Prosecute Yoo? You too, Madam Speaker

Yesterday, I wrote a defense of former US Justice Department lawyer and current Berkeley law professor John Yoo for the so-called "torture memo" he wrote in August 2002. I encourage all my fans to read Yoo's memo for yourselves. Yes, it's a bit dry and sounds like a stuffy lawyer wrote it. But it is a concise analysis of the issue on which Yoo was tasked with opining.

Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.

Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.

Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.

Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.

Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.

Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.

Harry Reid--Atypical Boob; Barack Obama--Typical Politician

I haven't blogged for awhile...something about some holidays that were going on...

Anyway, some friends have asked me about my support of California's Prop. 8. I will post on that issue soon but this Illinois Senate seat controversy has my attention right now.

Preliminarily, I have to state that Illinois' Democratic Gov. Blagojevich sounds like a premium scumbag...not to mention a bad model for that hairy creature sitting on top of his head. If he's committed crimes, try him and send him to prison. Until that happens, or he resigns or is forced out of office, he is still the governor of Illinois. Not only does he have the power to appoint Prez-elect Obama's replacement, he has a duty to do it. That's the biggest freakin' card he has to play, and he's played it. It doesn't look like there is anything ethically wrong with the appointment or the process Blago used. I have no idea whether Roland Burris, his appointee, would make a good or bad senator. But, frankly, I don't care. Not because I live in a different state that starts with the letter "I". I don't care because Blago can pick whomever he wants. If he was dumb enough to accept payola to appoint Burris, then convict him of that too. But as long as the appointment was legal, that's the end of the issue. Burris should take his seat without delay. Or so one would think.

Enter Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV. Over the weekend, when stories leaked that Blago might appoint someone, Sen. Reid went on the Sunday talk shows steadfastly committing to refuse to accept any appointment Blago might make. Sen. Reid held his guns for a full 3 days. Then news came out today that a "resolution" to this dispute has been reached and [surprise!] Burris will be seated.

So Reid changed his mind. That doesn't make him a boob. People posture and ultimately compromise in negotiations all the time. His self-righteous comments prompted me to pull out a copy of the Constitution and check it out for myself. And I learned Reid is a boob for other reasons.

Ultimately, after looking at the issue, it comes down to this: How can the Senate Majority Leader not know his US Constitution? Apparently, Reid neglected to consider the 17th Amendment. Now, admittedly, this is not an amendment that we see discussed all the time in the news or on Law & Order. But the language is clear: when there's a Senate vacancy, the executive of that state makes the appointment. It doesn't matter if the executive is a scumbag, or if Harry Reid thinks he's a scumbag, or if the particular appointment (or the executive) might make one party or the other look bad. And it doesn't give anyone in Congress veto power over the executive's decision or the authority to block the chamber doors. Not even a Senator with healthy self-esteem and dismal judgment.

Why do we keep sending schmucks like this to Congress? Reid is up for reelection in a couple of years. It's high time for the people of Nevada to retire him.

Also of concern is that Obama gave such a ho-hum middle of the road response when asked about the controversy over Burris. If he had any balls, and truly is bringing Change to DC, he should have said something like, "Blago is still the governor and he alone has the authority to make the appointment. If he goes through a lawful process and appoints someone, that decision has to be honored. Then the people of Illinois will have the opportunity to approve that choice when the seat is up for election." Instead he gave the kind you'd hear from a typical politician, not the Agent of Change.

Let's not forget, Obama was an editor of the "Hahvahd" Law Review and is a former Constitutional Law professor! This is his speciality! Yet, apparently he doesn't know what the 17th Amendment says either.

Or maybe he's just like almost every other politician. Then again, this is the same man who thought there were 57 United States. That's certainly not typical.

Obama's Historic Victory, Part III

There is no question that Obama's victory is "transformational" in one sense, to wit: he is the first president-elect who is black, at least partially. I say "partially" because in his first presser, Obama referred to himself as a "mutt" when comparing his diverse heritage to dogs in a pound. This begs several questions (no pun intended).

What does it mean to be the first "black" president? How do we define this? Is it purely due to the color of one's skin? If so, then Obama qualifies as he will have the darkest skin of any president in our nation's history. However, he is black/African on one side only. Isn't he the type of person we hear some in the "black community" vilify as "not black enough"? His experiences and upbringing also defy being described as "black American". How many black Americans spend formative years in a Muslim nation and attend exclusive private schools? He and his wife are millionaires. How much in common does Obama have with the average "black American"? What is the average "black American" anyway? Is it someone living in a stereotypically poor, predominantly black neighborhood overrun with gangs and drugs? Is it the increasingly growing black middle and professional classes? What about so-called "oreos", i.e. those that are "black on the outside, white on the inside"? Can we finally do away with that racist term? Can't a black man or woman hold conservative economic and social views without being viewed as an "oreo", or an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his/her race?

Perhaps most importantly, Obama's election raises several questions about the existence of racial classifications. Have we finally reached a point where we can say there is little to no racism left in the nation, except perhaps on the very narrow fringes? Obama received the votes of well over 60 million Americans. If Americans can elect a black man to its highest office--their leader--then can we finally stick a fork in this racism bugaboo? Where was the "Bradley effect" we heard the media wringing their hands about? And why did/does the media continue to attempt to stereotype and pigeon-hole entire groups of people based on skin color, neighborhood, class, etc.? Can we now end support for racial preference policies? Can we end political correctness? Can we now cease having our racial sensitivities so heightened? Can Democrats now stop labeling Republicans as "racist" simply because they disagree with liberal policy positions?

This shouldn't apply to just the "enlightened" blue states. Even states and counties that stayed "red" should be given respect and honor. Isn't it possible that a majority in those areas voted for McCain simply because they believed he would have been a better president? Or was even the lesser of two bad choices? I live in Idaho and many who has never been to Idaho think there is nothing here but rednecks, Klansmen, and Mormon fundamentalists. That perception is very far from the truth. While not as diverse as many places, we have some of the friendliest and safest communities anywhere. Yet most of us hold conservative positions on taxes, economics and social issues. Now that we as a nation have risen above our perceived racial prejudices, can we also rise above the ignorance that colors how we view all of the components of our nation?

Will Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the black "leadership", while understandably basking in the glow of the election of the first "black" president, come forward and loudly proclaim these things? I hope so. We must recognize that this nation has moved past race. Even if Obama's election does nothing else, I hope it will serve as the final nail in the coffin of this nation's long past racial wrongs and those who seek to continue to exploit them today.

Barack Obama's Historic Win

In light of Election Day 2008, I decided to start a new blog to express my views and reach out to others. I hope you will enjoy and take the time to add your comments.

First, I did not support Barack Obama for President. I believe his associations, his policies and, most significantly, his complete lack of experience and lack of accomplishment militated strongly against him. I am sure my future posts will explore these issues more as Obama fills cabinet positions, makes decisions and proposes budgets and legislation. Nevertheless, the people have spoken, Obama will be our next President, and America will continue to survive and, hopefully, thrive.

However, let's be clear: John McCain's loss is not a loss that can be pinned on conservatives. From the very beginning of the campaign, we conservatives were wary of McCain for his various legislative stands and willingness to sell us out. At the same time we respected his service. His loss is at least in part due to his failures to be consistently conservative a la Ronald Reagan. Conservative Republicans should view this election as a clarion call to stop electing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and start putting up strong candidates with principled and demonstrative conservative views, because these views win the day when advocated. Look at Prop. 8 winning in California as well as the passing of similar measures in Florida and Arizona.

Obama ran a better, more organized, better funded campaign, and appealed to a new, starry-eyed generation of voters who were taken by his soaring rhetoric. We'll see whether his governing will match. I, for one, am highly skeptical.