know the folks who regard Barack Obama as less a president than as a God-King) keeps Powell from being perceived as what he is - a left-wing operative who is only pretending to be a Republican for the purpose of doing as much damage to the GOP as possible.

Finally note the fact that while only 3% of the GOP identify themselves as liberal fully 22% of Democrats consider themselves to be conservative. In other words there is as much potential for a genuinely conservative Republican candidate to gain the votes of conservative Democrats today as there was back when Ronald Reagan was running for president.

So much for the "Reagan is dead" meme.

The lessons seem very clear. One, the inside-the-beltway "Republicans" care far more about being invited to the right cocktail parties and being asked to appear on the Sunday shows than they ever will about little things like winning elections and fixing the titanic mess that Obama is making of our economy and our international standing.

Two, the way for the GOP to regain control of the legislature in 2010 and the White House in 2012 is to ignore the poisonous advice of the mainstream media and their pet liberal Republicans and follow the lead of men like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. If we run conservative candidates with good communication skills who are unashamed of their conservatism, who are willing to take the fight to the reigning liberal establishment and who are unafraid to criticize Barack Obama by name WE WILL WIN.

Tonight's Music

Part 3 of the Six Mile Bridge concert.

Terrorizing the left

Jay Valentine writing in American Thinker:

The best and the brightest on the left go into politics. The best on the right run their own businesses. So it is no surprise that the left is far more adept, even expert at the art of hardball politics. And they are telling us something profound.

The left is telling us something many feel, many find as a hunch, that Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second. The left is telling us this by their "over the top" attacks. Not just the Letterman assaults, but the constant barrage of grievances filed against her in Alaska. The attacks every day on Palin for no apparent reason -- except that the left seems to see her quite differently from any Republican candidate. A difference of kind, not of degree.

They would never do this to Romney, Huckabee or Newt, at least not to this level. There is a clear reason -- these guys couldn't fill up a high school stadium unless they were giving out free beer.

What is the Sarah difference? Well, it's not the issues, at least that is not all of it. It is the charisma factor. Charisma is not learned, it is innate. One is born with it and no amount of training can inject it. Jack Kennedy had it. So did Reagan. Now Obama. Out of the thousands of politicians who have come and gone over the last generation, not one other person has shown "it."

Money is no longer the life blood of politics. Charisma is. Charisma can raise money overnight; money far beyond what a tired, inarticulate incumbent can raise from rich donors.

When you have "it," the conventional rules no longer apply. Reagan was vilified in 1976 and few thought he could ever be president. No matter how the liberals berated him as a "dumb actor" who made chimp movies and the actor who never got the girl, he just looked the American people in the eye, gave them a dose of common sense and it was over. Carter went on to build low income houses and a life of obscurity punctuated by mischief.

The street fighting, world class, lifelong political experts of the left see "it" and it makes them crazy. They went crazy for Obama; they are going crazy for Palin, although in the other direction.

Palin could fill a stadium if she were reciting a cookbook. But she isn't. She is delivering common sense to an electorate that is becoming ever more jaded every day with the Obama nonsense. Miranda rights for terrorists? $4 trillion deficit?

Look at the blow she delivered with one phrase about "styrofoam columns" and imagine what she can do with the material Obama has recently given her.

Opposing Palin's values has no payoff for the left. They oppose those values for any conservative. They have to destroy her. And that is her power because they can't destroy her.

Whenever she chooses, she will take her first trip to Iowa to campaign for some obscure congressional candidate, and when she does, the liberal media cannot ignore the screaming crowds. And they will not be crowds manufactured by an advance team. They will be fired up mothers, working people who do not want to pay for deadbeats' mortgages, people who are now going to grass roots tea parties.

The television age gives "it," charisma, more power than ever before. Charisma is magnified through television. How else to explain how a 2 year senator few knew could derail Hillary in a few months. How else to explain how an anti-charisma John McCain, someone television does not flatter or magnify, saw his crowds surge when Palin was next to him. Palin, an obscure, unknown governor of our most distant and most unknown state, walked onto the national stage and ignited a burst of energy that may well have taken McCain over the top, until his Queeg-like pausing of his campaign to work on a financial crisis and then vote for a bailout.

The landscape is now quite different. There are tens of millions of people who never voted for Obama, telling their friends "don't blame me." There is a growing number who did vote for Obama who have lost their jobs at car dealerships, who have not found work yet even after the massive spending, and there are those who just say "...this is not the change I had in mind."

Some thought McCain would be the anti-charisma candidate against the charisma candidate and that would work. Now we may be lining up for the common sense charisma campaign against the nonsense charisma.

The left is telling us something and they are the experts. They are telling us not to make Palin the conservative candidate because if we do, it will be humiliating. I agree with them and I take them at their word.

It will be the undoing of Obama, and it may be overwhelming.

Mr. Valentine is 100% correct. The left seldom has anything but praise for any Republican who they can beat when faced off against a left-liberal Democrat. Look at how kind the mainstream media (the propaganda organ of the left) is to Colin Powell and how flattering they have always been to John McCain.

Republicans who can derail the left's legislative agenda, like the man Newt Gingrich used to be, and conservatives who can crush left-wing opponents in elections, like Ronald Reagan was and Sarah Palin is, are subjected to never-ending streams of completely bogus accusations of wrong-doing like the endless stream of false charges brought against Speaker Gingrich and Governor Palin.

Their characters are defamed by libels like the baseless accusations of sexual harassment leveled against Clarence Thomas and the forged "National Guard" documents which Dan Rather attempted to use against George W Bush.

As far as the left is concerned politics is a knife fight in a sewer and the only rule is "do whatever it takes to win". When these people start heaping scorn on a Republican you can know with absolute certainty that they are afraid.

When they contemplate Sarah Palin they are afraid, very afraid.

Tonight's Music

Part 2 of the Six Mile Bridge concert.

Absinthe

This video is described by its producer this way:

Short film inspired by the faux term propounded in the 19th century to describe "victims" of "absinthism" as well as to further the absinthe prohibition movement.

He does a good job of showing the supposed madness which will claim the victim of the "Green Fairy".

Of course the hysteria about absinthe was every bit as irrational and trumped up as the anti-marijuana movement - with the same result. The banning of a harmless substance (when used in moderation).

Absinthe is now legal once again in Europe and the US. Perhaps a rethinking of other pointless laws against victimless crimes is now in the works. . .

Tonight's Music

This is Six Mile Bridge from back in 1998.

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

The sections I have drawn attention to are the only commentary needed.

Jughead pays respect

Another sign of the Apocalypse

Fighting abortion with violence

There is an essay on American Thinker by Dr. Frank Rosenbloom about the murder of abortionist George Tiller. Dr. Rosenbloom was no fan of Dr. Tiller but nevertheless condemns his killing.

My initial reaction was one of shock, which progressed rapidly to anger. Shock because despite the ongoing efforts of those who seek to destroy it, this is still the United States of America, where differences in views are settled according to the rule of law, not by vigilantes roaming the streets or ambushing helpless people in church pews.

[. . .]

He was detested by pro-life advocates, including this particular pro-life advocate. I must admit that I would not have been personally saddened had he died by slipping on a banana peel, but I am profoundly saddened and truly mortified by his murder. This killing was not the act of a pro-life supporter. It was the act of a person who profoundly misunderstands pro-life principles, democratic ideals and further, had no self control.

Dr. Rosenbloom argues that it is wrong to kill men like Dr. Tiller for two reasons. One is purely practical, this kind of murder damages the pro-life movement.

The other reason is moral.

I have in the past noted that pro-life advocates must promote the right to life of every innocent human being. We need consider not only moral innocence, but innocence legally as determined by our system of law. Dr. Tiller was certainly not, in my view or in the view of most pro-lifers, morally innocent. His supporters would no doubt agree that a person living in Nazi Germany would have been morally justified by violently interceding on behalf of the innocent people being slaughtered in concentration camps. Actions such as this would have been justified even if they resulted in the deaths of the perpetrators. Therefore, how can we reconcile this apparent dilemma? How do we in the pr-life community conclude, while maintaining logical credibility, that in defense of the unborn we cannot kill a person who is guilty of repeatedly killing babies in the past and had planned to do so in the future?

Reconciliation of this dilemma is possible precisely because we do not live in a country like Nazi Germany, a regime founded upon the principles of hate and violence. That system of government itself was intrinsically evil and therefore morally decent people had no obligation to respect the laws allowing and in fact supporting those atrocities. Standing up and violently fighting the regime itself, the agents of that regime and the actions of that evil regime was justified.

The United States, for all of its perceived faults, was founded based upon the principles of liberty and justice and its laws are passed by legislation adherent to the constitution. This country is basically and intrinsically good and its system of government is representative. We are therefore morally bound as citizens to obey its laws even if there are certain laws with which we disagree, since the laws were passed by a majority in the spirit of liberty and democracy. We have the right to protest against laws we find repugnant and we can vote our consciences. If we find that we cannot by our own actions obey a law we find morally reprehensible, we must peacefully refuse to do so and accept the legal consequences. We have no right to use violence against others or, heaven forbid, kill as a protest against lawful, though immoral acts.

I'm sure that most readers have spotted the fatal flaw in Dr. Rosenbloom's argument. Abortion on demand did not come to the American republic because the American people acted through their elected representatives to make it so. Legal abortion came to the entire nation through an act of judicial activism in which a simple majority of a nine judge panel exercised a power which the framers never intended for them to have and issued a decree from the bench.

The American people did not choose a nationwide abortion law and can only change it by electing presidents who will appoint Supreme Court justices (when there are vacancies) who they can only hope will rule to overturn Roe (and as Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter prove that process is hit-or-miss).

So am I arguing that it is moral to kill abortion providers? After all the national abortion policy was illegitimately imposed on the nation by an unelected branch of government using authority which was usurped from the legislature and the people. Roe vs. Wade has no more genuine legitimacy (using Dr. Rosenbloom's reasoning) than the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany.

Be this as it may I do NOT argue that it is permissible to kill men like Dr. Tiller.

As a Christian I am bound by the New Testament's command to obey the secular authorities. The apostle Paul clearly spelled out this policy in the thirteenth chapter of Romans. If Christians are instructed to submit to the rule of a beast like Nero I can find no justification for rebelling against any other secular government - even evil governments like the Nazis of Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Of course the Christian is not bound to obey laws which command what God forbids or forbid what God commands, but resistance must be passive rather than violent.

To the non Christian I can offer no argument against killing abortionists other than the purely practical. Killing an abortion doctor will not stop abortions. Strike one down and another will simply take his or her place. Of course they deserve to die, they are mass murderers of children. But killing them will only cause the law to view you as a murderer and you will be used as a means of discrediting the pro-life movement.

If violence directed against abortion providers and abortion facilities becomes common the government will treat it as an insurrection rather than as isolated incidents of crime. Pro-life organizations will be regarded as no different than al Qaeda or the Taliban. The state, especially under a president like Obama, will use anti-abortion violence as an excuse to ban firearms and suppress Christian organizations. Any speech critical of abortion will be legally regarded as an incitement to violence and will therefore not be considered to enjoy First Amendment protection.

And not one abortion will be prevented.

Abortion mills will be moved into reinforced concrete bunkers (at taxpayers' expense) and women seeking abortions will be brought to them in armored personnel carriers. Security will be provided by a specially created federal agency and anyone wishing to protest, conduct a prayer vigil or reach out to women seeking to enter the clinic will not be allowed to get close enough to even see the place.

And not one abortion will be prevented.

The backlash against the violence will cost pro-life persons their First and Second Amendment rights and abortions will only become less expensive and more easily obtained.

It simply isn't worth it to kill these bastards.

Tonight's Music

Here's some Rush, another iconic group from my youth:

Tom Sawyer



Limelight



Subivisions



Time Stand Still

Tonight's Music

Here's some more Journey, because it's not out of my system yet.