Spain's socialist government - which has in recent years abandoned the Catholic Church, imposed gay marriage and cowered before world terrorism - has now charged ahead as the flag-bearer of a novel monstrosity of confused and distorted liberal philosophy. Though it bristles with outrage that Spaniards still cling to the Catho-superstitious notions that a 9 month child-in-the-womb might dare apply for the human right of life, the Spanish government has gleeful proclaimed the inalienable "human rights" to life and liberty ... of apes.

Legislation expected to pass in the near future would ban the use of apes in circuses and film (dashing the dreams of aspiring primate actors everywhere). More alarmingly, the law would also prohibiting all forms of animal testing (producing hopeful glances from Reese's monkeys, whose contributions to the polio vaccination will likely earn them a national day of mourning and a Holocaust-style Museum of Remembrance). Zoos will be permitted to retain their primate population, but the latter must immediately be provided with basic cable and weekly conjugal visits from the neighboring urang-utans. (Note: The union of Spanish fighting bulls is expected to appeal for similar rights as soon as they evolve opposable thumbs.)

As a vegetarian of 12 years, who refrained from eating meat produced in industrial farms due to moral disagreement concerning the treatment of animals therein, I deeply sympathize with Spain's underlying motivation. However, the philosophical error which has inspired this legislation is an inability to distinguish humanity from the animal kingdom. Human rights extend from the peculiar claim of humanity to intellectual reason and moral consciousness - perhaps more properly referenced as the soul, the image of God. If reduced to mere physical constructs, humanity would differ from animals only in degrees of genetic faculty. Absent an appreciation of humanity's distinction, house-cats might be institutionalized for bad behavior and bug-zappers may become the moral equivalent of landmines.

Animals do not possess rights, save insofar as human responsibilities toward them may be so construed. The rights and responsibilities accorded to humanity reflect the dues and duties demanded by our unique nature. Spain's legislative apotheosis of primates may prove the first attempt to establish a sub-species of humanity.

... shall not be infringed!

Well, maybe.

The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional the D.C. law banning handguns. "The District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Scalia's majority opinion in the 5-4 decision divorces the right to bear arms from the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment, thereby tying an "individual right to possess and carry weapons" to an inherent right of self-defense. This profound interpretation provides the Court's first unequivocal decree on the 2nd Amendment.

However, the court cautions several limitations. First, just as it does not read the 1st Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose" (i.e., yelling fire in a theater), it likewise does not read the 2nd Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation." Restrictions will still be permitted with regard to felons, the mentally ill, school zones, etc.

Far more importantly, however, is the recognition that D.C. is a federal entity - not a state. And the Court seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment has not hereby been incorporated such that it applies to the states. Hence, the case may not provide binding precedent nearly anywhere else in the nation. We will have the right under the 2nd Amendment, but the Court may not enforce the amendment beyond the federal government. (This seeming injustice is actually constitutionally correct, as the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, but only to the federal government. However, as the Supreme Court has enforced other provisions of the bill of Rights on the states, it would seem arbitrary and unjust to deny this right - unless all other rights were similarly rescinded ... an unlikely event.)

Expect an explosion of litigation on this issue in the near future - and watch to see if the Court is eager to take up those cases and expound upon today's ruling.

Barack Obama has been overtly religious during the primary season, speaking openly of his Christian faith and the strong influence which it exerts over his actions. In small part, such professions were coerced via persistent e-mail traffic contending that Obama was a Muslim pen-pal of Bin-Ladin. Yet the unforced tenor and persistent legacy of Obama's religious statements defy a mere reactionary explanation, seeming rather to reflect a sincere conviction. It is this sincerity of belief which caused Obama such vulnerability in the Rev. Wright scandal. If Obama struck the public as disinterested in religious affairs, his happenstance attendance in a rather politically-incorrect black church might have been generally overlooked. It is exactly his admission to being influenced by religious doctrines which roused suspicion and offense.

Keeping the religious fires burning, James Dobson of Focus on the Family has launched a timely attack on Obama's theological musings. As mentioned previously on this site, Dobson rails against Obama's scriptural interpretations as conveniently-compatible with his liberal political agenda (as well as Obama's corollary, if not contrary, assertion that authoritative interpretations are impossible), and takes exception with Obama's call for religious voters to couch their arguments in "universal" language. While Dobson has been criticized by both academicians and ministers, he also speaks for a sizable evangelical block. Dobson believes either that Obama's reconciliation of liberalism and Christianity is insincere and politically motivated or that Obama's theological meanderings have simply strayed well beyond the permissible path.

Dobson is likely attempting to balance the scales following his recent disavowal of McCain. Lest any believe that distance from McCain indicated proximity to Obama, Dobson has now firmly pronounced the anathema of Obama. Dobson is a man without a country in the present election - and he'd rather fast than settle for second best. Yet, of course, political calculations aside, Dobson's remarks merit contemplation. Obama's religious judgment has already been called into question by his association with Rev. Wright. Might his partisan interpretation of religion for political support not also warrant inspection? If religious dimensions inspire and influence the presidential candidate, why should public expressions of religion be first translated into a universal tongue? Why is secularism the universal default to which all must conform?

While church doctrine might be a matter best left well outside the political arena, the effect of theological conclusions upon the political process are fair game - particularly when such sentiments are put forward by a candidate as crucial factors in his life and judgment. Recent sweeps of America imply that we are a tolerant and somewhat non-dogmatic people. However, if Obama hopes to bridge the gap between liberal Democrats and religious voters (as seems to be his aim), he must be prepared to deflect the theological backlash he will provoke with his sermon at the podium.

Who would have thought that Barack Obama's seemingly-subtle spouse would garner more headlines in the final days of the Democratic primary than Hillary Clinton's certifiably-sensational hubby? Yet, Michelle Obama has proven herself as subtle as a shotgun, and has caused no small degree of rancor for her candidate-paramour. However, with a newly edited (read: softened) stump speech, an appearance on "The View" yesterday and an upcoming spot in Us Weekly, Mrs. Obama is widely viewed as undergoing a personality makeover.

On the other hand, the GOP ticket has been particularly reserved with regard to Cindy McCain. The Beer Baroness has rarely spoken at length and has provided little grist for the rumor mill. Of course, Mrs. McCain has battled her demons, and she is potentially vulnerable in a general election due to her fabulous wealth - but as the wife of a long-standing senator, her story has already been told.

Maintaining a certain decorum and distance may well have been the campaign's initial strategy. Nonetheless, Mrs. McCain seems to have now suddenly entered the fray - whether by her own desire or the media's eager attention to her every gesture. "Cindy Unleashed" read the headlines, reporting that Mrs. McCain is everywhere as of late - often launching gentle arrows of criticism toward her potential first-lady counterpart. A recent Pew Research poll indicates that, while fewer people feel that they know Cindy McCain, fewer also harbor negative feelings toward the GOP better-half as compared to Mrs. Obama. Mrs. McCain's wading into the political storm is a significant move, with uncertain results. The public is about to be introduced to an interesting woman - aristocratic, saintly and scandalous.

Then again, a far more important poll of the first ladies is presently in the making: Who has better style?

President Bush is presently en route for Europe, where he will likely conclude his final visit to the continent before the expiration of his term. Pres. Bush will commence his trip with the EU-US Summit in Slovenia before dropping in on the leaders of Britain, France, Italy and Germany, as well as paying visits to the Queen and the Pope.

The Summit will likely prove the only opportunity for substantive policy discussions. The agenda will include pressuring Iran on its nuclear weapons program, aid and troop increases for Afghanistan and US-EU trade barriers. Russia's backslide on democratic reforms will also likely garner some conversation.

Notably, the world leaders to receive the American president are of a far more charitable mold than those who hosted him during his previous visit. France boasts the pro-American Sarkozy, who has promised an increase in troop support for Afghanistan, while Italy's ever-vibrant Berlusconi will wine and dine the president following his visit with Germany chancellor Angela Merkel. Add to that a special reception by the Pope at St. John's Tower inside the Vatican gardens and tea with the Queen at Windsor Castle. At least for a few days in foreign lands, the president will prove the old adage: It's good to be the king!

The president's schedule:

Today President Bush will attend the EU-US Summit in Ljubljana

Tomorrow Arrives in Germany to meet the Chancellor Angela Merkel

Thursday Meets President Napolitano of Italy and the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi

Friday Audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican

Sunday Plans to call into Windsor Castle to meet the Queen; dinner with Gordon Brown at No 10

Monday, June 16 Mr Bush is expected to visit Peter Robinson, the new First Minister of Northern Ireland, in Belfast

Aside from his commitment to immediately withdraw military forces from Iraq, Barack Obama's major foreign policy declaration has been his promise to meet with antagonistic, dictatorial leaders in such nations as Iran and Palestine. Charles Krauthammer over at NRO posits Obama's stance on the issue as the snowballing of an initial gaffe.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting - without precondition - with [dictators]. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure - then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so was not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Krauthammer summarily dismisses Obama's claims that "engagement" has positive historical precedence, citing FDR, Truman and Kennedy as disproving Obama's assertions. Further, Krauthammer explodes the neophyte argument that such engagement would meet with success today.

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements - undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

McCain has begun to frame the issue of his age as one of experience, wryly complimenting Obama for "doing very well" in the campaign thus far . . . for a "young man with very little experience" or "knowledge on the issues." The junior senator's need to overcome the perception of inexperience is not aided by his stubborn adherence to a cumbayah, we-are-the-world approach to the global war on terror.

Massachusetts is unlike other states. Every other state in the Union has two Senate seats up for election every few years. Massachusetts has one rotating Senate seat . . . and one Kennedy.

The man is an institution. He shapes institutions. He is the workhorse of the Democratic party. Ted Kennedy heralds back to the age of Camelot, the dynastic reign of the Kennedy clan, and has presided over the Senate, as a liberal lightning rod, for the better part of five decades. His tenure has spanned several political lifetimes - in politics, he is an immortal.

And now, it seems the liberal giant's race may be nearing its conclusion. Kennedy has been diagnosed with a lethal form of brain cancer. While he is yet conscious and optimistic, such a condition is not easily overcome - even a successful treatment will prevent attendance in the Senate. As the news broke in the Senate, Democrats sat in stunned silence and Republicans bowed their heads in hopeful prayer.

God be with the Kennedy clan. The prayers of all Americans of good will are with you all.

"These folks should lay off my wife." Thus spake Barack Obama on Good Morning America, chastising GOP critics in Tennessee who posted a video of his wife's more savory comments on America. In fact, Barack went so far as to issue a subtle threat to Republicans who "think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign": "they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable."

I've also written with increasing scrutiny of Michelle Obama's remarks (see here, here and here), so I presume that I fall within the gambit of Barack's wrath. Yet, I think it's been long-established that when a spouse takes on an active role in a campaign - stumping on the election trail, giving speeches on policy and character, injecting themselves into the debate - they thereby become legitimate targets for rebuttal and criticism.

Barack's problem is that his wife has become an increasingly easy target and a potential liability. He is correct to defend her and to demand that she be treated in a dignified manner - anything less would be unmanly. (Though, of course, Bill Clinton wasn't able to pull it off - perhaps because no one bought into his new-found chivalry, or perhaps because no one bought into his wife's new-found feminine side). However, claiming that Michelle is off-limits when she repeats the mantra of Americans as uninvolved, uninformed, broken-souled xenophobes strikes me as untenable.

Barack rages that the attempt "to distort or to play snippets of [Michelle's] remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class." Of course, it's precisely the unforced perception that Michelle sees herself as a bit too high class that seems to be giving Barack heart-burn as of late. And such an interpretation of Michelle's words does not require excessive distortion or editing.

Having unintentionally evolved into a New York Times bias watch-dog, I diligently attempt to remain on top of the mountainous heap of slanted news which is issued forth from that venerable institution. However, Powerline has beaten me to the punch this time, noting the Times' outright misrepresentations of the McCain/Obama/Hamas issue (which would cause a lesser instrument of journalism to slink away in shame).

The Times' story, "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link.," covers the issue of Obama's embarrassing endorsement by the terrorist organization Hamas. However, instead of contemplating why the thugs and murderers of Hamas have taken a liking to Obama, the Times' denounces McCain for untruthfully stating that Obama would pursue "unconditional" talks with Iran.

This shift in focus is distracting and fictitious, simply a means of covering for Obama and smearing McCain. In fact, Obama's Web site states: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." Watch Obama discuss the issue here. As Jim Geraghty notes over at NRO, an Obama adviser has held meetings with Hamas.

I repeat and repeat again: a news organization which misrepresents the truth in order to deceive and mislead the public in critical issues of national import has betrayed its nation with a boldness and effectiveness beyond the scope of nearly any other institution. These are institutions imbued, by their very nature, with the public trust - their sedition is a matter of unparalleled shame.

In a pristine escape from the political circus of Washington, the Bush family celebrated the wedding of daughter Jenna this past Sunday. Nuptials were exchanged (of course) at the President's ranch in Texas. The private event was demurely elegant and classically charming - as revealed through a handful of photos released by the family.

The bride was beautiful.

P.S. When asked if he'd been up late partying, the president merely winked and went on his way.