A couple of changes

I've made a couple of small changes to the blog that you may have noticed. First of all, I've caved in and joined the world of Twitter. There's so much good hockey chat on there as the playoffs progress, and I wanted to be a part of it. So now at the top of the blog you will see my last few tweets, and there's also a spot to click on if you want to follow me on Twitter as @timdroogsma.

Secondly, I've added a couple of buttons to the right that allow you to share posts that you find interesting or that you agree with. The lower one (in blue) allows you to repost one of my blog entries to your own Facebook page, while the top one lets you express approval/agreement with a post and share it on the new Google+ application (which I'm still trying to learn more about). Use as you see fit, and as always, thanks so much for checking out Tim Droogsma's blog. Every reader is appreciated!

A new Kennedy assassination twist

I've written a few times before about being a JFK assassination "buff," although that might be too strong a word. But I've read and written quite a bit about it (Oswald did it alone, and every other theory is crap...a phrase I've used before) and I think I know a little more than the average schmoe about some of the odd characters and back-stories of the event.

But this week I picked up a little tidbit I knew nothing about. Like most people who've studied the assassination, I had seen this picture of Lee Harvey Oswald's gravestone in Shannon Rose Hill cemetery in Ft. Worth, Texas. In fact, during one of my visits to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, I had thought about trying to find the cemetery and the plain, simple marker, but I ended up taking a tour of the Texas Rangers' new ballpark instead.

Having such a plain marker always seemed appropriate to me. There was not much about Oswald's life to celebrate, the family was somewhat impoverished and there would be plenty of curiosity seekers as it was, without having something more ornate to attract them. I had seen pictures of his burial - news reporters had to be recruited as pallbearers - with just a few family members standing by, and the marker seemed to fit the situation.

But this week I learned that this is NOT Oswald's original grave marker. There was, in fact, a more ornate one placed at his grave a short time after his burial. Pictured here, the marker has followed a bizarre route from Shannon Rose to a museum on the interstate between Chicago and Madison.

You can read the entire story here, but in a nutshell, it goes like this: On the 4th anniversary of JFK's death, some teenagers dug up the stone and made off with it. It was recovered, and police returned it to Oswald's mother, Marguerite. Afraid that vandals would try to take it again, she had it replaced with the plain, one-word stone we have come to know as Oswald's grave marker. She then hid the original marker in the crawl space of her house, where it remained for many years.

After Marguerite's death, a family by the name of Card bought her house, and some time later an electrician found the stone in the house. Sometime in the mid-'80s, the Cards asked a relative to take the stone for safekeeping, and when that relative died, it apparently made its way into the hands of a step-cousin of the Cards. That step-cousin apparently sold it to a fellow named Wayne Lensing, who operates an auto museum in Roscoe, Illinois, near the Wisconsin border. Lensing has all kinds of JFK-related memorabilia in his museum, including the uniform worn by the officer who arrested Oswald in the Texas theater. The web site for his museum is www.historicautoattractions.com.

The Card family alleges that the step-cousin had no right to sell the stone, and ownership will eventually be settled by the courts, I suppose. In the meantime, I was just excited to learn an additional piece of JFK history, and knowing that it's just a few hours away, I think I'll have to make a trip to Roscoe pretty soon.

Am I smarter than a four-year-old?

There are plenty of folks who think that question is open to debate, so we're going to try a little test. The Stanley Cup Playoffs start tonight, and here to make predictions for the first round is my four-year-old granddaughter, Anne, also known as "The Smartest Little Girl in the Universe." As you will see in the video, she knows her hockey, loves her Wild and - like most people with a brain - dislikes the Canucks. We're going to go head-to-head on the first round and see who comes up with the most correct picks.

In the East, Anne's going with New York, Boston, Florida and Pittsburgh, while in the West she's picking L.A., St. Louis, Phoenix and Detroit.

We're going to differ a bit, because I'm picking New York, Boston, New Jersey and Pittsburgh in the East, while taking Vancouver, San Jose, Phoenix and Nashville in the West. We'll pick again in the second round, but if I had to pick one team right now to go all the way, I'd put my money on Pittsburgh.

Game on.

The battle over voter ID

The legislature has done its work, and Minnesotans will get a chance this November to vote on whether the state constitution should be amended to require voters to present photo ID at the pols. Every indication is that it will pass handily.

What's been interesting to me about the debate is how it has changed my mind on the subject. If you had asked me a couple of years ago if Democrats engaged in organized, systematic election fraud, I would have said "no." Oh, sure, I would have said, Minnesota's same-day registration system is a little loose, but there's probably a little bit of game-playing on both sides, and probably all they do is cancel each other out.

But now, after watching Democrats absolutely wet themselves over Photo ID legislation in various states, I've come to this conclusion: They must have been cheating all these years, or they wouldn't be putting up such a fight.

Think about it. Why would the left put so much time, money and energy into fighting a common-sense reform that is supported by (according to virtually every poll) somewhere around 70-80% of Americans?

Voter suppression? That's a laughable objection, given the fact that photo ID is needed for so many everyday transactions in modern life. Anyone who wants a government-issued ID can get one with minimal effort and the notion that doing so presents an insurmountable barrier to voting is an argument that cannot be taken seriously.

After watching the left's hissy fits, the only conclusion I can come to is that they realize they are about to lose an illegal advantage they have enjoyed all of these years: The ability to fraudulently cast votes and steal elections.

Today comes word (read the entire story here) of the Indiana Democrat party officials who have been charged with conspiracy and forgery, involving a 2008 case in which they are accused of forging signatures - including using the rubber stamp of a member of the Board of Voter Registration - just to get Barack Obama's name on the ballot. If they are willing to go to these lengths just to get someone on the ballot, imagine what they'll do to win an election.

And again, as proof of how lax the current system is, watch this video of someone walking into a Washington, D.C. polling place and being given a primary ballot that rightly belonged to the Attorney General of the United States. Not only is he NOT asked for an I.D., but when he offers to present one, he's told it isn't needed. The video is here.

As I said, even in Minnesota - where no one seriously believes Al Franken legitimately won his U.S. Senate seat - I would not have suspected ongoing, long-term efforts by the Democrats were in place to steal elections. Now, they've convinced me of their guilt.

He really IS this stupid!

We've been arguing in this space for several years now that the president just isn't nearly as bright as his worshipers give him credit for being. (There's a nice summary of the evidence here.) This week he proved once and for all what an intellectual lightweight he is when he attacked the Supreme Court.

Last week the Court heard arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law known as "Obamacare." While it's difficult to predict what the Court will do on any issue, most legal observers feel there is a strong likelihood that the core of Obamacare - a regulation known as the "individual mandate," which would require every American to purchase health insurance - will be struck down as unconstitutional.

This would be a disaster for the Obama administration, now facing an increasingly uphill re-election fight. They consider Obamacare their crowning achievement, and if the law is thrown out, what can they base their re-election campaign on? Higher gas prices? Bankrupt "green energy" companies? Unemployment? Home foreclosures?Record budget deficits? Trillions in additional federal debt?

They really, really need Obamacare to survive the court challenge, or they have nothing to show for three-plus years in office, so on Monday the President decided to take a shot at influencing the Supreme Court by saying:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

This is stupidity on stilts. First, there is nothing "unprecedented" about the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress. The Court's right to do that was established in 1803, in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision, a decision that pretty much every 7th-grade history student learns about. Since that time, the Court has overturned any number of laws on constitutional grounds.

Second, Obamacare was NOT passed by a "strong majority" in Congress (it passed by just seven votes in the House, 219-212) and it wouldn't matter if it had passed unanimously. If a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional no matter how many people voted for it. One of the left's favorite Court decisions, Roe v. Wade, stuck down a law that was "passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected" legislature.

These are points that should be obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Constitution, yet they seemed to escape a man who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago! Apparently at the U of C, just as in his current position, he was an unqualified diversity hire.

Tuesday the President seemed to realize how stupid he had sounded on Monday, and tried to back away from his comment by saying, "We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal."

Strike two, Mr. Constitutional scholar. What he referred to as "Lochner" was a case known as Lochner v. New York, and it was not decided in the '30, it was decided in 1905. And since then, the court has decided countless cases that dealt with economic issues. Just one recent example came in 2010, when the court overturned portions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act dealing with financial regulation.

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, I never attended law school and there are any number of people that will be happy to tell you I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree. But the fact that - armed only with some fuzzy memories from high school history class - I understand the function of the Supreme Court better than the President of the United States does should give you a pretty good hint that he's really, really in over his head in his current job.

UPDATE: The great fellows Powerline have done an even better takedown, complete with a headline I wish I'd thought of: Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus. You can read it here.

"Journalism" at NBC

Nobody is really draping themselves in glory with their behavior in the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman case. My two initial impressions are that Zimmerman was probably a little overzealous in his "neighborhood watch" activities and got in over his head. Ditto for Martin, who apparently has some history of violence, but didn't plan on his victim being armed.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, of course, raced in to again demonstrate that they are both cancers on society, promoting the peculiar notion that when a Hispanic guy and a black guy get into a fight, it's proof of white racism.

But the winner so far in the race to the bottom is NBC News, the same folks who a few years ago rigged up some explosives to "prove" that Chevy trucks were a fire hazard.

NBC got its hands on the tape of the 911 call Zimmerman made when he saw Martin wandering the neighborhood. Here's how NBC reported the call:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

But here's how the conversation actually happened:

Zimmerman: "We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."

911 Dispatcher: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

NBC did a quick cut-and-splice to make it appear that Zimmerman was "racially profiling" Martin, when in fact his observation about Martin's race was in response to a question from the 911 dispatcher.

NBC has announced an "internal investigation" into the deception. I can save them some time by simply giving them the results of that investigation now:

"NBC News is not interested in objective journalism, it's interested in promoting liberal points of view, and so the truth is bent every day to help leftist causes. This particular example is bad, because we got caught, but it's really not much different than what we do every day."

And that's all the "investigation" you need.

The right message, in the right place

I'm not Roman Catholic - in fact, I think it's safe to say that a number of my reformation-minded protestant ancestors had a strong antipathy towards the Catholic Church - but every since Pope John Paul II came along I've had a growing admiration of many things the church does, and an appreciation for the power of the papal pulpit.

That admiration grew today when Pope Benedict stood in Revolution Square in Havana, looked the leaders of communist Cuba in the eye and told the Old Testament story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who, as the Pope said, were "three young men persecuted by the Babylonian king (who) preferred to face death by fire rather than betray their conscience and their faith.”

That story had to cause a twinge of guilt in the Castro brothers and the rest of the thuggish Cuban government.

He then went on to tell the audience:

"Convinced that it is Christ who is the true measure of man, and knowing that in him we find the strength needed to face every trial, I wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. In him everyone will find complete freedom, the light to understand reality most deeply and to transform it by the renewing power of love.

"The Church lives to make others sharers in the one thing she possesses, which is none other than Christ, our hope of glory (cf. Col 1:27). To carry out this duty, she must count on basic religious freedom, which consists in her being able to proclaim and to celebrate her faith also in public, bringing to others the message of love, reconciliation and peace which Jesus brought to the world. It must be said with joy that in Cuba steps have been taken to enable the Church to carry out her essential mission of expressing her faith openly and publicly. Nonetheless, this must continue forwards, and I wish to encourage the country’s Government authorities to strengthen what has already been achieved and advance along this path of genuine service to the true good of Cuban society as a whole.

"The right to freedom of religion, both in its private and in its public dimension, manifests the unity of the human person, who is at once a citizen and a believer. It also legitimizes the fact that believers have a contribution to make to the building up of society. Strengthening religious freedom consolidates social bonds, nourishes the hope of a better world, creates favourable conditions for peace and harmonious development, while at the same time establishing solid foundations for securing the rights of future generations.

"When the Church upholds this human right, she is not claiming any special privileges for herself. She wishes only to be faithful to the command of her divine founder, conscious that, where Christ is present, we become more human and our humanity becomes authentic. This is why the Church seeks to give witness by her preaching and teaching, both in catechesis and in the schools and universities. It is greatly to be hoped that the moment will soon arrive when, here too, the Church can bring to the fields of knowledge the benefits of the mission which the Lord entrusted to her and which she can never neglect."

One of my long-time dreams is to travel to Cuba when it is again a free, open, democratic society, and I'm not at all certain I'll ever have that opportunity. But if I do, it will be - in part - because Pope Benedict had the courage to go to Havana and say these words to a people who have lived under heavy chains for more than half a century.