The Trouble With Russert

MR. RUSSERT: If he said to you, “Mr. President, what do I do today about the Middle East? What do I do to get a true peace?”

FMR. PRES. CARTER: OK. First of all, I think that the United States should stop their horrible abuse of the Palestinian people in a generic sense. I mean, all Palestinian people. Because they voted for Hamas candidates last January, we have cut off all aid to, to the Palestinian people, humanitarian aid and otherwise. We don’t let contributions from other nations go to the Palestinian people. They don’t have enough money to pay their, their teachers, their nurses, their policemen, their firemen, anybody on their public payroll, just because the Palestinian people voted for Hamas candidates. So I would stop that and let humanitarian aid go into Gaza and to the West Bank. (Meet The Press, Dec. 3, 2006)

What has become of Tim Russert? I write this as someone who once had a high regard for him, who once believed he was a firm but fair interviewer of all guests on his Sunday morning news broadcast. No more. In the past year, as the elections drew near, I detected a noticeable bias in his questions and more shocking, a stridency towards Republicans, elected or otherwise. It seems as if Tim Russert, like so many former Democrat politician aides-turned-media-hosts, has succumbed to the pack mentality so prominent in the mainstream media today. Last Sunday's show is a case in point.

Russert badgered the Bush Administration's Stephen Hadley over Russert's demand that George W. Bush admit numerous mistakes in Iraq policy. Hello! Am I mistaken, or did Bush not already admit he and the entire world were misled into believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Mr. Russert has badgered Democrats who looked at the same intelligence and who voted for the Iraq War to admit their mistakes, although that does seem to be the template demanded by the left wing kooks in their party.

Not content with Stephen Hadley's deft defense of Iraq policy, or more likely agitated that his demands were rebuffed, Mr. Russert then badgered Sen. John Warner. The senator, clearly angered by the host's scowling demeanor and overbearing demands for contrition, let Mr. Russert know he would not buckle to Russert's demands. The Virginia senator was subjected to incessant questions over the failure to bring the Iraq War to a successful conclusion while Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat from Michigan, was lobbed softballs setup questions which allowed him to tee off on the president and his Administration's conduct of the war. Mr. Russert's sole question to Levin about a non-existent Democratic Iraq plan for success failed to prompt a follow-up after a lame response from the Michigan senator.

Tim Russert these days carefully tracks the DNC/media blueprint for all "journalists" doing their bidding. That is, to pick up unsubstantiated "leaks" of bipartisan reports published or broadcast by DNC-friendly organs of propaganda, and then to assert by implication that those unsubstantiated leaks are truth in fact. As I wrote in my November 27th commentary the media are free to allege any manner of "news" that cannot be substantiated and subsequently have those allegations promoted by the press pack dogs. We saw this with the horribly misleading 9/11 Commission interim staff reports, faithfully promoted by National Public Radio and other left wing outlets, that bore little or no resemblance to the final Commission Report. Of course, the misleading and dishonest interim staff reports had the intended effect of discrediting the Bush Administration's early days in office while exonerating the previous Clinton Administration of any and all failures to combat Islamofacist terrorism.

In fact, NPR's Nina Totenberg attempted to blame Rush Limbaugh for death threats directed at 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick, the author of the infamous Clinton Administration's The Wall memo that barred intelligence sharing between federal law enforcement agencies as well as among different divisions of the same agencies. Rush Limbaugh, as well as then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, questioned why Ms. Gorelick was not put under oath to testify as to the failures in discovering and tracking terrorists. Indeed, National Public Radio never sought to follow up on this apparently reasonable question, since it would force their "reporters" to delve into the Clinton Administration's abject failure in treating acts of terrorism as simple law enforcement issues. Rather, Ms. Totenberg and NPR attempted character assassination of a radio talk show host who merely asked the questions the DNC/media axis refused to ask.

In a similar fashion, Tim Russert and the media are now running with unsubstantiated reports that the Iraq Study Group will recommend a US withdrawal from Iraq. The visibly agitated Sen. Warner, as well as preceding guest Hadley, cautioned the scowling Russert to wait until the report was made public before jumping to his conclusions. However, Russert is vested in seeing to it that unsupported leaks are promoted as fact, so he was not fazed by warnings to be careful in his suppositions.

Whereas Russert was demanding and hostile towards Hadley and Warner, he was solicitous of former President Carter, who earlier in the interview had delivered the outrageous Jews control the media message, so common among fringe elements like the Klan. President Carter is another who I once held in high regard, but no more. Tim Russert failed to challenge the subliminal anti-Semitic tone of Mr. Carter's comments, and one needs only to view the program to understand the import of the remark. When Mr. Carter went on to assert that the United States is at fault for cutting funding to the Hamas government, elected upon the promise to wage war against Israel, Mr. Russert abdicated all pretense to fairness in order to protect the one-term Democrat from pointed criticism. A professional journalist would have immediately demanded to know why, if a people elect a government dedicated to the destruction of a US ally, that the taxpayers of America must funnel financial aid to that Hamas government. However, since Tim Russert is no longer a professional journalist but rather an obvious partisan, he smiled his way through the Carter interview as if he were Larry King. It's sad to say, but Meet The Press has become another MSNBC clone to promote partisan political agendas. It's time for NBC to replace Tim Russert as host of this once-reputable Sunday morning news program.

The Corrupt United Nations

GENEVA - The U.N. Human Rights Council rejected on Tuesday an attempt to hold the Sudanese government responsible for halting atrocities in Darfur, opting instead for a less-pointed resolution calling on all warring parties to end abuses.

The council, which took over from the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission June, is dominated by African and Muslim countries that have sided with China, Cuba and other countries in preventing criticism of any government but Israel.

The council voted 22-20 against a resolution from the European Union and Canada demanding the Sudanese government prosecute those responsible for killing, raping and injuring civilians in the Darfur region of western Sudan. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_af/un_rights

I recall the vitriol that Ronald Reagan had to endure from kneejerk liberals and leftist organs of propaganda, like the New York Times and Washington Post, about what was termed his brinkmanship in dealing with the Soviet Empire. The Left's myth-of-the-moment at the time was that President Reagan was a "cowboy" who might possibly ignite a nuclear holocaust merely by speaking out about the human rights abuses of the communist dictatorship.

Ronald Reagan and the conservative base he led understood that communism was a belief system devoid of faith, and that for human rights to prevail in the Soviet Empire leaders in the West had a requirement to speak the unvarnished truth. Liberals and the worldwide Left scoffed at and denounced this supposed simple-minded approach as a failure to bow to the dogma of realpolitic. The Left and liberals were of course wrong, as the combination of truth and increased US defense appropriations forced the demise of the Soviet Empire.

The Soviet Union was indeed an empty ideological edifice that had no real adherents, not even among the miniscule cadre of privileged Party elites who ruled through terror. One thing liberals and the Left believe totally is that they are never wrong. At least on this one delusional belief they have total faith. If you don't believe this then study their response to the truth that Alger Hiss was indeed a Soviet mole and compare it to their denials that Ronald Reagan played a major role in the defeat of Soviet imperialism.

History today repeats itself, with the Left/liberal dogma claiming that the United Nations is a worthwhile international body. If one is silly enough to believe this pap the United Nations would have been a better institution for dealing with Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance than the American-led coalition's determination to remove him. All one needs to be that silly is to ignore the seventeen UN resolutions that Saddam sneered at. Throw in the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food scam that later came to light and if anyone still falls for the notion that the UN would have been a credible option to the allied resolve then the next stop for that person is the nuthouse. In short, the Soviet belief-without-faith system is mirrored in United Nations supporters; a profession of belief in a system where adherents lack true faith.

Now it's the issue of Darfur where the United Nations again conclusively demonstrates that it has become nothing more than a stalling element for Islamic hegemony and conquest. The UN attempted to stall the Iraq invasion, the UN stalls any sanctions against Iran for violating its agreement not to seek nuclear arms, the UN's Kofi Annan publicly calls America on the carpet for alleged human rights violations but refuses to call for equal rights in moslem societies for women, minorities, homosexuals, and dissidents as if the UN is aghast at the thought those groups exist in Islamic countries. In my memory I can't think of a comparable example of institutional hypocrisy. How many more Rwandas and Darfurs have to occur before the will to fight deceit and corruption rise to critical mass? For God's sake the United Nations cannot and will not define "terrorism", as this would force it to confront the very real and very brutal Islamofascist offensive against civilization.

What exactly is the United Nation's mission if not to extend the very policies Mr. Annan gives lip service to but ignores on a global scale? Is his job merely to preach to those countries that try to live up to the stated UN ideals while stuffing corrupt dictators' payoffs into his and his associates' pockets? It appears that is just how he approaches his job; the question is why civilized members of the United Nations have allowed him to remain in his job so long after UN officials' and his family's ties to the Oil-for-Food program became public.

Now that Democrats have successfully blocked John Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador it looks like the United Nations will continue to be a hindrance to those who believe in freedom, democracy, and universal human rights unless and until the United States leads a determined push to reform the corrupt UN. A good start would be for the president to nominate a Bolton-like realist willing to speak Bolton-like truth, forcing the leftist media to provide reformers a platform much like the media provided one for President Reagan. The truth dispels darkness; now is the time for good men and women to speak the truth just as when Ronald Reagan in speaking out about the communist regime. Only then will corrupt empires reform or fall and do-nothing lip service give way to relief of mass human rights atrocities in Darfur. We can only hope President Bush's resolve has not finally been weakened by recent elections and the continued liberal mass media onslaught against him and his presidency. We can only hope President Bush shows the steadfastness of a Ronald Reagan.

Press Shield Law? Never!

The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday (Nov. 27,2006), refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Funny. I haven't heard a word about the Supreme Court decision from talking head television commentators or radio talk show hosts this evening. No David Gregory-type screamers yammering about how the Bush White House is on a covert mission to discredit whistleblowers, no matter that those mislabeled whistleblowers might possibly have destroyed significant leads in tracking down terrorist funding. No Chris Matthews yelling over the words of his guests, spitting out nonstop drivel about Bush's "war on freedom of the press".

Why, the very thought that national security would trump "the public's right to know" sends shivers through the Left, who uniformly believe that protecting the lives of innocent men, women, and children from mass slaughter should take a back seat to journalism's loose cannons who know no higher calling than groveling for a Pulitzer, Peabody, or Emmy. Those prizes, of course, are reserved solely for those who know on which side their bread is buttered.

Patrick Fitzgerald was once the object of high praise from many commentators, who lauded him as a principled federal prosecutor, even if his background was as a Republican appointee. While Mr. Fitzgerald was investigating the alleged White House leak of Valerie Plame's name and position at the CIA the mainstream press gushed over him, filled as they were with the certainty that Mrs. Joseph Wilson had been outted by Karl Rove. Hadn't Joseph Wilson himself pointed the finger at the White House and specifically at Mr. Rove? What more evidence did the braying pack of wild reporters need in order to take the accusation at face value and place all their hopes on the Fitzgerald investigation that would surely confirm Kerry-advisor Wilson's charge? End of story.

Funny. As soon as Richard Armitage came forward as the one who leaked Mrs. Wilson's name the same wild pack of reporters screaming for Karl Rove's head suddenly went silent. Joseph Wilson inexplicably went into seclusion with no public calls for Mr. Armitage to be frog marched into Pelican Bay. Although the Fitzgerald investigation continues into the Plame Affair the mainstream media no longer seems interested. I have no idea why, and if someone knows will you please drop a comment to enlighten me.

Now that Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating two reporters' contact with two Islamic charities, after learning of a Justice Department probe from a leaker, the mainstream press is performing a flip-flop. Where it was a matter of national import for the public to know the name of the government leaker in the Plame Affair, according to the press, it is now a matter of national import for the public to not learn the identity of the government leaker who divulged top secret information about the DOJ investigation. Imagine that. Oh yes, Mr. Fitzgerald is a fading memory with the media; until his investigation into the charity source leak heats up, that is. Look for his former admirers to denounce him as an overzealous, out-of-control prosecutor if Fitzgerald is forced to ask the court to order uncooperative witnesses held in contempt.

Do you ever wish members of the mainstream press were hooked up to a shock device with yourself as the one with the power to send high voltage through their systems whenever they refused to answer questions truthfully, or failed tests of logic and consistency? I do. I'd love to subject dozens of journo-celebs to a grilling on why they believe the identity of an alleged White House leaker must be determined at all costs, while the identity of a DOJ leaker must be protected at all costs. Sure, the journo-celebs all mildly professed that Judith Miller shouldn't have to divulge her (alleged) White House source; but most if not all put up very little fight on her behalf when they thought the Plame leaker was actually someone in the Bush White House. Should Ms. Miller find herself facing jail time for contempt in refusing to testify to her sources in the Islamic charities matter I am sure the usual media suspects will object to her incarceration with far greater volume and intensity than was the case in the Plame episode. Heck, the suspects might threaten en masse to vote a straight Democratic Party ticket in 2008 if Ms. Miller has to obey the same laws that ordinary American riffraff have to obey!

I dream about the delight I'd have with any number of the media sitting strapped to a chair, wired to my devilish voltage machine while I went down a list of questions for them to answer. With every non-sequitur response and equivocation I'd increase the voltage until I arrived at the truth. The subjects could have but two truthful answers: "I have a journalistic double-standard because I hate George W. Bush". And: "I was only following orders!" (The vision of Keith Olbermann screaming aloud the latter won't leave my head.)

But there's another facet to the issue of journalism's double-standard when it comes to their agitating for absolute source protection. It goes far beyond their intention to immunize themselves in the same way clergy or lawyers are protected from divulging confidential information. The press was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as a check against governmental abuse and power, and as long as the press adhered to high standards of truth and professionalism it could reasonably be assumed to guarantee the public's right to know. With the melding of political agendas and unabashed partisanship in the press, however, the Left-media axis have fashioned the design for a powerful weapon to be used against anyone who stands in the way of their own unchecked power. And the proposed Shield Law will be the final mechanism which will enable the Left-media axis to be as lawless and dangerous as any Politboro.

Can you think of the power the Left-media axis will have once the Dan Rathers of the journalism world can fabricate "sources" who are as fake and fictional as the purported "fake but true" documents dreamed up by Rather, Mary Mapes, and 60 Minutes II? Can you imagine the havoc the unchecked press would have once "fake but true" sources are promoted as factual sources of information, to be replicated and disseminated on a mass scale by a lockstep mainstream media at the service of a single political ideology? It's truly a scary thought, if one values democracy and the right of a free people to make informed decisions. If the thought of Big Brother frightens, the thought of a press Shield Law ought to throw a real scare into everyone with even average intelligence.

The voters elected the Executive managers and Legislative lawmakers to make national security decisions, and to likewise protect our national security from all enemies foreign and domestic. The voters did not elect the New York Times to unilaterally usurp any governmental decisions, let alone those of critical national security. The Times' decisions to divulge all in the top-secret NSA surveillance and bank funds tracking programs place that organization squarely in the domestic enemies camp, in my considered opinion. That the Times later admitted it erred in the second case cuts no slack whatever with me. Thank God America still has a Supreme Court with a preponderance of common sense that allows the government to protect the citizens of this country. And pray to God that the voters, through our elected officials, never allow the press to create an alternate universe where "fake but true" documents and sources are promoted to subvert the will of the people.

Go Smart, Go Cold, Go Strong

The rebuilding of Iraq in the aftermath of the US-led coalition overthrow of Saddam Hussein is not going well, to say the least. Hopes were high in 2003 that a democracy in the heart of the arab Middle East would bring centuries-needed change to this area of the world. The high hopes have given way to the reality that in the Islamic arab world sectarian hatreds are deeper than the desire for peace, prosperity, and freedom of thought. Al Zarqawi's dream of sparking a Sunni-Shiite war is on the verge of fruition, helped along by the likes of Muqtada Al Sadr, the Shiite warlord who allegedly ordered the murder of rival cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei. Instead of going after the boy cleric when the chances were high that the fallout would be manageable the coalition allowed itself to be swayed by those who said Sadr would calm down once he entered the political process. Well, Sadr entered the process and delivered to himself the prize of a prime minister who follows his commands.

The anti-American voices nipping at George W. Bush's heels for the past six years have succeeded in badgering his Administration into fighting a politically correct war, and today we see the results of this capitulation to the worldwide Left, that loose confederation of assorted special interest groups who control the ideological bulk of the mass media. The result is chaos in Iraq, a re-energized do nothing United Nations unwilling or unable to define "terrorism", and the prospect for total war in the very region of the world the president and his advisors wished to stabilize. The body blow for the Bush Administration for all their accommodation is a Democrat opposition majority set to take congressional power in January, which will quickly lead to open outcry --- with total support from Democrat-friendly media --- to abandon the job of introducing reforms to the arab Middle East, a precursor to stability. In short, Democrats, the Left, and terrorism now hold the upper hand in their separate but coincident desire to destroy a president who did the right thing for the right reasons.

Islamofascist terror is on the march in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East as well as Africa. What is the West to gain by allowing these destroyers of civilization to seize the initiative? The West and all civilized nations cannot believe for a moment that the zeal to neuter American leadership in the world will result in success against enemies who recognize no limit to barbarism. By enabling Islamofascist forces through the mass media's unrelenting focus on the real and alleged errors by the coalition the Left have elevated the quest for political power above security, a prescription for even more brutal future war against the foes we're now fighting. No sane observer believes that once America and the allies withdraw from Iraq the Islamic fundamentalists will decide that reasonable methods for settling their non-negotiable political demands will be the order of the day.

However, all is not lost; the coalition and those throughout the world who still believe in freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree politically with those in power can and must present a new plan to rally the cause. The 2006 recruitment rate for the Army is near an all-time high, as well as the retention rate for those already serving. The desire by young Americans to protect our way of life speaks to their intelligence as much as to their courage and patriotism. These brave young men and women understand very well that the same demands for Sharia law in Western European countries foreshadow the same demands that will echo in America in due time, should we forget the enemy we're fighting. Even with the onslaught of negative press for the past several years our military, new and seasoned troops, have kept their focus on the need to win this war even as the elected and chattering class naysayers have lost their will to to fight, if it was ever there in the first place.

The opportunity to win lies in finally admitting that terrorism is a tactic; the enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. The opportunity is to put aside any pretense to political correctness and assert that the civilized world is fighting an enemy with several faces but only one identity --- militant Islam. Ask yourself: Since 9/11 how many leading Islamic clerics, either Sunni or Shiite, have you seen or heard denouncing terrorism? Very few if any, should your experience be similar to mine. In nearly every case of alleged denunciation of terror one hears a low-level spokesman for Islamic clerics equivocating while the imams hide behind a studied wall of silence. In fact, by their failure to condemn and denounce terrorism these many years the clerics and scholars have tacitly approved mass barbarity as a valid means of resistance. It appears that Hell will freeze over before a critical mass of prominent Islamic clerics and scholars assembles to declare that the wanton slaughter of innocents and non-combatants is against the religion of Mohammed. As for the assertions that a forceful and dynamic debate is going on within mosques throughout the world regarding terrorism? Put aside that propaganda; the masses of moslems who wish to live in peace and freedom are silenced by the same terrorists who speak on their behalf. The anecdotal evidence is the dearth of prominent Islamic clerics unequivocally condemning terrorism and the companion Islamic tenet that all unbelievers are second-class human beings in every respect. Therefore, by failing to clearly articulate that Islam condemns the barbarity it practices Islamic leaders must bear the brunt of blame for what has and is transpiring now in Iraq and elsewhere throughout region.

The Bush Administration attempted to keep religious ideologies out of the war equation from the outset but that, as much as any policy decision, has led to the current stalemate. The time is now for the Administration to demand that leading Islamic clerics and scholars speak out firmly and unequivocally against terrorism that takes far more moslem lives than the lives of infidels. (That word --- infidel --- is the religious equivalent of the "N-word" if you care to think about it.) The president and our allied leaders should demand this gesture as preliminary groundwork for the messy job ahead; and shouldn't moslems be required to adhere to minimal standards of humanity? Were the fault line of the war really the Israel-Palestinian conflict a political solution would have been achieved years ago. The stark truth is that militant Islam has been at war for decades with societies who have nothing to do with the aforementioned conflict. What's the reason for Islamic terrorism in Kashmir, or Sudan where a slow-motion genocide is now taking place? Zionism? Sheesh! There is no end to the list of grievances that Islamic terrorists belabor to justify their underlying motive of the worldwide dominance of strict Islamic Sharia.

The recent media buzz is about the Pentagon's Go Big, Go Long, Go Home options for Iraq. Go Big: an infusion of thousands more troops. Go Long, pare down troop levels but be prepared to stay in the region for years. Go Home, quit the fight completely. There are three options, for sure; win by staying on the offensive and jettisoning the politically correct war fighting strategy, withdraw from the battle and lose to fight a much larger war in the future, and partition of various Middle Eastern countries along tribal and religious lines.

The allies must know that to withdraw from the fight will lead to more horrendous bloodshed than can be imagined in the Middle East. The only decision, based upon events that have overtaken the original blueprint for peace and prosperity, is to ratchet up the effort and to announce beforehand that henceforth there will be no accommodation with those who seek to stall our offensive. The decision to leave Sadr free to raise his armed militia mirrors the decision to leave Fallujah alone until events forced the US to take the city. Now it's time for the US to take down Sadr, and if his Iranian supporters step in the decision to wipe out their nuclear enrichment facilities should swiftly follow. If the allies invaded Iraq to ensure no WMD technology fell into the hands of our enemies why on earth would they allow WMD programs to go forward in a country whose leader has publicly called for the annihilation of Israel? Did the West learn nothing from Hitler's public statements prior to his launching Blitzkrieg and the Final Solution?

The allies find themselves caught in the middle of impending sectarian warfare in Iraq, and this sectarian war could easily spread to other countries in the region. Why not make that threat a bargaining chip in dealing with moslem countries in the region? Why spare the fence-sitting Islamic states who want the allies to do their dirty work of deposing Saddam and disarming Iran but support the madrassas network that raises and nurtures Islamic terrorists by the tens of thousands? If the arab Middle East cannot or will not rein in their Islamic fundamentalists who wage war on the rest of humanity then why not explain to them in terms they will understand that the war will soon be on their soil? It goes without saying that given Al Zarqawi's success in sparking the Iraqi Sunni-Shiite killings one needn't be a rocket scientist to know that Al Qaeda has this planned for every country in the region.

The best policy for the allies now is to give our friends and enemies alike the clear message that the war against Islamofacism will go one of three ways according to their response to the crisis. One, it will go the way the allies originally hoped, with the introduction of political reform and freedom of thought, with the hot pursuit of those obstructing us including Sadr, Bashir Assad, and the Iranian-Hizbollah-Hamas theocrats if need be. Two, the sectarian war will spread throughout the region, with moslem murdering moslem on a grander scale than is the case in Iraq should the coalition decide to withdraw on a slow timetable. Three, partition of Iraq and the partition of several other countries in the region along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines. There certainly are options the coalition of the willing have once we ditch the politically-correct shackles we've allowed to subvert our policies. What remains to be seen is if our leaders have the will to choose those options.

Sen. Obama Ashamed of White Heritage?

The Clintons and their allies in the mainstream media are wasting no time installing Hillary as the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nominee. It's all but a done deal right now, listening to the compliant media spin the story. As detailed in my last editorial the Clinton political machine is sweeping away all opposition within Democratic ranks to their unchallenged supremacy in party affairs.

The Clinton-friendly media are now busy setting the public up for an alleged Hillary vs. Obama contest for the right to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Actually, the race has already been all but formalized and whatever else transpires --- short of a political earthquake --- we'll see Hillary Clinton as the nominee with Barack Obama the vice-presidential nominee on the ticket. This is not rocket science; Obama is useful as a counterweight to the possibility that Condoleezza Rice might end up on the Republican ticket in 2008. His meager record in national office leads one to assume that Sen. Obama's merely window dressing/eye candy for a party base willing to vote personalities instead of policy considerations.

Most troublesome for many people is the media's all-consuming zeal to portray Sen. Obama as an "authentic" black politician, as if the color of his skin has to pass press scrutiny. Can you think of any other black Democrat who has to establish his "blackness"? The recent Obama trip to Africa, his father's native continent, is a case in point. The media reported on his itinerary the way a presidential state visit is covered, loaded with gushing portrayals of the senator's "Africanness" via his father and paternal family. The Chicago Tribune published a special edition devoted to the African tour which all but coronated the freshman senator as political royalty, and one recent national publication deemed Obama as the most important Illinois politician since Abraham Lincoln, if you can believe it.

Barack Obama's father divorced his white mother when the senator was two years old. Little or nothing in the way of the boy's contact with his father after that is available in published accounts, although I believe I read one account which said the young man briefly visited his father once in Kenya. The young Obama, after his mother's remarriage to an Indonesian student, went to live with his white maternal grandparents during his formative years. Little or nothing has been written about the senator's white family, who raised and nurtured him to adulthood. Little wonder then that Democratic powerbrokers and the media are anxious to solidify Obama's "blackness" via his ties to his Kenyan origins, since from what biographical information is available points to his primary de facto "whiteness".

And this leads to the very point of this exercise: Why are Democrats, the media, and Obama himself so intent on hiding his white family from view? For the next two years as the media and Democrats portray Sen. Obama as the black political icon of their party will nothing of his whiteness be revealed to the general public? Will no Sunday edition fluff magazine spreads be printed --- replete with multiple photos of the senator and his white family at various stages of his life? The fact that no such photojournalism/newspaper/media accounts have been produced to date leads me to suspect the worst; namely, that the media is refusing to acknowledge that the American meltingpot has brought forth a black national political figure more white than he is black, at least as far as his formative environment is concerned. From birth to young adulthood Sen. Barack Obama's background by all appearances is middle-class white; from young adulthood and beyond he seems to have carefully crafted a black biographical profile. Again, as if one had to be crafted.

How does this play into the Clintons' machinations? In a nutshell, the moment Sen. Obama is perceived to be a real threat to Hillary's presidential candidacy the media will at once begin to detail the very same biographical sketch I have, with the attendant media "questions" that will suddenly surround Obama's authentic blackness. As long as he compliantly follows the script that the Clinton machine and the media have written for him Barack Obama will surely be the party's vice-presidential nominee in 2008. The minute he begins to believe that same media hype about his being a viable presidential candidate will be the minute his political star will dim, starting with the dismantling of his carefully crafted, one-sided biographical/racial background.

Senator Obama is the product of a black African father and a white American mother from Kansas. He is entitled to be proud of his heritage, as every human being is entitled to be proud of his or her own heritage. When one aspect of history is downplayed or devalued, however, it leads to the suspicion that political manipulation is manifest. The public has been reading and hearing a lot about the senator's African heritage; is there any reason for him and his handlers to believe he has anything to be ashamed about in his white American heritage?

Regarding Iraq, Mr. President

Before America invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein a freshman senator from New York stood on the Senate floor waving a copy of Newsday with large, bold headlines BUSH KNEW!, implying that you, Mr. President, had prior knowledge of the impending 9/11 attack and permitted it to take place. You should have known at that moment that the adage "politics stops at the water's edge" was no longer part of America's political rules. The tragic and shocking fact is that today in America the pursuit of political power --- in some quarters --- trumps all other considerations, including the safety and lives of our men and women in uniform as well as the citizens of this country.

How else does one explain that the rhetoric from both your political opponents and Al Qaeda is identical in nearly every respect? How else does one explain the reprehensible claims by your would-be political assassins that they were deliberately tricked into voting for the Iraq War? A principled political opposition would have admitted they were operating under the same assumptions and intelligence as were Republicans; a principled political opposition would have challenged the military strategy instead of ripping at the hearts of our troops by comparing them to the Waffen SS and seeking to undermine their morale by piping National Public Radio into their midst every single day.

Mr. President, you waited far too long to replace your White House press secretary. By the time you appointed the articulate Tony Snow the so-called mainstream media --- joined at the hip with the Democratic National Committee --- had eroded your support among the electorate. Millions of voters, waiting in vain for you to forcefully respond to your war critics, had already made up their minds to vote for Democrats by the time you finally decided to accurately describe "a vote for Democrats is a vote for Al Qaeda". And now, only days after the Democrats' election success, Al Qaeda is indeed trumpeting the election as their own great political and military victory.

This election year the increased insurgent attacks that resulted in the increased American military deaths, coordinated with increased mainstream media/DNC charges of your alleged failure in Iraq resulted in a perfect storm which swamped Republicans and now leave all of the world vulnerable to political surrender more dangerous than the one engineered by the Democrat/media capitulationists during the Vietnam War. You are the only one now capable of rallying your support at this juncture, Mr. President, and you should take every opportunity to contrast your courage in confronting Islamic extremism with the cut-and-run policies advocated by Democrats and wobbly Republicans.

You must take every opportunity afforded you to warn that once America withdraws from the fight against Islamic terrorists in Iraq and the Middle East the battleground will shift to Europe and that an America under the sway of isolationist, defeatist Democrats will not assist them in their survival. And it's absolutely necessary for you to point out that the media's strategy today that is designed to weaken and destroy American resolve is identical to the strategy employed during the Nixon years. Make no mistake, Mr. President; once your supporters have been demoralized your impeachment will be the next order of business for Democrats.

You are the spokesman for those of us here in America and around the world --- free and oppressed, of all faiths and persuasions --- who alone can use your bully pulpit to reverse the tide of defeat now surging against us here and abroad. Your supporters only await the same steadfast resolve you've shown in times of crisis; your critics in political circles, the media, and especially the terrorists, fear nothing more than an American president willing to espouse the reasons why we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and why we will continue to wage this just and worthy war against those who would attack us due to our belief that the rights and freedoms of all individuals as embodied in our American constitution are God-given.

You must adopt the strategy of responding to every media-promoted attack against your policies within twelve hours, and you must be the one who steps forward to respond instead of leaving that task for others. Your physical presence must by necessity crowd the nightly news broadcasts in defense of your Iraq policy and other policies designed to make this a safer world. As an example, you might have shed your humility when North Korea relinquished and said it would return to the six-party talks by stepping to the White House podium and stating that this vindicated your Asian policy instead of allowing the media to ignore your foreign policy success.

You must contrast our willingness to fight against terrorism with the appeasers' unwillingness to confront evil. You must continue to highlight those who, against all evidence, contend that "dialogue" with our enemies and eventual surrender will somehow achieve a world at peace as the political and amoral heirs to Neville Chamberlain's failed policy of surrender to tyranny.

Finally, when congressional hearing are held on the decision to wage war in Iraq your Administration must demand sworn testimony from Democrats who shared in the decision-making process and see to it that each and every lie promulgated by Democrats and the media are exposed. America must be on offense against not only the terrorists but also against those who at every turn have enabled terrorists to succeed politically.

America and the world are hoping and praying that in our time of shared danger you will be the leader we believe you are. Our fate is in your hands, Mr. President; now more than ever.

Dear Mr. President

The election returns are in; Republicans have lost the majority in both the House and Senate for the first time in twelve years. Whatever previous reciprocal arrangements you may have had with Republican leaders in both houses of congress to stay out of each others' spheres of power are now null and void. If you are to salvage your legacy it is now up to you, and you alone, to seize that opportunity. It will do you no good to look for help from those who are now assuring you that if you only "go along" with the new majority's policies your place in history will be viewed in a positive light. Those are false voices, Mr. President.

Your party did not lose the 2006 election only because of the war in Iraq; Sen. Lieberman won re-election while so-called conservatives drafted by Democrats also won. Republicans lost, Mr. President, in large part through the refusal of many in the GOP, including you, to recognize how deeply the American people resent the invasion of illegal aliens that your administration has been so reluctant to prevent. It's true that illegal immigration is a sticky issue, but attempting to secure votes with a "path to citizenship" scheme was properly read by the majority of Americans as yet another blank check to be cashed in the future by non-citizens setting foot on our land in defiance of our law who will then demand "reform" which includes amnesty.

You can begin today to rebuild your party and your legacy by refusing to approve any congressional bill which would grant amnesty to illegal aliens. The massive, undocumented flow of people across our borders presents the most visible and immediate threat to national security; taking emergency steps to quell the invasion would assure the citizens of America that you're as committed to protecting the nation's security as you were on the day the World Trade Center was destroyed.

There is absolutely no defense for you to fall back on in allowing dozens upon dozens of hospitals and emergency rooms across America to close due to the financial holocaust forced upon them by the cost of treating people in this country illegally. These medical establishments no longer exist for the common good of your fellow citizens, Mr. President. You and others who have forced unfunded mandates upon the various states and local communities have no defense in allowing the status quo to continue. None, Mr. President.

While school districts beg for more funding your administration continues to burden them with the ruinous cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants. Those who advocate the same failed amnesty policies of your predecessors have no defense for telegraphing to other countries that they can solve their economic problems by dumping those problems onto the people of the United States; and you surely undermine the trust of those who voted you into office by ignoring a policy that tells them that children of illegal immigrants are due a free education at the taxpayers' expense. Wouldn't it be morally right and politically savvy for Republicans to advocate financial relief for our own citizens living in poverty while at the same time securing our borders against the ongoing invasion of those who have no right to be here?

Therefore, Mr. President, when immigration reform again becomes the issue of the day stand firm with the majority of Americans who demand that America's domestic and financial security be safeguarded. Refuse any immigration policy that is a real or perceived amnesty, for anything less will signal untold millions more outside our borders that the quickest path to citizenship and American largesse is by stepping over those patiently following our laws. Most galling to millions of us is seeing our government assisting the massive violation of our laws to the detriment of would-be immigrants patiently and lawfully following those same laws. The persistent problem of illegal immigration and the depth of America's feelings regarding the correct way to deal with it is something you cannot afford to misjudge again, Mr. President.