Barack will save us
From unemployment malaise
With clever taxing.

Barack will save us
From global warming danger -
He’ll lower the seas.

Barack will save us
From free market ravages
And give us free drugs.

Barack will saves us
From national default shame -
Call our Chinese friends.

Barack will save us
From Middle Eastern warfare -
Give them all the Jews.

Barack will save us
From judicial activists -
Send Prof Kagan in.

Barack will save us
From fat and lazy children
If Michelle has say.

Barack will save us
From Islamic terror threats
Trying Navy SEALS.

Barack will save us
From global low opinion
Bowing to despots.

Barack will save us
From Europe’s collapse sending
Them borrowed money.

Barack will save us
Ev’rybody sing along,
He’s the Chosen One.

All that being said,
Who will save us from Barack
And his Hope and Change?

Our country was yet again grievously wounded because of “free trade,” “tolerance,” and interventionism.

Would that the myriad soldiers — in Texas, of all places — had availed themselves of the duty to protect themselves and their comrades and loved ones by carrying concealed weapons, this comatose piece of excrement would have been dead after the first shot was fired.

I weep for the country that used to be the United States of America but which is now the United State of Aetna, indivisible, with tyranny, oppression, and “free” “healthcare” for all.

In one of the emails I received, the writer linked to this article by Debbie Schlussel, which purportedly proved that Robert Novak was an anti-Semite. What is notable about Ms. Schlussel’s post is its lack of links to anything that supports her numerous assertions. I suppose we are to take her word for it. This is surprisingly lazy given that if Bob Novak was, in fact, an anti-Semite, it should be easy enough to prove given that he made his living as a writer and television pundit. One would expect a profusion of links to articles and videos that prove her claims. Alas, Debbie does not so favor us. She does, however, provide a link to this “great piece,” written by a person who calls himself Sultan Knish.

Sultan Knish does provide a number of links to actual articles by Mr. Novak. Unfortunately, the Sultan’s clear bias shows through if one bothers to actually read those linked articles – an eventuality that Mr. Knish clearly assumes will not occur. His characterizations of Novak’s columns can hardly be considered accurate.

Consider, for instance, his first claim: Bob Novak was a Truther. In support of this allegation, he links to this piece, written two days after 9/11. In it, Novak draws a number of distinctions between the attacks on 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the comparison that was being bandied about at the time. Essentially the piece remarks that most security experts had been so confident that a hijacking was impossible that they were speculating that the terrorists had help on the inside. This supposition had come in light of a decade-long period where not a single airline had been hijacked in the United States. It was reasonable, it seemed at the time, to think that the security measures in place, which had been so successful for so long, were not to blame for the success of the attacks. Indeed, we see echoes of this today when people point to the Patriot Act and remark that it has been a rousing success because there has not been an Islamic attack on U.S. soil in nearly eight years. When the eventual attack does come, people may well suspect, not that the measures in the Patriot Act were insufficient, but that the terrorists had help circumventing the measures. What is remarkable is that nowhere in the article does Novak endorse the notion that the government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11.

Novak later goes on to note that many people were dismayed by the surprise nature of the attacks – that the United States failed to develop any advanced warning through its intelligence organs. In the days following the attacks, it was unknown exactly who was responsible. Indeed, President Bush had recently addressed the American people without ever naming a culprit even though there were early indications that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack – or at least some faction of his organization. At the time, the location of bin Laden was unknown to the government, but it was known that he had been sheltering in Afghanistan. Novak (rightly, it turned out) predicted that a military strike on Afghanistan would not be effective in killing bin Laden, who had likely already vacated the area. Novak decried the policies that had so gutted the CIA that an assassination attempt on bin Laden, which might have proved the most effective way of dealing with him, had been ruled out by previous administrations and left the CIA in a position where it was impotent to act.

Finally, Novak wrote:

Perhaps the biggest difference with Pearl Harbor is the cause of the conflict. Bush’s eloquent call for unity talked of the need to “defend freedom.” Unlike Nazi Germany’s and Imperial Japan’s drive for a new world order, however, the hatred toward the U.S. by the terrorists is an extension of its hatred of Israel rather than world dominion. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s laudable efforts at being an even-handed peacemaker makes no difference to terrorists. Stratfor.com, the private intelligence company, reported Tuesday: “The big winner today, intentionally or not, is the state of Israel.” Whatever distance Bush wanted between U.S. and Israeli policy, it was eliminated by terror. The spectacle on television of Palestinian youths and mothers dancing in the streets of East Jerusalem over the slaughter of Americans will not soon be forgotten. The United States and Israel are brought ever closer in a way that cannot improve long-term U.S. policy objectives.

Sultan Knish spins this statement into a passage where Novak says the “real problem is Israel” instead of the “Muslim terrorists,” which led to the attack. This is not at all what Novak was saying here. Previous efforts had been made (notably by Colin Powell) to bring peace to the Middle East, but with an invasion of Afghanistan on the horizon, whether the United States intended to or not, it would be perceived as having taken sides – a role that the mediator cannot assume. In that sense, if a mediated peace was the goal (a long-term U.S. policy objective), that goal was unachievable from the moment that the airliners flew into the side of the first tower. Osama bin Laden made it inevitable that America would side with Israel against a common enemy to the detriment of any hope at a meditated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The Sultan of Spin then says this: “Four days later Novak continued his theme of a Washington D.C. churning with “Frustrated War Fever“, painting Republicans as desperate to irrationally bomb Afghanistan into a “parking lot”. Novak instead treated any attempt to go after the terrorists as recklessly dangerous and likely to offend Muslims.” In fact, this was not Novak’s argument. On word from a Republican Senator with close ties to the Defense Department that the United States would likely “bomb Afghanistan into a parking lot,” Novak expressed concerns that a) such a strategy would be unlikely to bring justice to bin Laden, who intelligence experts all agreed had likely already vacated Kabul, and b) would alienate the global community from whom Bush was attempting to garner support as his father had done in the first Gulf War. The emphasis was not on avoiding offense to Muslims, as Mr. Knish mendaciously wrote, but on securing the support of allies in the fight against al Qaeda, which would likely be undermined by an indiscriminate bombing campaign.

He then assigns fault for a short segment of a column in which Novak wrote that Yasser Arafat, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the impending response from the United States was nervous about his safety. In fact, the entire portion concerning Arafat was as follows:

The anxiety felt by Yasser Arafat immediately after Sept. 11 was enhanced when Jordan’s King Abdullah for days refused to return the Palestinian leader’s telephone calls, according to intelligence sources. Abdullah’s cold shoulder contributed to Arafat’s fears that he was being isolated and separated from responsible Arab leaders, making him a possible target of U.S. military reprisals. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sought to put him in precisely that position by publicly calling Arafat “another bin Laden.” Responding to his danger, Arafat sought to join the global anti-terrorist coalition. His orders to Palestinian fighters not to shoot back even if the Israelis shoot first reflected concern about being targeted by Washington.

How this is a sign that Novak is an Islamic apologist or terrorist supporter is beyond me. This blurb neither lends support to nor justifies Arafat’s tactics against Israel. Indeed, Novak’s language, “he was being isolated and separated from responsible Arab leaders,” strongly suggests that Novak did not view Arafat as a responsible Arab leader. How this is construed as support for Arafat is beyond me given that it says just the opposite.

Novak is also charged with suggesting early on that General Tommy Franks was not up to the task of leading the invasion of Afghanistan. Eight years later, American troops are still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Osama bin Laden is still at large. Franks was removed from command in Iraq in 2003 because he failed to appreciate the nature of the enemy he fought. It seems Novak was right in this regard.

Finally Mr. Knish points to a conference moderated by Novak at which bona fide anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan was invited. Also present at that conference were Jack Kemp (lauded for his fight against anti-Semitism); Christopher Dodd (who recently was given an award for his battle against anti-Semitism); and John Kasich (who doesn’t appear to be linked to any Semitism either pro or anti that I can find). Why is it that two of the three persons named above can attend a conference and be lauded for their support for Israel, but for another it is proof that they hate Jews? Does that even make sense? Surely if Robert Novak was as evil a Jew-hater as Mr. Knish alleges, there would be statements like those made by Farrakhan that would remove any doubt. Those appear not to exist.

He goes on with a number of other distortions that are apparent if one takes the time to actually click the links. I didn’t agree with all of Novak’s positions – his fondness for granting illegal immigrants amnesty comes immediately to mind – but to take this scant evidence to condemn the man as an anti-Semitic, Jew-hating Nazi is shameful.

In this interview (also cited as evidence of Novak’s hatred of Jews), Novak states very clearly that he does not hate Jews. Charlie Rose asks Novak for his views on Israel beginning at 32:39.

The pertinent exchange is as follows:

CHARLIE ROSE: Israel.

ROBERT NOVAK: Israel. We—the “Evans and Novak” columns—we ran hundreds of columns critical of Israel, all of them written by Rolly Evans. But I agreed with him. I`ve written a few columns on Israel since Rolly retired and I was writing the column myself, but not nearly as many. Rolly became very committed on the issue.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, I want to talk about today.

ROBERT NOVAK: Today, I believe that—that—that Israel—it`s in Israel`s best interest to make an agreement in the Middle East. I`m very happy that the President is at least giving lip service to trying again to move toward a Middle East agreement. I think that`s been one of the great failings of this Administration. I’ve been to Israel each of the last two years. I think that the—that the time is ripe. The conditions are correct for a negotiated settlement. And—and it is—it will take an enormous amount of courage.

CHARLIE ROSE: There are people in the Israeli community who believe you`re anti-Israel.

ROBERT NOVAK: I`m not. I want Israel to survive. And I believe—I believe Israel is in an enormous amount of difficulty right now. It has a very weak government. I think they have—I think the—the war in Lebanon was a disaster. They thought they were going to crush Hezbollah, and they didn`t. So I believe it is time for peace, and I think there`s elements in the Palestinian community who feel the same way….

CHARLIE ROSE: Is it hard for a journalist to criticize Israel?

ROBERT NOVAK: Well, you suffer if you do. I think.

CHARLIE ROSE: Have you suffered?

ROBERT NOVAK: Oh, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: How have you suffered?

ROBERT NOVAK: I lost papers because of it. Advertisers dropped their—threatened newspapers. They did drop the Evans and Novak column that—

CHARLIE ROSE: But the Evans and Novak column is history. I`m talking about today, today.

ROBERT NOVAK: But that is history. You say, is it hard to criticize Israel? Yes. And I have suffered because of it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that issue out in the open now more than it was?

ROBERT NOVAK: No. I think it`s still—

CHARLIE ROSE: The Israeli lobby has too much influence on American foreign policy?

ROBERT NOVAK: I think it has a lot of influence.

CHARLIE ROSE: Too much?

ROBERT NOVAK: Yes, I felt it has too much, and I believe that the—the—that the—both parties now are so committed to trying to get the Jewish community in support—it`s a very small community in numbers, but large in financial support and influence—that it`s very hard to take these positions.

A point should be made that simply because a person is not a Zionist does not mean that he hates Jews or even Israel. As Novak said in the interview with Rose, he was not anti-Semitic and he wanted Israel to survive. Nonetheless, he expressed concern particularly for Christian Palestinians. Unfortunately it seems that any expression of sympathy for the Palestinians, support for a two-state solution, or tepidness about Zionism is equated with and proof of anti-Semitism. One writer even objected to Novak’s referring to leaders of Hamas as “people” in a Capitol Gang episode in 2001. The race-baiting vitriol poured out on Robert Novak by ardent Zionists would make Al Sharpton blush.

In the end, I cannot be inside Novak’s head and do not know the innermost workings of his heart. What I do know is that the columns and videos above do not show a person with a deep-seated hatred of Jews. On the other hand, it is apparent that some Jews harbor a deep-seated hatred of Novak, which is curious.

Edward McMahon, whose famous laugh on the couch next to Johnny Carson’s desk made Americans chuckle along, was an entertainer, father of six, and a retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel. (He would later receive the rank of Brigadier General in the California Air Guard.) Having enlisted in the Navy in 1942, Ed studied flight in Texas, Georgia, and eventually at Pensacola, where he completed his Naval Aviator flight training and received a commission as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. He was denied the opportunity to fly in Pacific combat because the exigencies of the service demanded that his superlative skills (particularly at landing on the flight decks of aircraft carriers) be better used to train new aviation cadets, teaching in the famous Vaught Corsairs and Wildcats. Ed was discharged in 1946, but was reactivated during the Korean Conflict. He flew unarmed OE-1 Birddogs as a forward air controller/artillery spotter. He flew 85 missions. He was awarded the Air Medal for meritorious conduct while engaged in aerial service 6 different times. The OE-1 Birddog was an unarmed aircraft. The average return rate during the Korean Conflict for FAC/AS pilots was less than half. Ed stayed on in the Marine Corps reserve, retiring in 1966.

Ed has slipped the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God. Rest in Peace, General McMahon.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

On this Independence Day, it is instructive to take a moment and revisit those causes and reflect on the state of freedom today:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We owe these men a debt of gratitude for their bravery and passion for freedom. A summary of their complaint could be that the King of England, from whom the States derived their charters had, over time, reneged on his obligations under the charters to allow the colonies to govern themselves in accordance with the Charters. He abdicated his role over the colonies to the Parliament wherein the colonists were unrepresented, save by the King himself. In short, the colonists found themselves to be continually more bound by a distant government in which their voices fell on deaf ears. The role of the State increased and, as a result, the ability to govern one’s own affairs waned.

It was under these burdens that these men made the wrenching decision to throw aside their King and their security as British subjects and to undertake the frightening prospect of creating a fledgling nation in a hostile world. Newly-minted “Americans” rose to the challenge and fought for themselves, their families, and their neighbors so that men could live lives free from the oppression of an overweening, distant government. From that day to today, we pause on July 4 to honor their courage and remember what they fought for and to pray that God continues to bless this nation, conceived in liberty, with His continued Providence. We so pray today.

After the war, Mr. Albury worked for Eastern Airlines as a pilot and trainer.  He is survived by his wife Roberta.  In memorializing her husband she remarked “My husband was a hero. He saved one million people … He sure did do a lot of praying.”

Rest in peace, Mr. Charles Donald Albury.

Lux will be missed.  He was 62.