The Confederate Flag WAS REMOVED from atop the SC State House, a position of sovereignty and authority, and moved to the grounds of the State House, which is essentially an outside museum, with the approval of the SC Black Caucus and the NAACP.

There are statues of confederate heroes on the grounds and a section dedicated to the legacy of slavery there as well.

Years after the removal, the NAACP decided to use race again for their political purposes and decided to back a boycott of their own state unless the flag was removed even from the grounds, i.e. museum. Seems they decided that seeing the flag in the sunshine was unacceptable too.

Pretty soon we will only be able to have dedications to ....non-whites?

Hundreds of thousands of brave non-slave holding men died under that flag to defend their states and their Independence just as those that died under Old Glory in 1776.

The survivors that fought under that flag and many generations to follow were persecuted under Old Glory during Reconstruction.

Yet, the descendants of those that fought under the flag Hillary deigns to vanquish even the sight of under the Sun, volunteered at a greater rate than the descendants of those that vanquished them, to fight under the Stars and Stripes for the Mexican War and all wars fought by the United by Lincoln States of America since, to defend the free speech rights of Hillary and her ilk.

Hillary and Bill celebrated Confederate Flag Day for years in Arkansas. They said then that the KKK should not have the power to besmirch a symbol thousands died fighting under. She and he were right then.

Now she plays the race card.

Secondly, I deem only George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as worthy of having national holidays celebrated in their honor.

Thirdly, I have always allowed my office employees to be off on all days banks are closed, except for this day after it was changed from Washington's Birthday to Presidents Day.

Those I deem worthy of celebrating today and why:

1 - Washington for his military leadership, character, conduct in office and his voluntary relinquishment of power which sealed the greatest political revolution in Earth's history.

2 - Adams for his religious faith, steadfast loyalty to the Revolution, and his sacrifices for the revolution.

3 - Jefferson for his Declaration of Independence, unilateral defeat of the radical Muslim Barbary Pirates (without congressional approval) that sought to control access to sea trade lanes, and Louisiana Purchase.

4 - Jackson for his military leadership including his actions that saved New Orleans and put an exclamation point of defeat on the British in the War of 1812, his removal actions that prevented the Cherokee Nation for being eliminated by angry Georgians due to the Indian's violation of private property rights, his defiance of an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling that sought to prevent him from said action, his expansion of democratic rights and participation beyond the aristocratic class, being born in South Carolina and for not invading his home state over disputes with John C. Calhoun over nullification.

5 - Polk for Texas, 54.40 or fight and the Gadsden Purchase

6- Lincoln for saving what Washington made possible.

7 - FDR for leading us through the Great Depression and WWII, and for bringing the South back into the United States.

8 - JFK for his "this issue is as old as the Bible" Oval Office speech on race that framed the issue in moral terms that Southerners understood.

9 - Reagan for standing up to communists that tried to take over his union in Hollywood and until his death, supply side tax cuts, Strategic Defense, i.e. Star Wars, rebuilding the US military, lifting the American spirit, calling Evil by its name, defeating the evil USSR and liberating nearly half the world, aiding the Contras, his Christian faith, walking out on Gorby in Iceland, making the moral case against abortion and for Knute Rockne, All American and Heaven's Gate.

10 - George W. Bush for his strong leadership after 9/11 thru today, for never showing weakness to the enemy, for liberating two countries, for making the case for freedom and self government for all, tax cuts, great judges, refusing to cave on opposing carving up new fetuses for science, for running a color blind administration, and for his living witness of the power of faith in Christ.

see also discussion at Redstate

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

Democrats have lost the compassion and will to bear burden for liberty

MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer

"I don't care about the people of Iraq."

I was shocked when that statement was made to me last year by a Democrat friend.

I shouldn't have been!

That quote pretty much sums up the moral bankruptcy of modern-day liberalism and my former party today.

The sentiment expressed in that quote is consistent with the giggles I heard from fellow liberal Democrats in 1983 in reaction to President Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech.

I was also shocked then. I shouldn't have been!

The best reason for why I should not be shocked occupies the receptionist chair in my SouthPark office.

She is a descendant of the Hmong people of Laos who were allies of the United States until the government of South Vietnam fell in 1975. Massive slaughter of millions followed at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists and Cambodia's Pol Pot. More than 300,000 Laotians, mostly Hmong, fled. But thousands of Hmong continued to fight against the evil of communism; hundreds of their guerilla fighters surrendered only last month.

In 1975 I was an idealistic teen animated by the "Bear any burden for the cause of liberty" rhetoric by President John F. Kennedy, complimented by the "Love they neighbor" rhetoric of Jesus Christ, but quite ignorant of the details of the Vietnam War. I was a self-identified liberal anxiously awaiting my 18th birthday so that I could actively participate in my grandfather's party.

Eyes averted from slaughter

Sadly, almost from the beginning of my political activism, I had to reconcile the irreconcilable, i.e. the rhetoric of JFK with the reality of the words and actions of the flower children of the 1960s and the McGovernites who took over the party. Democrats cut off funds from our South Vietnamese allies, averted their eyes from the slaughter and celebrate their role in "ending the war" as one of their greatest accomplishments even to this day. I shamefully averted my ears from the liberal Democratic giggles at Reagan's notion of good and evil until the summer of 2001.

The "conservative epiphany" came as a result of confronting what I knew in my heart was true as I read Reagan's letters and speeches and books about his long war against communism. Reagan cared so much for the oppressed that he even deemed the policy of containment to have immorally sentenced half the globe to slavery. He told the so-called "realists" in 1981 that henceforth, American policy toward the Soviet Union would be "We win, they lose."

This was the liberal I had been looking for.

Did liberals stop caring about the oppressed when their hero was assassinated in 1963 or when they faced the draft board in 1968?

When I was an idealistic teenager, it was a given that America was good, that totalitarianism was evil, and that what America should be most proud of was our liberation of the oppressed. I still consider this a given.

The post-Watergate liberal Democrat Congress was warned of the likelihood of falling dominoes of slaughter in 1975, but they chose to avert their eyes. Many warn that the same fate will await the Iraqis if we abandon them a second time.

Will we betray Iraqis?

One of the most credible is John Burns, war correspondent for The New York Times, who covered genocide in Bosnia.

Asked to compare the situation there with Iraq, he said, "There's all likelihood if the United States withdraws its forces that there will be a great deal more killing."

Of course, I don't need Burns to tell me that betrayal is wrong, especially when greeted daily by my Hmong receptionist.

My eyes, ears, heart, mind and soul tell me that the most powerful nation on earth must love its neighbors enough to bear any burden for liberty, especially when it is so inextricably tied to our own liberty and, especially, our honor.

I care about the people of Iraq and my country's soul.

This conservative never lost his liberal heart.

Mike

DeVine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, blogs as "Gamecock" at http://gamecock.townhall.com, www.race42008.com, and http://www.theminorityreportblog.com and is legal editor for http://www.hinzsightreport.com.

Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.

Iran aids, abets, adheres to, and wages war with our enemies in Iraq to kill American troops. If Iran were an American citizen, even this Administration would charge them with treason.

Iran is at war with the United States in Iraq and around the world.

Who will be the first GOP nominee for President in 2008 to state this fact publicly? Shouldn't our nominees be adept at identifying elephants in rooms?

History awaits its recognition.

I can't hear you McCain, Romney, Giuliani,...

We don't expect the appeasement party to identify an enemy.

We count on our own to do no less that identify the enemy and the obvious path we must take in light of reality.

Which one will be the first to have the guts to state the obvious?

The path away from minority reports and to the Majority Report is paved with such truthful utterances akin to when Ronald Reagan endured liberal snickering at the thought of good and evil empires.

Romney accurately pronounced Hillary timid on Iran last week. Good start.

Now, let us not be timid. Iran is the Elephant in the war room.

GOP nominees. Acknowledge.

Townhall bloggers are enduring a virus. Naturally, given all Hewitt's work, TH viruses are benign, but, here are apparently the rules I received from Maggie and Prysson:

"People who get tagged need to write a blog stating 6 unusual or weird things about themselves as well as state this rule clearly. In the end of the post, you need to choose 6 people to be tagged and list their names and links. Don't forget to leave a comment that says you are tagged in their comments and tell them to read your blog."

1 - I celebrated my birthday on May 30, until my 12th, when I had to get a birth certificate to play football. The Birth Certificate, filled out by an anal retentive nurse, documented by birthday as 11:59 PM, May 29. Since then, I have celebrated my Birthday on the same day as JFK and Bob Hope. Not bad.

2 - I quit High School, worked in a cotton mill for 18 months, took the GED, entered college with my High School class and went on to make summa c*m laude, phi beta kappa BA in economics, JD in law school and a Phd in the school of hard knocks. 

3 - I was a geek that could play sports and fight, and a bully in grammar school. At first I bullied the geeks, but very soon switched to defending the geeks against redneck bullies.

4 - I applied to and was accepted by Columbia University law school, just to prove that I could, then attended a law school in Columbia, SC that actually imparted useful knowledge.

5 - I was a contradiction in terms from my teen years thru 2000, i.e. I was a Democrat Hawk. Now I am a Republican.

6 - I love The Holy Bible, C.S. Lewis, Elvis, The Beatles, Sam Cooke, old black and white movies, Columbo, Andy Griffith, All in the Family, Sanford and Son, Dallas, Spiderman, Network, Gone with the Wind, Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Reagan. Rush, Prager, Medved, Hewitt, Family Guy, 24, American Dad, Redstate, Dubya, the USC Gamecocks and the Clemson Tigers, the Ramblin Wreck from Georgia Tech, Shaq, the Colts since Johnny U, Namath, Randall Cuningham, Earl Campbell, OJ before he was a murderer, Johnny Carson, The Charlotte Observer, Dominique Wilkins, The Lakers, Elton Brand and the Clippers, and

The Atlanta Braves!

Who I am tagging…

The Dutchmeister

SwampFox

Conservative Outpost

O Theophilus

1 more to come

Mike Gamecock DeVine Op-Ed @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor @ The HinzSight Report and The Minority Report
Original Contributing Writer for Race 4 2008
Blogs at Redstate

They seem to be able to defend any statement made by any fellow American liberal as being either patriotic, or, at least not un-patriotic, even if the statement echoes statements by al Qaeda, Saddam's lawyers, Iran's Members Only Jacket-ijad, or Venezuela's dictator.

So, I am left wondering if ANY statement can be made that self-described patriotic liberals would deem to be un-patriotic.

I have never made this challenge in a blog entry however, so here goes:

Friends, Americans, and countrymen, lend me your ears. Since it appears that we are all patriots no matter how we respond to poll questions, let's have some of the liberals that found the poll question (that was the subject of the above Jon Sandor blog) to be too vague for patriotism determinism, or just any old garden variety liberal, draft for us a statement or two that you would deem to be un-patriotic.

Have at it, unhindered by poll question drafters.

Below is a blog I wrote not too long ago, about which I would love to be proven wrong.

The Ease of Discerning the Patriotic from the Un-Patriotic/Lovers from Siblings

*UPDATE*

What is supremely sad are those that want to claim patriotism and want us to lose the war because they think that would teach us a lesson, not understanding either that we are the good guys or the consequences of losing wars.

Bin Laden cites our cut and run from Vietnam as part of what defined us for him as a "paper tiger" and that could be defeated if made to engage an enemy for more than 100 days.

*UPDATE*

I probably should distinguish statements that have unpatriotic effects from the mouths of the patriotic that disagree, and this goes for liberals and conservatives, even to the armchair QB hawks that won't shut up long enough to convince one al Qaeda type that we might be united behind the President for one minute.

Many patriotic individuals don't love their country more than they love the sound of their voice, and oftentimes, the sounds coming out embolden the terrorists even more that the kook left.

We have one President at a time and one plan at a time, and if it doesn't work, then America's plan won't work. The president is America in this regard. And this is the only way it can be.

You seem to me to be a true patriotic liberal much as I was in my 20 years in the dem party. I was always a hawk. History shows that when America acts, America and the world are better for it.

See GC's MSM Debut Column in The Charlotte Observer
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Minority Report

The troops already in harms way are about to be joined by more. Don't embolden the enemy now, as you have for the past three years. How much blood can your liberal hands hold?

For the sake of argument only (and be sure, only) let's assume you love your country. The question then is, do you love your country enough to shut up and present a united front in to the enemy?

Of course, I and we, know that you don’t and won't.

The purpose of this blog is to make clear to the patriotically-confused, just what is patriotism at this moment.

As Bill Kristol on FNS exasperated, and I paraphrase: "Must they pass these resolutions now. Can't they just shut up for a few months and give the troops a chance."

(see Bill's All We Are Saying . . .
Is Give Petraeus a Chance, which is excellent, as well)

*Vulture Politics Update*

Unfortunately however, even when they ostensibly shut up, the Dems manage to do so by investing in the defeat of their own country. Exhibit A: Rahm "smart Clintonite that lied pre-2006 election re his knowledge of the Foley IMs more than a Gutless Coward" Emanuel

Rahm's also a Vulture feeding on the carcasses of dead American soldiers:

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

Excerpt from Tony Blankley's piece:

But it is that second paragraph that sits up and grabs one's attention. With America at war and our troops dying regularly in battle with greater national danger and death in prospect: "Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces." [!]

This is vulture politics. It is so far from respectable that it brings to mind the admired liberal twice Democratic candidate for president against Eisenhower, Governor Adlai Stevenson's, definition of patriotism:

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility ... a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

But Rahm Emanuel's Democratic Party is so bereft of a sense of national responsibility that he apparently feels comfortable brazenly telling the Washington Post that his plans for his Democratic Party is to not even try to stop things from getting worse in Iraq -- so they can pick up the political pieces afterward. Mr. Emanuel is a "smart" politician. He thinks the more dire America's place in the world is in 2008, the more likely the voters are to vote Democratic. The more of our troops are left in more pieces the better for Rahm Emanuel's Democrats.

Unity was also demanded during many recent "thens", but how much more so, Now, especially given the Democratic Party's leaders' statements that they will not seek to cut off funds now. THE (ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE OR WILL HAVE FOR 24 MORE MONTHS) Commander in Chief, after many weeks and months of analysis and input from our military leaders, is sending in reinforcements to assist our troops already in the field.

The mission: to help the Iraqi army and police that have grown in size and ability under our tutelage, to pacify Baghdad and al Qaeda infested Anbar province once and for all.

Moreover, we already see progress in the recent arrest of Mookie al Sadr's right hand Shia kook.

Yet, what do we get from Democrats? The same old same old defeatism that emboldens the enemies these very troops are preparing to face! I contend now, as I have since the Bushlied party continued to function after Election Day 2004, that the blood of American soldiers' is on the Democratic party's leaders' hands as much as blood is on the foreign enemies' hands that have fired weapons that have killed the soldiers. The message the Dems send is that all the enemy has to do is hold out a bit longer, and Iraq will be theirs.

I also think that Bush's oath of office demands that he call out the enemies at home in some way, if not explicitly. Maybe in the State of the Union he could explain American law and the cowardice of the Democrats to the enemy and make it clear that he would not stop killing them until January 21, 2009, that the Democrats have not the guts or votes to stop him, and that the president that takes over when he departs will also kill them relentlessly given that never in our history have we elected anyone to lead us in war that comes from the ilk that is seated to his (right or left, whichever the case may be). You know, something subtle. And he can also tell the enemy that if any in his Party oppose the troops, they will not be back after they next face their people at home.

My heart beats with furious hatred for my former party whose leaders say and do for free what al Qaeda would be happy to pay for them to say and do.

But don't just listen to Rooster crowings (even if they are regularly published and posted on an MSM outlet!). Read (and listen by following the links) what Paul Harvey's successor being groomed in process and former senator for the Volunteer State says:

Stomachless Senate

Won't the Senate resolution diminish our chances for success in Iraq?

By Fred Thompson

Preparation continues in the House and Senate for the introduction of a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the president’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq in order to quell the violence there. The resolution will have no legal affect. A congressional vote to cut off funding could stop the troops or could stop the war altogether but the critics of the plan don’t have the stomach for that. It might be politically dangerous. One sponsor of the Senate resolution said that the goal is to demonstrate that the president is “on his own.”

Last week I said that it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops (which, incidentally, would bring the troops up to a number that is still less than the number of troops we have had there in the past) because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great. Understandably people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read this week in The Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the president’s plan as our last best chance to prevail there. But I can see the arguments for the other side. I can even understand a vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we have clearly already lost the war and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss. What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own”?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

Or read Don't Burn Bush Now
by Quin Hillyer in The American Spectator.

The time has come for conservatives, and all good Americans, to rally around the president, around the troops, and around the idea of victory in Iraq.

The reasons to rally are moral, practical, and political.

Moral: As Colin Powell was fond of saying: "You break it: You buy it." We Americans toppled Iraq's illegitimate, murderous government, but did not provide enough security from the very beginning of the post-war period. We owe it to finish the job.

Moral: President George W. Bush was correct that establishing a stable, even quasi-democratic Iraq could help spur a sea-change in the entire Middle East and central Asia. Before we lost control in Iraq, it was already happening. Libya's forfeiture of its nuclear weapons program and the pro-democratic developments in Ukraine, formerly Soviet Georgia, Lebanon, and (to a lesser extent) Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all were catalyzed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein and by Bush's soaring rhetoric about democracy. Even Ted Kennedy acknowledged as much. As columnist Larry Elder noted on March 17, 2005, " 'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos asked Kennedy whether President Bush deserves credit for democratic developments in the Middle East. Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely, absolutely, and I think...what's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive. It's a reflection the president has been involved.'"

Moral: The United States of America is the most moral major force in geopolitics. (The American Left doesn't believe this, but that just shows its own ignorance and/or weak moral compasses.) Leaving Iraq a mess, effectively in defeat, will leave the U.S. horribly weakened diplomatically, just as the Vietnam War did. A weaker United States will be far less able to lead the world community on behalf of human rights, stability, and freedom.

Practical: Now that the president has made his decision, what is the alternative? What good does carping do? President Bush has tried the equivalent of a difficult bank shot in pool; the only way it can work is if other officials don't rock the table. The more they voice dissent, the less likely the Iraqis -- in government and on the streets -- will be to do their part to make the plan a success. And the only way for Bush to hold a strong enough hand to bring other nations on board to help is if he is seen as having significant support here at home. Victory is very, very difficult when the home front is not united. Last I checked, victory is still a highly valued commodity in these United States.

Practical: The surge may work. General David Petraeus is no dummy. If he thinks he and his troops can pull it off, who are we to contradict him?

Practical: Our troops are there already. Getting them out safely, without a victory, might be as difficult as it was to get all the American personnel out of Vietnam. A surge that might just work (by some counts, the president's plan will more than double the troops actually in the city of Baghdad) also might just buy enough time for planners to develop, in the alternative, the actual logistics for a comprehensive exit strategy -- logistics that likely are not fully formed yet. In that sense, even in defeat a troop surge might save the lives of more American personnel than it risks.

Then again, the mindset of American leaders -- other than military staff, who ought to always plan for any eventuality -- should be that defeat is not an option.

Political: Here's where so many Republican solons on Capitol Hill make no sense whatsoever. Some of them may honestly believe the surge won't work or even that the whole war was a bad idea in the first place. That's fine: Sticking by one's principled judgment is always a good thing. But it is patently obvious that a lot of the carping about the surge comes not from conviction but from lack thereof. Whatever metaphor is used about them -- spineless; fingers in the wind; weathervanes; running for the hills; fence-sitters -- it is clear that a lot of Members of Congress are spooked by the surface-level politics of the situation. They hated losing the elections, and now they are reading the short-term polls, and they think the safest thing to do is to say what is most immediately popular.

But if that is their motivation, they are (to be blunt) incredibly stupid. The truth is that no matter what they do individually, if Iraq is seen as a disaster two years from now, all Republicans will get blamed by the public and media for the failures of a Republican president. Their fates are tethered to that of President Bush's historical legacy. If the U.S. leaves Iraq without victory, Republicans (and conservatives, an oft-distinct set) will be punished. There is no way around it, even if the solons do verbal back-flips to try to separate themselves from the president.

On the other hand, every Republican who stands solidly with the president now, when he is most embattled, will garner a huge political advantage if the surge succeeds. The reality is that the left has painted itself into a corner. The entire public knows that the whole congressional Democratic Party is against the surge. Moreover, the public knows that the Democrats have been undercutting the president from just about Day One of the conflict in Iraq. They know that the Democrats, and the nutroot left, has not just sounded defeatist the whole time, but actually antagonistic toward the very idea of victory. The left long ago not only declared defeat but actually wished for it. The left thinks the United States is a negative influence in the world. It thinks our leaders deliberately lie, conspire, torture, maim, and kill.

And even the somewhat "responsible center-left" lacks faith in American might, ingenuity, and will. They see defeat before the clock has even run out. Witness Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic, who in the most recent issue of that magazine writes in the concluding paragraph that "the United States has already lost."

If Beinart is right, then Republicans have already lost decisively, in terms of domestic politics, as well. But if the surge works, if Iraq's peace is secured, the left will be utterly discredited. Nobody who abandoned the president will be able to take advantage of that discrediting of the left -- but everybody who stood with President Bush will reap the rewards.

Moral and practical reasons alone should lead Republicans and intelligent Democrats to support the surge, in order to show American solidarity before a watching world, as the only viable option for victory still on the table. But for politicians crass and weak enough to put politics before morality and practicality, the politics of the situation (rightly understood) argue not against supporting Bush, but in favor.

What is past is past, including President Bush's long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let's give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory.

And yet, all we have gotten are:

1 - Biden-Levin co-sponsoring the resolution Fred Thompson denounces above, and these guys are what passes for the hawks in the Democratic Party.

2 - Biden and Reid asserting that the president hasn't the authority to attack Iran, since same is not explicitly stated in either the AUMF (passed soon after 9/11) or the Iraq War resolution. Of course, the President, as CinC, has the inherent authority and power to order US forces to attack Boston if he pleases, much less an Axis of Evil nation that has been and is in violation of the Bush doctrine since the birth of the doctrine and which is waging war against American forces in the Iraq War theatre. The Iraq War resolution cannot be read, not only to not prohibit attacking Iran, but actually screams out the imperative that we do attack Iran and any other nation or force that is opposing us in Iraq.

And must DeVine Gamecock be the first to mention a little thingy called the War Powers Act, which would prohibit Congress from taking any action to cut off funds for actions against Iran for 90 days. Hmmmmm Chia Pet and Munsters' Gramps.

These people are craven, speaking of which:

3 - Pelosi accusing the president (as Gore and The Swimmer have before. Well, as all elected Dems have, either rout loud or by their conspicuous silence) of making war time decisions based on politics. Cynthia McKinney lost her job the first time saying this and was shunned by the Pelosi’s and the Bidens, yet now, it’s Ok for the Speaker to say it? Bad Hair Gal back in Georgia has a gripe with her Democrat Plantation keepers.

Go to HughHewitt.com and browse for more (much, much more unpatriotic dem behavior) from the Dems over the past week, not to mention our own Paul Cella's Crippling disloyalty masterpiece earlier this week, as I am exhausted thinking of how these craven POS's would have been strung up faster than Saddam in US wars past.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
Also Blogs at The Minority Report

The troops already in harms way are about to be joined by more. Don't embolden the enemy now, as you have for the past three years. How much blood can your liberal hands hold?

For the sake of argument only (and be sure, only) let's assume you love your country. The question then is, do you love your country enough to shut up and present a united front in to the enemy?

Of course, I and we, know that you don’t and won't.

The purpose of this blog is to make clear to the patriotically-confused, just what is patriotism at this moment.

As Bill Kristol on FNS exasperated, and I paraphrase: "Must they pass these resolutions now. Can't they just shut up for a few months and give the troops a chance."

(see Bill's All We Are Saying . . .
Is Give Petraeus a Chance, which is excellent, as well)

*Vulture Politics Update*

Unfortunately however, even when they ostensibly shut up, the Dems manage to do so by investing in the defeat of their own country. Exhibit A: Rahm "smart Clintonite that lied pre-2006 election re his knowledge of the Foley IMs more than a Gutless Coward" Emanuel

Rahm's also a Vulture feeding on the carcasses of dead American soldiers:

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

Excerpt from Tony Blankley's piece:

But it is that second paragraph that sits up and grabs one's attention. With America at war and our troops dying regularly in battle with greater national danger and death in prospect: "Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces." [!]

This is vulture politics. It is so far from respectable that it brings to mind the admired liberal twice Democratic candidate for president against Eisenhower, Governor Adlai Stevenson's, definition of patriotism:

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility ... a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

But Rahm Emanuel's Democratic Party is so bereft of a sense of national responsibility that he apparently feels comfortable brazenly telling the Washington Post that his plans for his Democratic Party is to not even try to stop things from getting worse in Iraq -- so they can pick up the political pieces afterward. Mr. Emanuel is a "smart" politician. He thinks the more dire America's place in the world is in 2008, the more likely the voters are to vote Democratic. The more of our troops are left in more pieces the better for Rahm Emanuel's Democrats.

Unity was also demanded during many recent "thens", but how much more so, Now, especially given the Democratic Party's leaders' statements that they will not seek to cut off funds now. THE (ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE OR WILL HAVE FOR 24 MORE MONTHS) Commander in Chief, after many weeks and months of analysis and input from our military leaders, is sending in reinforcements to assist our troops already in the field.

The mission: to help the Iraqi army and police that have grown in size and ability under our tutelage, to pacify Baghdad and al Qaeda infested Anbar province once and for all.

Moreover, we already see progress in the recent arrest of Mookie al Sadr's right hand Shia kook.

Yet, what do we get from Democrats? The same old same old defeatism that emboldens the enemies these very troops are preparing to face! I contend now, as I have since the Bushlied party continued to function after Election Day 2004, that the blood of American soldiers' is on the Democratic party's leaders' hands as much as blood is on the foreign enemies' hands that have fired weapons that have killed the soldiers. The message the Dems send is that all the enemy has to do is hold out a bit longer, and Iraq will be theirs.

I also think that Bush's oath of office demands that he call out the enemies at home in some way, if not explicitly. Maybe in the State of the Union he could explain American law and the cowardice of the Democrats to the enemy and make it clear that he would not stop killing them until January 21, 2009, that the Democrats have not the guts or votes to stop him, and that the president that takes over when he departs will also kill them relentlessly given that never in our history have we elected anyone to lead us in war that comes from the ilk that is seated to his (right or left, whichever the case may be). You know, something subtle. And he can also tell the enemy that if any in his Party oppose the troops, they will not be back after they next face their people at home.

My heart beats with furious hatred for my former party whose leaders say and do for free what al Qaeda would be happy to pay for them to say and do.

But don't just listen to Rooster crowings (even if they are regularly published and posted on an MSM outlet!). Read (and listen by following the links) what Paul Harvey's successor being groomed in process and former senator for the Volunteer State says:

Stomachless Senate

Won't the Senate resolution diminish our chances for success in Iraq?

By Fred Thompson

Preparation continues in the House and Senate for the introduction of a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the president’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq in order to quell the violence there. The resolution will have no legal affect. A congressional vote to cut off funding could stop the troops or could stop the war altogether but the critics of the plan don’t have the stomach for that. It might be politically dangerous. One sponsor of the Senate resolution said that the goal is to demonstrate that the president is “on his own.”

Last week I said that it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops (which, incidentally, would bring the troops up to a number that is still less than the number of troops we have had there in the past) because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great. Understandably people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read this week in The Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the president’s plan as our last best chance to prevail there. But I can see the arguments for the other side. I can even understand a vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we have clearly already lost the war and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss. What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own”?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

Or read Don't Burn Bush Now
by Quin Hillyer in The American Spectator.

The time has come for conservatives, and all good Americans, to rally around the president, around the troops, and around the idea of victory in Iraq.

The reasons to rally are moral, practical, and political.

Moral: As Colin Powell was fond of saying: "You break it: You buy it." We Americans toppled Iraq's illegitimate, murderous government, but did not provide enough security from the very beginning of the post-war period. We owe it to finish the job.

Moral: President George W. Bush was correct that establishing a stable, even quasi-democratic Iraq could help spur a sea-change in the entire Middle East and central Asia. Before we lost control in Iraq, it was already happening. Libya's forfeiture of its nuclear weapons program and the pro-democratic developments in Ukraine, formerly Soviet Georgia, Lebanon, and (to a lesser extent) Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all were catalyzed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein and by Bush's soaring rhetoric about democracy. Even Ted Kennedy acknowledged as much. As columnist Larry Elder noted on March 17, 2005, " 'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos asked Kennedy whether President Bush deserves credit for democratic developments in the Middle East. Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely, absolutely, and I think...what's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive. It's a reflection the president has been involved.'"

Moral: The United States of America is the most moral major force in geopolitics. (The American Left doesn't believe this, but that just shows its own ignorance and/or weak moral compasses.) Leaving Iraq a mess, effectively in defeat, will leave the U.S. horribly weakened diplomatically, just as the Vietnam War did. A weaker United States will be far less able to lead the world community on behalf of human rights, stability, and freedom.

Practical: Now that the president has made his decision, what is the alternative? What good does carping do? President Bush has tried the equivalent of a difficult bank shot in pool; the only way it can work is if other officials don't rock the table. The more they voice dissent, the less likely the Iraqis -- in government and on the streets -- will be to do their part to make the plan a success. And the only way for Bush to hold a strong enough hand to bring other nations on board to help is if he is seen as having significant support here at home. Victory is very, very difficult when the home front is not united. Last I checked, victory is still a highly valued commodity in these United States.

Practical: The surge may work. General David Petraeus is no dummy. If he thinks he and his troops can pull it off, who are we to contradict him?

Practical: Our troops are there already. Getting them out safely, without a victory, might be as difficult as it was to get all the American personnel out of Vietnam. A surge that might just work (by some counts, the president's plan will more than double the troops actually in the city of Baghdad) also might just buy enough time for planners to develop, in the alternative, the actual logistics for a comprehensive exit strategy -- logistics that likely are not fully formed yet. In that sense, even in defeat a troop surge might save the lives of more American personnel than it risks.

Then again, the mindset of American leaders -- other than military staff, who ought to always plan for any eventuality -- should be that defeat is not an option.

Political: Here's where so many Republican solons on Capitol Hill make no sense whatsoever. Some of them may honestly believe the surge won't work or even that the whole war was a bad idea in the first place. That's fine: Sticking by one's principled judgment is always a good thing. But it is patently obvious that a lot of the carping about the surge comes not from conviction but from lack thereof. Whatever metaphor is used about them -- spineless; fingers in the wind; weathervanes; running for the hills; fence-sitters -- it is clear that a lot of Members of Congress are spooked by the surface-level politics of the situation. They hated losing the elections, and now they are reading the short-term polls, and they think the safest thing to do is to say what is most immediately popular.

But if that is their motivation, they are (to be blunt) incredibly stupid. The truth is that no matter what they do individually, if Iraq is seen as a disaster two years from now, all Republicans will get blamed by the public and media for the failures of a Republican president. Their fates are tethered to that of President Bush's historical legacy. If the U.S. leaves Iraq without victory, Republicans (and conservatives, an oft-distinct set) will be punished. There is no way around it, even if the solons do verbal back-flips to try to separate themselves from the president.

On the other hand, every Republican who stands solidly with the president now, when he is most embattled, will garner a huge political advantage if the surge succeeds. The reality is that the left has painted itself into a corner. The entire public knows that the whole congressional Democratic Party is against the surge. Moreover, the public knows that the Democrats have been undercutting the president from just about Day One of the conflict in Iraq. They know that the Democrats, and the nutroot left, has not just sounded defeatist the whole time, but actually antagonistic toward the very idea of victory. The left long ago not only declared defeat but actually wished for it. The left thinks the United States is a negative influence in the world. It thinks our leaders deliberately lie, conspire, torture, maim, and kill.

And even the somewhat "responsible center-left" lacks faith in American might, ingenuity, and will. They see defeat before the clock has even run out. Witness Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic, who in the most recent issue of that magazine writes in the concluding paragraph that "the United States has already lost."

If Beinart is right, then Republicans have already lost decisively, in terms of domestic politics, as well. But if the surge works, if Iraq's peace is secured, the left will be utterly discredited. Nobody who abandoned the president will be able to take advantage of that discrediting of the left -- but everybody who stood with President Bush will reap the rewards.

Moral and practical reasons alone should lead Republicans and intelligent Democrats to support the surge, in order to show American solidarity before a watching world, as the only viable option for victory still on the table. But for politicians crass and weak enough to put politics before morality and practicality, the politics of the situation (rightly understood) argue not against supporting Bush, but in favor.

What is past is past, including President Bush's long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let's give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory.

And yet, all we have gotten are:

1 - Biden-Levin co-sponsoring the resolution Fred Thompson denounces above, and these guys are what passes for the hawks in the Democratic Party.

2 - Biden and Reid asserting that the president hasn't the authority to attack Iran, since same is not explicitly stated in either the AUMF (passed soon after 9/11) or the Iraq War resolution. Of course, the President, as CinC, has the inherent authority and power to order US forces to attack Boston if he pleases, much less an Axis of Evil nation that has been and is in violation of the Bush doctrine since the birth of the doctrine and which is waging war against American forces in the Iraq War theatre. The Iraq War resolution cannot be read, not only to not prohibit attacking Iran, but actually screams out the imperative that we do attack Iran and any other nation or force that is opposing us in Iraq.

And must DeVine Gamecock be the first to mention a little thingy called the War Powers Act, which would prohibit Congress from taking any action to cut off funds for actions against Iran for 90 days. Hmmmmm Chia Pet and Munsters' Gramps.

These people are craven, speaking of which:

3 - Pelosi accusing the president (as Gore and The Swimmer have before. Well, as all elected Dems have, either rout loud or by their conspicuous silence) of making war time decisions based on politics. Cynthia McKinney lost her job the first time saying this and was shunned by the Pelosi’s and the Bidens, yet now, it’s Ok for the Speaker to say it? Bad Hair Gal back in Georgia has a gripe with her Democrat Plantation keepers.

Go to HughHewitt.com and browse for more (much, much more unpatriotic dem behavior) from the Dems over the past week, not to mention our own Paul Cella's Crippling disloyalty masterpiece earlier this week, as I am exhausted thinking of how these craven POS's would have been strung up faster than Saddam in US wars past.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
Also Blogs at The Minority Report

Breaking news indicates that the Durham County, North Carolina D.A. that was recently removed from prosecuting sexual assault charges he brought against members of the Duke University Lacrosse Team and against whom grievances have been lodged with the N.C. Bar, ignored warnings to cease and desist from making public statements to the press about the facts of the case in the early stages. DeVine Law will post a follow up soon as we study the reports and investigate the matter ourselves from our Charlotte Metro vantage point.

I would not be surprised if the most serious charges against Mike Nifong relate more to public statements than his actual conduct of the prosecution and investigation itself for a number of reasons.

Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion and immunity in the carrying out of their duties, and properly so. But, when it comes to public statements, North Carolina, and the South in general, have far more ethical restrictions designed to prevent trying cases in the media, than do the out of control “OJ trial” states of California and New York. The things that lawyers from those states say and do in the press and even on cable news shows would land many in jail for contempt of court in Dixie.

I have said all along that Nifong’s greatest vulnerability lied in this area more than in the area of why he chose to prosecute a case where the DNA evidence seemed exculpatory. More on that later, but meanwhile, let’s look at the discretion more specifically and the application of same to rape cases.

A general rule employed by prosecutors in exercising their discretion whether to prosecute particular crimes against particular individuals requires that they be convinced that a crime has definitely occurred and that the defendants most probably committed it.

The 60 Minutes episodes on CBS featuring witnesses at the scene of the alleged rape of a stripper by member of the Duke University Lacrosse team have raised more questions about the propriety of the Durham County prosecutor’s decision to bring charges against the three defendants.

To review, Mike Nifong has charged members of the team with rape despite negative DNA evidence, strong alibis and other exculpatory evidence including from the accuser’s accompanying performer.

The allegations were made by an anonymous accuser less than 17 months after rape charges made by another, then anonymous accuser, against NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant, were dismissed. That famous 2004 Colorado case prompted the Legal Column to ask the question, “Are Alleged Rape Victims Unique?” in analyzing the unique evidentiary rules and press reporting practices in cases of rape allegations.

The current charges against Lacrosse players at Duke University in Durham have already made them infamous due to the reporting of their names and depiction of their faces in the press.

One issue in the Bryant case as in the N.C. case, concerns the standard press practice of not revealing the names or depicting the faces of alleged rape victims, while routinely reporting the names, with photos, of those accused of rape.

The only alleged victims or defendants afforded similar anonymity by the press, except for alleged victims of rape, are minor children.

In both the Duke and Bryant cases, and all rape cases in memory, the arguments for press protection of the anonymity of the victim have been related to an alleged “stigma” that “society” attaches to the rape victim that could cause true victims not to come forward unless their identity is protected.

However, after criminal charges were dropped against the Los Angeles Laker, the alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit against the accused seeking money damages for a crime that she was unwilling to testify about in criminal court. The alleged victim voluntarily named herself as the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit which named the basketball star as the defendant. The civil case file was later dismissed amid rumors that a settlement had been reached.

The major differences in the cases, however, concern the issues of DNA evidence, the prosecutorial discretion to bring charges in the first place and public statements by Durham County prosecutor, Mike Nifong, during the unusual month-long delay between the allegations and eventual arrests.

In the Bryant case the issue was whether consent for admitted sexual relations had been given by the accuser. In the present case at Duke, the accused deny that sex occurred.

Press reports so far, including the many statements by Nifong, have not reported any statements by any of the 41 Duke athletes saying that sex of any kind occurred in the frat house that night.

And in the promised ironic twist, the accuser, according to press reports, “identified” three Duke students as having raped her for 30 minutes through pictures of their torsos and limbs and not their faces, while pictures of her have appeared in the press scantily dressed in a stripper’s outfit reveling much of her torso and limbs, but not her face.

During that month, apparently relying primarily upon a hospital record that reports “vaginal, anal and other injuries consistent with rape,” along with the torsal and extremity identifications, Nifong made unusually definitive statements, especially for a Southern prosecutor, that a crime had occurred and that he was sure the DNA testing of the 41 college students would confirm who committed the crime.

DNA testing has failed to implicate any of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team, including the 3 players identified as the perpetrators.

In this case, given not only the DNA results, but also photographic, 911 audio tape and other exculpatory evidence including alibi, and intoxication evidence on all counts, it is possible Nifong did not follow the prosecutorial discretion rule cited above and should have continued his investigation.

But, in Nifong’s defense the severity of and extent to which the injuries identified as “consistent with rape” are consistent with the rape allegations, and whether the DNA tests were accurate, are presently unknown to the general public.

We await the decision of the N.C Attorney general’s decision on the case, as they replaced Nifong, at his request late last week.

Originally posted as More of What Happens When You Mess With the Clintons at Race 4 2008

On the Drudge Radio Report Sunday night, just as the Colts were finishing off the Pats on the RCA Dome gridiron, Matt Drudge was reporting that the Clinton machine was in the last stages of having the Democratic Party move the 2008 California primary up to soon after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Reason: Hillary is not liked in New Hampshire based on prior statements about the Granite State when her husband was a candidate. Obama is loved in Manchester as evidenced by the huge rock star-seeking-like crowds he drew there recently. Hillary trails John Edwards badly in Iowa polls. Edwards is loved in Iowa. No sign of same in the state for Hillary.

Drudge discussed this possibility with The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who did not disagree.

Then, on Monday morning we found this at the top of the web’s Drudge Report the following from the Sun-Sentinel:

California Wants Early Primary
State’s influence in presidential derby would grow

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s backing, state legislators from both parties are moving rapidly to make California a player in choosing the nation’s next president by holding the state’s primary four months earlier.

A bipartisan group of state senators introduced legislation Friday to change the 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5.

Another bill was introduced by an Assembly Republican on Thursday, the day after Schwarzenegger declared that moving up the primary date would make California “relevant” nationally and was “something to shoot for.”

The February date — the earliest the state can choose under national party rules — would place California at the beginning of the election season, right after four states that have secured the most privileged spots in January for their Democratic caucuses or primaries: Iowa (Jan. 14), Nevada (Jan. 19), New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29).

The Republican calendar has Iowa and New Hampshire first, with the rest of the schedule in flux.

Contenders, who now bypass California except to raise money, would be forced to establish real presences in the state.

The huge cost of competing in California — estimated by one veteran strategist to be $6 million to $8 million per candidate — would probably require all contenders to accelerate their fundraising and possibly give an edge to those candidates who have already amassed sizable war chests, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., according to operatives in both parties.

Republican moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who might face opposition in Southern states for their liberal views on social issues, could benefit from the change.

“If California can succeed in moving up its primary, this truly is an earthquake in presidential national politics and the tremors will be felt through all 49 [other] states,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member from New York and major presidential fundraiser.

Gamecock believes that America has been well served by the Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina (with most emphasis on Iowa and NH) gauntlet, unencumbered by quickly looming major media market state primaries. Should California make this move for Hillary, and especially if NY and PA follow, as is expected, the campaigns will begin IN EARNEST years before the primaries, with the victors being almost assuredly from the establishment money candidates of each party.

The anti-free speech McCain would be the big beneficiary in 2008 on the GOP side.

We really need for candidates for the nation's highest office to be tested on the ground and in debate, and not be able to buy the position of Commander in Chief.

See also Kavon Nikrad's original This is What Happens When You Mess With the Clintons at

Race 4 2008

This all comes on the heels of former conservative tax cutter and the ostensible Maria Shriver "Republican" Governor, Arnold Swartzenegger's backing of a tax he calls a "Loan" as he Jumps the Shark, according to John Fund (and any rational conservative) of the WSJ:

When politicians break their pledges not to raise taxes, they come up with the darnedest evasions. Take Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants to levy new charges on California doctors, hospitals and employers to help pay for his $12 billion health-care plan. "It is not a tax, just a loan, because it does not go for general [expenditures]," he told the Sacramento Bee last Thursday. "It goes back to health care."

A loan? The first reaction of many Californians was: What state office will I be able to go to and get my loan back--perhaps with interest? It's preposterous, for example, to characterize as a "loan" the 4% payroll levy the governor wants to impose on employers who don't offer health benefits. California's gas taxes are dedicated to transportation but no one would call them "gas loans." Property taxes go to local education. Are they not taxes?

The over-the-top absurdity of the Schwarzenegger statement led Rush Limbaugh into fits of laughter last Friday "Bill Clinton calling [tax increases] 'investments' was bad enough," Mr. Limbaugh says. Bruce Bartlett, a free-market economist and harsh critic of the Bush administration, thought he'd heard all the euphemisms for a tax hike ("revenue enhancements" and "solidarity payments" are classics), but he allows that "calling one a 'loan' is new."

Read it all at the link above.

Now, more than ever, conservatives need to be strong and united against the Democrats, turncoat Republicans and 11/7 Republicans. More on that in comments to follow and Updates. See also this link for now as well:

FAQ - The 11/7 Republicans!

Question: What category of a republican is this. (Lieberman got General Petreus to denounce rhetoric and resolutions akin to such as this today in this man's face, as emboldening the enemy.) More later on that issue in comments to come below, and in updates of this blog.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.

"Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?"

That was a precocious little boy's first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.

No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King's death on April 4, 1968?

Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that "One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks."

Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall's election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina's top education post because, "Frankly, I'm tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write."

One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based "Jim Crow" laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.

Character building a priority

By contrast, King's dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda "priorities" could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It."

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King's mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a "conservative epiphany," in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don't remember Daddy's answer to his eldest son's innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew's Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King's dream more of a reality.

Mike

DeVine

Preliminarily, I am an Erick fan, it was 4:00am, and the primary reason for my belated rebuttal is to highlight Kristol's rock solid position on the war. While I put quotes around the Big Government Conservatism (BGC) characterization, I do concede that their is a difference between Kristol, TWS, Gamecock, and many other conservatives concerning what the size of government should be and, more accurately, how we get from big to smaller.

However, I could not disagree more that Bill Kristol, TWS and any supposed choice between BGC and an alternative had anything to do with the outcome of the 2006 election.

The main reason this is true beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the voters put Democrats in charge. Do I really have to explain that? To say democrat is to say big government (and appeasement). Its like saying one chose lettuce to reject salads.

The 2006 election was, first and foremost a Year Six election. Had we not power, given our relatively small margins compared to other Year Six elections, it would have been historic.

Kristol and his magazine have been and are major players in how we gained control of congress, elected and re-elected Bush, and the conservative movement as a whole.

They are heroic in there advocacy of a vigorous foreign policy in a post-9/11, if not even a post-Pearl harbour world. Americans overall tend toward isolationism. It cost us dearly in WWII, and it could be our downfall in a much smaller world and wmd.

On the issue of big government, the fiscal cons truly do need to get specific and courageous on exactly how they would reduce government. I wrote on this over Christmas when their were not many to debate.

Would it be Too Much Trouble for Fiscal Cons to Get Really Serious

My points are this with respect to Kristol and my previous blog:

1 - Kristol, like Reagan, recognizes the need for a safety net and soc sec.

2 - Vague rhetoric about cutting government risks scaring off big govt addicted voters that need to be weaned off the stuff and shown how we get from a to b.

3-Cutting government has to be sold as solving problems, not simply as an ideological pursuit.

Fiscal cons have work to do. I want to see plans on paper. Heck, one of the main, if not THE main reason for being a conservative is this principle of smaller government due top how it reduces freedom. But this is not 1789. We have been addicted to BG for half a century. We have to not only sell smaller government, but also show how we get there.

And Erick, while I love both the TWS and National Review brands of conservative, my favorite brand is

the Redstate brand!

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report

The HinzSight Report

The Line: It is irresponsible for elected congressmen to criticize the President's plan without offering a plan of their own.

First of all, the war critics have alternative plans. 99% of them favor various plans to withdraw as quickly as possible and accept defeat.

Second of all, this is also the plan favored by Saddam's deadenders, Baathists, al Qaida and Iran.

Third, no matter what plans appeasement war critics offer, it would not rehabilitate irresponsible messages that embolden our enemies into being responsible.

Bush needs to respond to war critics by saying:

a) I was elected to wage war.

b) You were elected to decide whether to declare war and/or fund wars and other military actions or not

c) Most of you war critics voted to authorize this war, which authorization was not necessary for me to defend this country, but nonetheless, I sought your support as a courtesy and you voted to approve of my decision

d) At the first sign of any setbacks (not unforeseeable in war) in the war, you have continually sent the message to our enemies that if they will just hold out long enough, your party and a few repubs will hand them victory

e) The American people have hired people to plan and wage war and they aren't you, but I want to hear ideas from any and all intelligent people about how we can better win this war more quickly

(anyone so in a hurry they want to drop 2 nukes yet? Didn't think so. Anyone think that Washington, Lincoln or FDR would have surrendered beacuse of the deficit or due to it taking too long? How long is too long before losing? just asking),

in private.

I have an office where I meet with people to talk about things I don't want the enemy to hear. Come see me instead of Tim Russert one Sunday. I have cleaned the carpet since the last occupant left for Chappaqua.

f) The blood of American troops are on the hands of those that emboldened enemies to fight on that otherwise would not have and then went on to kill Americans.

g) I was hired twice to defend this country across the globe and in Iraq, and when re-hired, things were tougher in Iraq than now. I will not stop waging war while President no matter what you say. If you truly want the US to leave Iraq, then de-fund the war.

Otherwise, please shut up. The enemy is listening.

At least if we withdraw at your direction, the troops won't be so at risk at the hands of the enemies you aid and abet.

The flip side is that they will be equally at greater risk here in the states where the enemy will have a better chance at attacking since they will have troops relieved from the duty of defending their base.

But at least then, you appeasers will be at the same risk you now put the troops in without consequence.

BTW, I don't watch you on C-Span.

P.S. How about this plan. We draft and ratify a Constitution that places the responsibility for waging war in one man and for funding the military in the hands of 535 men. We vote to place men in these 536 positions. One man decides we need to wage war. 535 vote, the majority agrees and funds the war. The losers in the debate accept defeat and support their country while its at war until we win. Or, if they believe we should surrender and withdraw, then force the one man to do so via a vote rather than verbally undermining what the majority voted for, so that then, the nation would have decided to withdraw quickly so as to save lives.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report

The HinzSight Report

Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims

MIKE DEVINE

Special to the Observer

Read the whole column in The Charlotte Observer here.

Observer community columnist Mike DeVine, vice president of Intequity, Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and Legal Editor (DeVine Law) for http://thehinzsightreport.com/, also blogs as "Gamecock" at http://gamecock.townhall.com, www.race42008.com, and www.redstate.com.

Captain Ed's view from his Quarters is that the recent announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he will take immediate action against sectarian militias of all stripes in Baghdad is the result of President Bush's "come to Jesus" demand in a discussion less than 72 hours ago.

This announcement by al-Maliki comes less than a week before an expected Oval Office address that will re-affirm the President's determination to finish the victory in Iraq, less than a month after his rejection of the Iraq Surrender Group's recommendations and less than 24 hours before the Democrat Party took control of Congress and promptly but rejection of a strategy for finishing the victory in Iraq in writing.

Democratic Leaders Oppose More U.S. Troops in Iraq

Apparently the new, self-dubbed "Most Powerful Woman in the Country" a/k/a Nancy Drew-Mystery-Wonder Woman-osi, is at least more powerful than Senate Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid, who just days ago publicly expressed support for a US troop surge that Bush is reported to be contemplating as a means to help secure Baghdad.

Moreover, MSM-dubbed moderate alternative to the former "Most Powerful US Woman but possibly still "Smartest Woman in the World" (yes, World!), Barack Obama, turns out to be just another Big-Eared Dove, as he orally affirmed his support for the "Surrender in our Time" Democrat love letter to Bush described at Bloomberg above.

Bush apparently humored, i.e. met with Osa..Obama and five other smaller-eared Doves at the White House recently, along with six GOP Hawks (ear size not disclosed).

Barack was reportedly more hawkish when it comes to chasing down Maureen "Dragon Lady" Dowd in Olfactory wars.

MoDo and Barack Hussein Odumbo (Rush 24/7 subscription required-will post excerpts in comments below)

One wishes Democrats would get as mad about enemies trying to kill us as they do accurate ear and Path to 9/11 descriptions.

Luckily, we have a man in the White House who's anger has remained righteously kindled against the enemies of the US that want to kill us all, and who understands the nature of the new Democrats' "power" which cannot stand up to..

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

I also want to address the opinions expressed in some quarters that the US should learn some lessons from the recent actions by our Ethiopian allies in Somalia. And let me first be clear to express my strongest support for their actions, but, some friends have conflated those actions.

From Redstate:

[First, preliminarily, lest we lose perspective (in a RS recco-dominated Mbeckian week long African safari sort of way - smile my friend and I know you haven't exactly conflated the "lessons" as much as your headlines would lead one to believe, but nevertheless...) its got nothing to do with Ethiopia, to which Ethiopian victorious Christian army over the Islamists in Somalia, GC says, "Keep up the good work," but we understand if you can't keep it up like the US Arsenal of Freedom has for three years.

Truly, we understand if you can't secure 70% of the Somalia, hold three free elections, kill tens of thousands of al Qaida and their fascist allies, force UBL-Zawahiri and their Base to suspend operations aimed at killing Americans in America for fear of the establishment of an American ally in the middle of the Middle East, force the same American enemies to pour all their resources of manpower and money into Iraq, decimate al Qaida, and build up an indigenous army that can't lose to the Islamist enemy after you leave.

We understand that you will have to leave soon without finishing the job and have to...but I digress (albeit for the laudatory purpose of putting the Ethiopian victory in perspective. Let's not pretend that the Ethiopians have taught us, i.e. America under this Commander-in-Chief a lesson. They haven't. They have done a great thing, limited as it is, in Somalia. We praise God for it.]

The US has done a much a harder and comprehensive work in Iraq (and continues to), than has Ethiopia in Africa or Israel ever anywhere, that no nation on Earth would even dream of attempting. We should praise God for what our troops have accomplished thus far and that our CINC is busy about the business of finishing the victory in the Battle of Iraq with his other eye on the larger War against Iran.


Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and TMR and is the Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report.