Pierre Salinger.  You remember him.  He was the White House press secretary for JFK, better defined for his position as the gullible liberal democrat who caused the government to waste untold amounts of dollars and man hours researching the bogus theory that a U.S. Navy missile shot down TWA flight 800.  Interestingly, even after being proven factually incorrect, the myth that Salinger popularized continues to live on in Urban legend and is fodder for many internet websites and blogs. (No, really. There are actually people out there who believe that an entire crew of sailors can keep a secret.)

Well, Pierre, back in 1997, was given the dubious honor of having a syndrome named after him.  According to Wikipedia, "The term[Pierre Salinger Syndrome] is widely attributed to Moira Gunn, who said in a Wired magazine interview (July 1997), 'Just because it's online doesn't make it true. We're heading toward something called the Pierre Salinger syndrome, which is endemic to people who have not hung around the new technology and are fooled by its shortfalls.'"

Clearly, this is an affliction that is having a profound impact on American life.  Even with the dawn of the intellectual awakening upon us, there are still many who refuse to believe that mainstream media sources spin stories and are agenda driven information peddlers.  These depression profiteers sell sensationalism and conspiracy theories.  But then how well would a paper sell if it sported the headline "All's well.  You can relax today."   The MSM is only the tip of the iceberg, however.  Bloggers know, as do most experienced internet surfers that there are countless web pages that purport to present the absolute truth on anything from tap dancing to topography and about anyone from Tony Blair to Jessica Simpson. 

Just because you see it on the internet, don't make it so!  Sadly, the truth is that most of us get caught up in sensationalism from time to time.  Surfing the web allows us to revel in the ridiculous much in the way it (unfortunately) fosters the use of pornography.  No one is watching so we are much less careful about what we read - we indulge ourselves.  Reading some sites is much like picking up the National Enquirer - something we'd never ackowledge doing, but isn't it fascinating?  

The danger in the medium is that there is are a lot of young people and older people, too,  who are less familiar with the online world and are less discriminating than experienced internet users.  The medium offers credibility to very unreliable sources.  And it allows for spinning in a way that is less recognizable simply because we can't look into the eyes of the human behind the commentary. 

As conservatives, I often wonder if we are losing the PR war.  As a Christian conservative,  I feel sure we have waited much too long to even enter the battlefield.  Nevertheless, we are gaining ground and battling back with our keyboards.  We cannot content ourselves to campaign from computer chairs alone.  We need to be out there gladhanding and reminding people why America is great.

I suggest the following:

1.  Get to know your neighbors.  Take them a plate of cookies.  Make nice.  Show them what you are about. 

2.  Go to work in your communities.  Donate time to local charities - not the ones your church runs but in a place where you can meet new people and set an example of compassionate conservatism.

3.  Make an effort to hear people out.  Everyone wants respect.  You don't have to agree.  You don't even need to acknowledge that you disagree.  "That's a very interesting position."  is a wonderful response.  When you listen to others, they listen to you. 

4.  Go about the sharing your political ideology with the same attitude you take when you share your religious beliefs.  Show respect and kindness.  Every person is worth having on our side of the aisle. 

I'm not suggesting that you "sell" an American reformation, simply that you present it in a way that isn't confrontational.  The beauty of true American ideals is that they sell themselves.  They are the natural inheritance of all men, having been granted to us by a wise Creator. 

There you have it - my plan to save the country - it's not "Go ye therefore and teach all nations..."  but you get the idea.   Now, get busy!

Today on Sean Hannity's show,  a liberal caller, phoned in and suggested that "promoting the general welfare" meant that the government should provide housing, food, jobs, transportation, education (college), and health care.  The caller seemed truly shocked that Sean would suggest that individuals should assume responsibility for their own welfare. 

The confusion between "the general welfare" and welfare checks is a serious problem.  Promoting the general welfare means that the government has a responsibility to provide a safe, secure environment and to promote the values it espouses, namely, freedom and liberty to all.  Equal treatment means a level playing field with respect to the law and a reasonable expectation of meritorious compensation (i.e. your sweat earns your paycheck).

The fact that there are generations of people in this country who have so little appreciation for freedom, the freedom to achieve as well as freedom from oppression, is indeed frightening.  Communist ideals are winning the hearts and minds of many Americans.  It is no longer enough to wage the war from behind computer screens, we have got to mobilize grassroots campaigns to reeducate confused constituents who continue to vote for policies and politicians who are driving this country away from freedom and toward an Orwellian future.  Regardless of party.  We must hold all politicians to account.

This post goes out to the wonderful men and women at Patriot Guard Riders.  These wonderful people are doing the most kind and compassionate thing and deserve all the thanks we can heap upon them.  In response to the outrageous protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church  at the funerals of military servicemembers, the PGR ask the loved ones of fallen soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen if they can attend the service.  They arrive with flags in hand and line up in front of churches, synagogues, and buildings where the funerals are held and maintain a reverent and respectful "firing line", shielding family and friends from hate-mongers and protestors.

The PGR does not have a political ideology or a partisan agenda.  They welcome all who share their appreciation for men and women in uniform.  They do not even require that you "ride".  The group has gained national attention lately and certainly deserves it. 

As an Army wife who has known the fear, the dread, the nightmares that are a part of being married to the military,  I am at a loss to describe just how touched I am by the gentle service of these wonderful citizens.  Standing silent between the grieving family and unscrupulous political opportunists, these Patriot Guard Riders are a reminder that man can rise above the fray and reach true nobility when he puts forth his hand to lift another up.  May God bless each and every man and woman who stands (and rides) this compassionate and Christlike vigil.  Thank you, PGR.

I've been a miniscule part of the blogging community for just over a month now but in spite of my limited experience, I have to say that I am absolutely loving the life of an online journalist.  My online journal, taken at face value, probably seems as contradictory and convoluted as its author.  People and their opinions are generally even more complex than the issues themselves.  And yet, with few exceptions, my experiences online have been enlightening and engaging.  I've learned a lot, met some very interesting people and, in the process, come to know myself better.

Some of the blogs I've seen are filled with answers, others with questions, but all with opinions.  Opinions about weather and sports, music and art, Washington and Hollywood.  Just about every subject under the sun.  Some are intensely personal and others are guardedly anonymous.

The anonymity of online journaling is, in my opinion, one of the greatest benefits.  It offers a chance to be known for what you think without who you are muddying the waters.  You can be a voice of morality, a political pundit, a cultural whiz, a poet, a pervert, or like me, a person who just likes to hash things out with the wonderful sounding board of strangers unencumbered by the distraction of actually knowing me.

After some mental debate, I broke my silence and sent my blog's link to my family.  Probably a mistake.  As the fifth of six children, I have had an audience watching me succeed and fail all my life and in my family, filled with fiercely competitive souls, and zealous critics,  I knew I'd be opening myself up to rejection.  It didn't take long for judgements to be handed down.  But, that was to be expected.  My siblings have heard my opinions A LOT.  With six kids in a family, it's easy to get lost in the crowd.  I've always been the one who's spoken out with reckless abandon and usually without the tact that a Backspace button affords me.  And I have played the family Simon Cowell enough to warrant my own special judge's chair, so I don't deserve any mercy.  The sad part is that I really have grown into a mature adult, a good mother and an intelligent, strong woman.  Nevertheless, it seems unreasonably hard to shake those familial roles whenever we are together.  Know-it-all, tag-along, chatty, little sister.  And ever begging for approval from the siblings, I admire.  That's me.

There are days, days like today, when I struggle with self-doubt and wonder if I am destined to walk the same path as those who have gone before me.  I feel their dismissive gazes upon me and recognize the condescending looks that reduce my opinions, values, and struggles to the growing pains of a kid sister who will someday reach their level of maturity and understanding. 

I've thought a lot about the family dynamics today and decided that I was not alone in my circumstance.  There is another lady I know of, whose past as a young know-it-all haunts her.  Like me, she is a crusader who holds to ideals that are rarely practically attainable.  Regardless, she keeps advocating principles that even she finds hard to live up to.  Convinced that the world holds promise and she can help others see the glory in it,  she is a frequently outspoken.  She's made mistakes, visible to all, and those from whom she's descended are quick to point out her flaws.  But she gets it right, too.  A lot more right than she's given credit for, and she has friends, most of them unemcumbered by knowledge of her past failures who flock to her and find in her a rare beauty.  My lady friend,  America,  still bound to the Western European family that judges her harshly and praises her all too rarely, keeps turning homeward as if that is where all answers lie.  And yet, this beautiful woman, for all her highly visible wrongs, is a startling success in her own right.  She is winsome woman and her gates are filled to overflowing with people, literally, dying to get in.  Despite her detractors, there are many fledgling young nations who look to her as a shinging example of liberty and the triumph of principled reason. 

Some days, like today, America struggles with self-doubt.  She wonders if the message she has embraced, the message of self-determination, freedom and inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, is a banner worth waving.  She struggles with the practical application of letting the Liberty Bell sound in all the world instead of just in Philadelphia.  When America stands at the crossroads, listening to the criticisms of her older, more cynical European family, she must not only look back at where she started, but how very far she has come.  She can follow the footsteps of Western European nations or she can continue onward, blazing a new and freer path.  With her critics outnumbering her allies, even within her own borders, America has a hard road ahead.  She'll have to decide whether or not she is going to go the way of the Old World or if she will maintain the passionate and fiery charge of her youth.

What anyone becomes is ultimately the sum of his heart and his head, the culmination of where his ideals and his actions coincide.  Do we follow the paths of others, do we cling to outdated roles that relegate us a position we've outgrown, or do we march to the beat of our own drummer?  America and I, we have some choices to make.

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  There is no denying it.  He had them.  He actively hid them and deceived the U.N. insepctors.  He had plans involving biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  And I have this information on very good authority.  Saddam Hussein said it himself. 

While the whitehousepresscorp was busy being offended over Dick Cheney's failure to send out personally engraved press releases regarding the Whittington hunting accident, some of us in America were paying more attention to the taped discussions of Saddam and his 'cabinet' than the events on the Armstrong ranch.  Turns out the dictator recorded hours and hours worth of chats he had with his comrades and those recorded conversations are darn enlightening. 

Where did all of these WMDs go?  According to John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of Defense, they were moved into Syria and Lebanon.  But not without help.  Just ask the Russians.

Interesting isn't it that the "Bush lied" liberals in this country have gone suddenly mute.  What ought to be a fiery backlash against the anti-war left seems not to have engendered the fury of Americans.  Personally, I can't figure how so many who were misled with misinformation aren't more upset.  If I'd bought into the Bush the Prevaricator doctrine - I'd be really p****d right now!  But, heh, that's just me.

Read it for yourself:

Newsmax

BP News confirms Saddam's obsession

and even (with a little spin) ABC

For even more excitement type "Saddam Hussein tapes" into your search engine and download the powerpoint presentation from the Intelligence Summit.

Where I spent my weekend: 

PC Watch is always a fun stop and somehow blogger, John Ray, always finds the most wildly PC-gone-awry news blurb.  This one ought to keep Letterman in business for a while.

Amy Proctor has a great post up about the culture of "pimps and hos" that is being peddled to our kids.  It is a great reminder that nowadays not only can't we let the village help raise our children, we have to take extraordinary measures to protect them from the villagers.

Over at Mudville Gazette, the call is being issued for counterprotesters to meet Cindy Sheehan on March 11th when she will be setting up "Camp Casey" outside of Landstuhl medical center in Germany.  Everyone's favorite media whore will be standing just outside the first hospital our troops see when they leave combat injured or dying.  Bet she wouldn't be doing that if Casey were inside being reassembled after an IED blast.  He must be turning over in his grave.

Over at P-BS Watch, the funniest of all the Mohammad cartoons is posted.  And, as always, you can count watch the Kerry clock to see how many days John has left to prepare for the 2008 presidential election. 

For the scoop on the other Iraq, Washington Times has an interesting editorial by Victor David Hanson about the fluidity of war and the possibility for success in Iraq.

For more insight on the furthering of Democracy and advancing the cause of freedom, check out Clifford D. May's article for Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  A great analysis of why we should stay the course.

Also from P-BS watch, comes this beauty. 

The ugliness that rears its head when people express dissident opinions has always been a testament to the fact that some people just aren't capable of ignoring idiots.

Fist fight broke out today between neo-nazis and counter protestors in a predominantly black Florida neighborhood.  Did counter-demonstrators really feel that this was worth wasting a Saturday?  Neo-nazis enjoy extremely limited popular support in this country and get very little leniency from the government.  Why can't we just ignore these clowns?  Giving them attention does nothing more than put them in the spotlight they crave. 

Freedom of speech may mean that every moron is allowed his say but it doesn't require that the rest of us prove we're morons by paying attention.

Oh yes, and what a wise way to spend tax payer funded police (SWAT team) man hours!

Cal Thomas wrote a wonderful article yesterday that reveals more of the truth about what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

Excerpted:

Tall Afar was the main base of operations for the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The mayor says his city was held hostage by al-Zarqawi. "Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young."

The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) arrived in Iraq in 2003 and began attacking insurgents in Fallujah. Last year, they went back for a second tour, this time in Tall Afar. The mayor's letter sums up the result: "This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered ... the courageous soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of al-Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3rd ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them."

Hat's off to the 3rd ACR and to  Mayor Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jubouri for graciously telling the story of their heroism. 

Many of you may have heard of the "Tunnel of Oppression" exhibit that has become so popular on college campuses (or is that campi) over the past 10 years or so.  But as Michael Medved revisits the issue of academia's most PC thrill ride, i thought I'd join in with my two cents.

The desire of most freedom loving Americans to liberate the nation of bias and bigotry has become hopeleesly confused with the notion that we should be required to tolerate the intolerable and forced to embrace any and all behaviors as if they were all equal and equally acceptable.

Yet another example of the push to completely remove moral judgement from society can be seen in the emergence of the "Tunnel of Oppression".  At first glance, the tunnel, an interactive experience designed to create an emotional atmosphere in which student participants can feel the pain and frustration of discrimination, seems like a reasonably forward-thinking idea.  It's goals are not intellectually based nor are they aimed at promoting discourse but they are designed to stir the feelings of attendents so that they profoundly feel the cause of the girl who suffers from having to endure an illegal backroom abortion or the pain of a young man who is harrassed for choosing a gay lifestyle.

In addition to promoting a distinctly liberal morality by victimizing abortion participants and homosexuals, the tunnel goes even further in pushing it's agenda.  Driven by a desire to create hate-crimes legislation, the program relies on stirring the feelings of 18-24 years old youths.  It is precisely the emotion focused individual who carries out "hate-crimes".  Wouldn't it be infinitely better to take aim at the minds of these college kids and change the paradigm within which they THINK.  Change is a choice that is made consciously when reason compels us to move in a different direction.  To push the emotional buttons of tunnel viewers only serves to shift the strong emotions from one target to another.  Now, instead of hate for the discriminated, they are filled with rage against any perceived bias - real or otherwise.

It appears that the emotion driven activity is designed to compel acceptance of everything.  You can erase insitutional discrimination without denying moral judgement.  You can love the sinner and hate the sin.  However, it appears as though The Tunnel would remove those distinctions and completely eradicate morality from the mindset. 

Heaven help us if we are not bound by our own inhibitions and if we find nothing objectionable except objection.

A scene from one "tunnel"

Bringing top light the oppression of the

animals we eat.

Yet another teacher has been arrested and charged with criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  Wendie A Schweikert is accused of having sex with one of her 11 year old students at E.B.Morse Elementary School.  You read that right. ELEMENTARY school! 

Not content with the trend toward violating our teenagers, apparently Ms. Schweikert decided to pick sexual partners from the prepubescents listed on her class roster.

I am not without compassion, I was a school teacher and I know that salaries are low and probably wouldn't allow for splurging on the occasional male prostitute, but really!  We're talking about boys whose only sexual feature of note is a cracking voice. 

If these charges are true, may she have 12 homeschooling mothers on her jury.

Whether unintentionally or by design, the pro-"choice" movement continues to mislead the public about pro-lifers.  I can't tell you how fervently I believe in CHOICE. 

I simply believe the choice comes before you take down your panties.

Rape and incest victims, women who's lives are on the line by childbirth, these ladies are the exception and should be afforded abortion due to the traumatic nature of their circumstances.  And the fact, that their "choice" was denied them.

Elective abortion, outside those narrow limits,  is like reproductive bulemia - you partake and then (oops) you get to expel it before it hits your hips and thighs.  In our culture, we consider bulemia an illness and they are only regurgitating food!

Elective abortion for anyone who willingly and actively participated in sexual intercourse is an irresponsible choice and to promote it as healthy ,and even, as some do, admirable, does a great disservice to the community at large by promoting a culture devoid of personal accountability.

Check out this site:  Democrats on Abortion  (not all issues are strictly partisan)

Nigerian Christians are fighting back against the muslims who have rioted in their streets.  With anger, violence and hate filled rhetoric, the Nigerian Christians have taken to piling up and burning the bodies of the dead (estimates range from 120 to 150).  There goes any moral high ground.

 (Fox News)

Answering uncontrolled rage with more of the same is like wrestling with a pig.  You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

In this case, the muslim world, unabashedly wielding islam like a two edged sword is all about picking a fight with Christians, democracies, and anyone remotely related to the Western world.  Unlike, most of us who have been drawn unwillingly into this war of ideologies, muslim rioters throughout the world show utter contempt for any attempt at compromise, tolerance, or diplomacy.  These fanatics are looking for a fight and they like getting dirty.  Every response to their insanity is considered justification for jihad.

It has become increasingly clear that tyrannies and democracies cannot peacefully coexist.  Somewhere a line must be drawn.  If all out war is to be averted, the Western nations must designate a field of containment and treat this radical ideology with the same policies that kept communism in its place.  We must lay siege with economic embargos and we must learn to do without the oil that we have come to depend on.  Not for the sake of Christianity nor for the sake of liberty.  But for the love of humanity.

A very interesting study by the Pew Research center was released this week.  And according to the numbers, the age group that still most supports the war (by a slim 3 point differential) is the youngest cohort of 18-29 year olds.

Interestingly, while support is waning seriously across the ages ranges, the biggest gap currently in support for the Iraq war is with the 50 and up crowd.  Not surprisingly, baby boomers, are less supportive of the action, these being the folks who draft-dodged in large numbers and who came of age in the days of murky international politics.  Their wars were not clearly defined conflicts like the World Wars they'd heard about as children, but confusing and complex events darkened by confused and conflicted politicians.  That this group shows more cynicism and less faith in America is understandable if still painfully sad.

Where the Pew study gets interesting is in regards to America's rising generation.  The 18-29 year olds don't see armed conflict as the best way to create and maintain peace but they do see it as a valid way to protect American interests abroad.  They aren't sure if the military should be used to create stability in countries where governments fail and chaos ensues but the do see it as a means to provide aid to the world in times of crisis - not the world's police force rather the world's unemployment office.  They see America as a nation that must cooperate with allies but NOT through the U.N.  They also see the nation as desperately in need of a policy makeover at home. 

Their responses to the questions posed in this study may seem bipolar on many levels - paradoxical and not quite coming together in a concise package of marketable partisan policy but it does show us one or two things about the group that will ultimately lead America. Or perhaps, it only shows the utter confusion and limited understanding of youth.

Youth and War 

Dick Meyer over at CBS wrote an insightful explanation of the popular uproar about the 'President Bush selling our ports to Arabs' crisis.  Now, I know he's working for CBS so there goes a lot of credibility, right out the window.  But even so, his points are valid, well presented and just plain make sense.  I'm still open to an honest rebuttal - something besides "but, but, (sputter) they're Arabs".  Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE but you know what?  Timothy McVeigh came from New York. 

Meyer does a little myth busting that puts this whole matter into perspective:

Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports...

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel... 

 Myth #3: American ports should be American.
Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…" Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican...

Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.
That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that didn't mean it was true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.
Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.
Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. To my knowledge its crimes were not government sponsored. It is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years...

What astounds me even more than the misunderstandings about our ports and how they work is the zealous denouncing of the administration's handling of the matter by so many Republicans.  I expect the Dems to climb over each other in a savage attempt to grab the media spotlight and denounce President Bush - after all they are the OPPOSITION party.  It's what they do.  Republicans, however, stood by supportive while W led our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers into battle in two different countries.  They willingly forgave NSA wiretapping and offered to legitimize anything unseemly after the fact with new legislation and they authorized the Patriot Act, extending his ability to go after corporate, national and individual sponsors of terrorism.  Suddenly, this week, they are talking about the Ports deal as if he were to dumb to wipe his own....  well, you know where I'm going with that.

If Bush were so incapable and so unintelligent - why weren't you voicing some dissent before you allowed 2000 American service members to meet untimely deaths.  If you trusted this man and his administration with my husband's life, you damn well better trust him with the ports of this country.  The sudden turn on Bush by his own party can only mean one thing: 

It's an election year.

*** Fox News has decided to start putting the facts (and the fires) out about this whole port issue.  Both John Gibson and Brit Hume covered Port Leasing 101.****

That Hillary Clinton is so worried about the takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World.  Didn't hubby Bill sell nuclear secrets to the Chinese?  I can see national security is a major discussion topic at the dinner table.

  Yep, we're all scratching our heads, too.

(CLick on Hillary to read all about her exciting adventures as First Lady.)

So Jimmy Carter, who took partisan jabs in the completely improper forum of a public funeral, now speaks up in favor of a Bush policy.  Now, for any who may have had doubts, we can be utterly sure that turning the ports over to an Arab-owned company is a bad idea.

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.

BY LESLEY CLARK

lclark@MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Some of the most tender parenting moments are when you are able to share with your child something near and dear to your heart.  For some fathers it is football for some mothers it is fashion.  For me, it is history. 

This morning my first grader and I sat down to an American history lesson entitled, The War Begins!.  We read about Minutemen and Redcoats meeting at Lexington.  We talked about the fact that no one really knows who fired the first shot but that poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson called it "the shot heard 'round the world".  As I read that phrase, my eyes filled with tears and in response to his query, I got the privilege of explaining to my boy how valuable freedom is.  That the commodity called liberty is purchased with blood and toil and that many people in the world have yet to taste it.  Time seemed to stand still as we discussed the blood of farmers and artisans spilled to protect the weapons they had stored to protect themselves from tyranny.  We compared the two armies, one prepared, outfitted and funded and the other ragtag and untrained.  Sitting there with my child, I could see in his eyes a small but tangible sense of gratitude and the early stirrings of patriotism.

The beauty of that moment is somewhat muted by the discouraging fact that we live in a nation now fractured by factions who would deny the nobility in fighting for the freedom of others.  Oddly, the same outspoken critics of intervention are the first to call for the brotherhood of humankind - these are they who denounce US policies as imperialistic and demand that our country abandon nationalism in favor of globalism.

How humane is it to watch your brother bow under the burden of brutality?  These dissenters scream shrilly that no amount of foreign aid is enough when it comes to fighting hunger and disease but would let villages suffer repression at the hands of a madman with biological and chemical weapons. 

This form of spoiled elitism, embraced by so many, and falsely justified by spinners and revisionists, undermines the fight we have been fighting at home and abroad for the entire history of this nation:  the long struggle for the freedom of all men.  A war that encompassed tories, whigs, confederate and union soldiers, blacks, whites, property owners, the poor, men, women, children, slaves, share croppers and freedmen.  From it white tenant farmers won the right to vote alongside their landed neighbors.  Women and black Americans were given a voice.  And people of all races, genders, and ages are slowly gaining the freedom that ideally, if not always in practice, we have embraced.  And yet, in spite of the noble ideas that propel this nation and the world forward, there is the overwhelming sound of condemnation of virtually every meaningful international action our government undertakes. 

Amid the cacophony of voices,  loud and angry, you can almost hear the faint, dying sound of an echo - the echo of a shot heard 'round the world.

Now there's a shocker...   (reuters)

Timing on this article hits me in a personal way as I had an interesting dialogue just today with a distant relative who suggested that the entire cartoon war was instigated by OBL or al-qaeda operatives as a sort of black psyop campaign to stir the smoldering embers of the muslim world.

He referred me to Bin Laden's terror manual, which provides an interesting view into the world of islamofascism and the detailed thought of terrorists who are clearly at war with us, whether or not we (as a society) want to acknowledge that fact.  The more recently revealed training manuals are like corporate human resource guides - and again, give insight to the depth and detailed nature of these groups, that we could call Terror, Inc.  Clearly, Al-Qaeda is a group that can run a PR operation.  Consider the cult of personality required to convince young people to kill themselves in an action, like a suicide bombing on an Isareali bus, that they know will ultimately have no impact on the movement they support.   

Is it possible that there is more to this story than meets the eye?  Is the cartoon war merely the outgrowth of anger and incitement over a few printed drawings or does this rabbit hole go much deper?  Are these people, capable of instigating worldwide riots, in positions of power greater than we had previously imagined?  Does their influence extend beyond the muslim world and into the publishing company that owns Jyllands-Postens?  Is there a covert terrorist operation behind the very believable cover story of the cartoon contest? 

Haven't got a clue - but true or not it would make a great episode of the X-files.

My sister forwarded this link to me today:  Wired into the future  You may have seen it.  I'm sure this is a jab at President Bush's push for online medical files.

As I see it, online file sharing on a secure server would be great.  Why not allow emergency medical facilities access to a secure server - it could be life-saving. 

The ACLU pizza commercial suggests that medical records and other personal information could be utilized by any business or institution once it is available online.  And, I suppose, this is a slippery slope.  After all Google saves every search every performed using it's service - EVERY SINGLE ONE.  This is supposedly to make your searches more personalized and more personally accurate by creating a kind of user profile.  Okay, I'll buy that.  But does it bother anyone that you have a file at Google?

I imagine if this technology (which already exists) becomes widespread and industries are data sharing to the point that Domino's is reviewing your last cholestrerol check, there will be an option to opt-out or in.  Unfortunately, we know from past experience (direct deposit, automatic draft) that there will be benefits (like fee waivers) offered to those who participate. 

Who would have thought twenty years ago that you would be handing out access to your checking account to your employer and your creditors?  For that matter who'd have thought you'd be purchasing online - handing over your card number to um...nobody... at the other end of your cable modem line. 

As the technology continuues to advance and more businesses are wired into our lives, (btw - I already order pizza online - who needs a phone?)  the real question for the fear mongers is, will businesses and industries be able to set aside their competitive drive to share information?  In a capitalist society, competition drives the market - if Papa John's charges you a $20 fee because of your medical chart, then some other pizza place will be right there to waive it and garner your patronage.  I'm betting there's too much to be lost by file-sharing to make the ACLU pizza ad anything more than a politcally motivated scare tactic.

Where I spent Sunday evening:

California Yankee posts about a letter from the US Conference for the World Council of Churches to the 9th Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Porto Alegre, Brazil denouncing the War in Iraq.  All I can say is that these ecclesiastical leaders aren't drumming up business by encouraging islamofascists to continue their pursuit of world conquest... think about it.

Expose the Left slams Neal Gabler for his conspiracy theory du jour.  On Saturday's edition of Fox News Watch, Neal suggested that Cheney strategically used the Whittington incident to draw media fire away from the war on Iraq, the release of more Abu Ghraib prison photos and other political hot potatoes. Saw the show myself and I almost fell out of the chair when Neal floated this idea.  No doubt, this will become the theory of the week - only Neal could come up with something so utterly conspiratorial.

Captain's Quarters has an interesting interpretation of all that is going on in the media both within the whitehousepresscorp and all over the world in response to muslim  riots.

Over at The Wide Awakes there is a great post about exonerating Jack Idema and calling for his freedom.  An eye-opening read that would catch most Americans by surprise, it is accompanied by a call for conservative bloggers to speak out on Jack's behalf.  Check it out.

All interesting reads and well worth the time!

During the question and answer period after today's speech in Tampa regarding the Iraq war, President Bush fielded queries about  genocide in the Sudan.  Describing the U.S. policy toward this region he said, "The strategy was to encourage African Union troops to try to bring some sense of security to these poor people that are being herded out of their villages and terribly mistreated... the effort was noble, but it didn't achieve the objective."

The AP article continues:  He said an effective mission "is going to require, I think, a NATO stewardship," which Bush said would mean the military alliance would providing planning and coordination. Bush did not say whether U.S. forces should participate directly.

"We believe it is premature to speculate about what types of forces and equipment may be needed until we see the U.N. plans," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Earlier Friday, Bush discussed options with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Several issues here:

I'm all for stepping up to stop the genocide - if we are going to be the world's police force then let's do it everywhere and not just in the middle east, but WHERE would we get troops from?  We are already stretched so thin between Bosnia, Kosovo, iraq and Afghanistan that our soldiers are in a constant deployment cycle.

Also, given the state of affairs in Europe, with muslims rioting in the streets, do we really want to send NATO troops in?  Talk about fuel on the fire!  While, I feel there is a moral high ground here and the genocide has to be stopped, I don't know how we can be effective without upping the violence throughout the muslim world.

Isn't there some way to better arm and equip the African Union?  Make it possible for them to police their own nation? 

I'm all for the principle of this but I'm concerned about the practicality.  Any thoughts?

Notice the crazed look in his eyes, the salt and pepper beard starting to move beyond the stubble stage and the mouth wide open spewing (in all likelihood) some hate filled nonsense...

Is Alec Baldwin turning into a Danish Imam?  More to follow......

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Cindy Sheehan was met by protestors when she appeared to speak at St. Xavier.  The keynote speaker was supposed to address the issue of how one person can make a difference instead, the evening quickly and predictably turned into an anti-war rally.

Roughly 300 students attended, among whom there were protestors who stood with their backs to Ms. Sheehan until she read an anti-war poem, written by her daughter.  At that point they all but a few left the event, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as they exited.  Sheehan, being the classy individual we know her to be, responded to the student dissenters by showing them a peace sign and encouraging them to go enlist.

Here's the grieving mother, wrapped in the shroud of her son's memory, shrieking anti-war rhetoric and then telling a group of young people to "march to your recruiter's office and sign up" - sounds like a euphemism for 'step on an IED' to me.  Nice.  Such a sympathetic character she is.

Contrast the response she gave to the students with the respectful non-treatment she's gotten from President Bush.  If there is a moral high road here, it's clear who's walking it.

The Minnesota Democrats are rallying around the first ammendment again - only this time to shut it down.  The dems are writing emails calling on party members to encourage local tv stations to refuse airing ads showing soldiers who favor staying the course in Iraq.  Called "Midwest Heroes", the ads are being sponsored by the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund and you can see the ads here.

Time to wage our own infidel jihad.  Get these ads out far and wide.  Email the links to friends and family and make Minnesota Dems sorry they tried to silence American soldiers.

This one is for my own Minnesota Soldier - another Midwest Hero!

There's an old maxim that birds of a feather flock together.  With the click of a mouse, anyone interested can find out just what sort of birds American pacifists are flying with.  Unlike the distorted representation we're given in news reports from the MSM, the groups presented to us as local people only seeking peace and the safe return of American soldiers are far from what they seem.

Who are the folks at Carolina Peace flocking with these days?  Check out the links from their website.  Among their cohorts you will find, homosexual advocacy groups, criminal defense attorneys groups, anti-military counter-recruitment activists and zapatistas (a marxist like militant leftist terror group hiding behind the Mexican Solidarity Network tag). Take a gander at their news links.  Since when is Michael Moore a news source - even liberal Hollywood elites know better?  (Thanks Amy Proctor for the heads up about this group)

How about Code Pink?  Who's buttering their bread? Definitely not Wal-Mart.  Check out what they're selling in their online store.  Of course, they only ride the wave of anti-capitalism when crusading against the other guy.  The are perfectly willing to sell you a deck of "war profiteers" playing cards.  And in case you thought these gals in pink are speaking out in response to the horrors of war, check their campaigns page.  They are a highly partisan organization who rallied to elect Gore and Kerry - and that was long before any bombs started falling or any troops set foot on Iraqi soil.  Check out the link to Z-net there's an eye opening walk on the communist, godless, alternate lifestyle side.  And don't forget to read Life after Capitalism - that one sounds like a real winner of an article.  (Thanks to Elmer's Brother for the intro to CP.)

And for a real insight into the movers and shakers behind the "peace" movement, check out Antiwar.com  a website hosted by the Randolph Bourne institute.  Bourne, a writer at the start of WWI opposed US involvement because he saw it as a means to spread Democracy, a hopelessly flawed system.  Aside from providing further proof that antiwar intellectuals are elitists, the site also offers a chance to buy this inspiring literature. The paranoid ramblings of Alexander Cockburn, Irish journalist, son of noted socialists and believer that Israel sponsored the 9/11 attacks.

The real war in this country has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, pink t-shirts or mourning vigils.  These people do not care one iota about soldiers, dead or otherwise.  The war they are waging is against the very system of government we enjoy.  It is against our way of life, our culture, our ethics and moral beliefs and against our freedoms. 

The war we need to fight is against the communist leaning left in this country who are pushing the midline of the political spectrum further and further toward communal living and away from the rugged indiviualism that made America a thriving economy and powerful political force in the world.  This war must defend capitalism, democracy and our values and it must be waged without reservation or hesitation.

Join the fight!

(CNSNews.com) - A DePaul University bake sale, mocking affirmative action, has exposed the student who organized the sale to an investigation on the grounds that he discriminated against and harassed other students.

The Chicago-based school is investigating whether senior Michael O'Shea may have violated the school's anti-discriminatory harassment policy with an "affirmative action bake sale" he organized with the DePaul Conservative Alliance (DCA).

According the the article, published on February 13, 2006, an "affirmative action bake sale" is an event meant to spark debate, not raise funds.  The sale itself is characterized by pricing based on race.  White and Asian buyers pay more for their brownies and rice crispy treats than purchasers of other races.  Apparently, the debate sparked by Michael O'Shea was just a little too heated and the university is now investigating whether or not his paperwork was filed correctly when he solicited the school's permission to hold the event.

In terms of the success of the event, there is no way to acurately quantify how many people were reached by Michael's message of government sanctioned inequality but if a picture is worth a thousand words a chocolate cookie is certainly worth something. Of course, exactly how much it's worth depends on your skin tone...

Propelled by an unmitigated drive to orchestrate a far-left progressive takeover of American politics, culture and ideology, MoveOn.org spoke from the depths of George Soros' disturbed dysfunction when, in a letter to its followers, it called for the removal of moderate and conservative leaning Democrats.

According to an article on CNS yesterday, liberals are being encouraged to replace democrats who do not really represent the party. From the article:

"Replacing a right-wing Democrat with a more progressive Democrat will help voters more clearly understand what Democrats stand for -- and that will help Democrats win," MoveOn said.

According to MoveOn.org, a Democratic majority in Congress would be a big step towards "progressive reform," but it says liberals must also work to build a "progressive majority that will work toward bold reforms."

Clearly there is no more room in the Democrat party for moderates.  The party who has (falsely) prided itself on being the "party of inclusion" will now be pushing the few rational people on their side of the aisle out of the club.  This movement, sparked by MoveOn, to take seats with not-just-Democrats but ultra-liberal-leftists can only be good for Republicans.  If the true agenda of the special interests behind the party are forced into the sunlight, many misguided moderates may be able to see more clearly the distinctions between Republicans and Democrats and correct past errors in judgement with the quick stroke of a stylus.  If voters feel forced to choose between hard line liberals and republicans, the votes will almost certainly not go Soros' way.

Many in the Press have been incited to anger by the light treatment they feel has been given to Dick Cheney's hunting mishap.  In response to the media's snobbish reminder to late-night comedians and White House daily briefers that "this is not a joke", I have decided to publish my own list of things it also IS NOT:

It is NOT:
1) relevant to Cheney's political position
2) a criminal investigation
3) an impeachable offense
4) insight into Cheney's character
5) a major news story (aside from "wow" value)
6) a scandal
7) a malicious or intentional act
8) any sort of deception or attempt to cover-up wrongdoing
9) a felony
10) really anyone's business but Dick's, Harry's and the local PD's (and of course that of, Mrs. Armstrong, the ranch owner)

What this most definitely IS:
is evidence that the whitehousepresscorp is an elitist (and liberal) group of journalists who think they should be privy to everything from what plays on GWB's I-pod to when Dick Cheney had his last colonoscopy. While a shooting accident is a bigger deal that I-tunes and presidential medical charts, it is not in any way relevant to the character or conduct of Cheney as veep. This was plain and simply an accident.

Democrats and the liberal left ought to be ashamed for even insinuating that there is some conspiracy going on - not after all the deliberate deception in the Clinton administration. There were more delays and lost documents in that White House than there are entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica. And all of that ugliness was intentional, political and happening in the Oval Office!

No pundit with any self-respect would even intone that this is anything more than it is. An unfortunate occurrence among friends on a hunting trip.

of the Washington Times, Inside the Beltway reports on talk radio host, Laura Ingraham's trip to Iraq. 

  'Blood brothers'
    On Feb. 3, the day she left for Iraq, Laura Ingraham received a phone call from Vice President Dick Cheney challenging the radio talk-show host to report what is "actually happening on the ground."
    Back broadcasting from her Capitol Hill studio yesterday after one week on Iraqi soil, Miss Ingraham feels she accomplished that mission: meeting, interviewing and sharing meals with U.S. and Iraqi troops, Sunnis, Kurds and Shia alike.
    At one point, described as a nationally syndicated radio first, she hosted a live call-in segment from Camp Victory in Baghdad, where a crowd of American soldiers talked one-on-one to an audience that listened in on 325 radio stations.
    What stands out the most from her trip?
    "The genuine brotherhood that I saw between the Iraqi forces and their American military trainers," the radio host told Inside the Beltway. "I mean, these guys are like blood brothers over there. You've even got Iraqi soldiers writing to the wives and families of the American military." 
 Otherwise, she points to a widespread fear among Iraqi citizens that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq too soon and former dictator Saddam Hussein will regain power.
    "It's a real concern," says Miss Ingraham, who is sympathetic to the fear. "I mean, come on, Saddam has made a travesty of his trial." 

Thanks, Laura, for the update!  And Godspeed to all our Soldiers overseas.

With the advent of any armed conflict, pacifists, like confused and cowardly cockroaches come scurrying out of the woodwork of our society.  They are a constant deluded reminder of how ungrateful, forgetful and stupid man can be.

How long would these no-weapons-at-any-cost people survive if men and women in uniform weren't standing in front of them taking fire? 

Where would they be without soldiers fighting terrorists abroad?  Without soldiers struggling to bring peace and freedom to other nations which are breeding grounds for the hate that drove 9/11 hijackers?  Would they do away with policemen?  They carry guns.  They shoot people. 

America tried isolationism - we tried for a long time to avoid entering World War II.  Millions died.  Genocidal holocaust killed Jews while unrestrained hatred and bigotry killed countless others.  We watched and waited from across the sea while Kurds were gassed and Rwandans were slaughtered. 

We all want peace but ignoring the reality of wolves outside the gate only turns sheep into mutton. 

Unrealistic, impractical pacifism is the movement of spoiled, rotten children.  Like those who've never had to work a day, these poorly reared citizens have no understanding of the cost of liberty. 

It's awfully easy to voice dissent when someone else's blood has purchased your right to speak freely.

I just got a chance to catch up with John Leo a favorite editorialist of mine and, as always, I highly recommend him to you all.  After reading his latest article over at TownHall, I can't help but ask why people in the West are just lying down and taking the abuse heaped upon them?  Here we have Muslims all over Europe fighting a jihad in the streets, the schools, the courts and the press and governments bending over backward to accomodate them but put a copy of the 10 commandments in the Alabama state courthouse and all hell breaks loose. 

I think the underlying reasons have to do with the undermining of Christianity throughout the Western world.  What began with Darwin and Freud as an attempt to explain man and his world has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by secularists and atheists who have successfully convinced entire nations of people that they are little more than beasts and that a belief in God of any sort, but especially of the Christian persuasion, is entirely unjustifiable. 

In America, there is the movement to 'Dan Brown' everything about Christianity.  Academics, hollywood producers and novelists are rewriting the history of paganism to make it seem more legitimate and revising the history of Christianity to make it seem less like a Judeo born movement and more like an outcropping or perversion of pagan practices.   In their movement to create a new religion free America, they are undermining the basis of the moral code that has held this nation together.  The justification for so much of what we do - acting for the public good - is itself a concept endorsed by JudeoChristian theology. 

The problem with eliminating the divine (personal beliefs aside)  is that it removes the finality from our most basic laws and beliefs and creates a credibility gap wide enough to drive a herd of buffalo through.  If there is no God speaking truths from on high, then the laws of man become capricious, arbitrary and unneccesary and there is little or no justifiable reason to support anything but utter chaos.

In essence, if there is no eternal law - no defining code of morality issued from a higher source than man's own imaginings, then there is no sin.  If there is no law to transgress, no sin (or ethical violation) can occur.  If there is no sin/transgression then there can be no punishment.  Also there can be no remorse.  How can you feel guilty for something that wasn't really wrong?  Ultimately, the dismissal of God allows men to behave, without any violation of conscience, in the most depraved way conceivable.  And that is what we are facing today.  If there is no God, then no behavior is out of bounds because the rules of men are completely arbitrary.  That is the underlying argument in every case tried by the ACLU and it is the basic principle behind the argument of all progressives who push a social agenda. 

This country, however, was founded on a core of Judeo-Christian tenets.  While the various religious groups in America fought with each other and argued constantly over points of law and policy, there was an accepted standard of basic social behavior that was deeply rooted in faith. 

Some would argue that the actions of this country have not always lived up to the teachings of Jesus Christ and that this fact nullifies the claim our nation would hold on any Christian heritage.  To accept that idea would be to condemn something altogether good for the inadequacies and limited understanding of men. 

In this country, the freedom to worship differently has always been cherished so long as all abode by the Christian based principles upon which our nation was founded.  The freedom to wholly condemn all who choose to worship, and to drive the fundamental principles that freed us in the first place out of our national consciousness, if it continues unfettered, will be the undoing of us all.

Everyone who logged onto Drudge today saw Newt Gingrich with a full plate of food in each hand and the caption "You're Fat".  Apparently, that is what the Dems are offering to America in lieu of actual policy suggestions. 

"You're fat."  That's what the heads of the DNC came up with while they were brainstorming (a term which in this case must mean sharing the one brain they have between them) for possible '08 slogans.  That's the message they want to get out?  They're rocking to vote with "You're fat"?  Not even "You're phat" (aimed at younger voters, of course) but "you're fat"?!?

Aside from the obvious explanations for the photo (like maybe he was being a gentleman and getting food for another person or maybe he was just famished or maybe who the he** cares what he's having for lunch?)  this beauty of a campaign is going to land the dems in some serious hot water.  Can't you just picture the debates?

And Senator Clinton, how do you propose we handle global warming?

"All I can say, Jim, is my opponent needs to shed a few pounds."

But what more can we expect from the party of name-callers, fiction writing revisionists who are so afraid to lose power that they will create scandal and conspiracy over a fake turkey feed-the-troops photo-op and a handful of misfired shotgun pellets?

Describing the proponents of the "living constitution" as idiots, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed his philosophy of strict interpretation, which he called "originalism", to the Federalist Society in a speech given at their conference in Peurto Rico.

The idea tha the consitution should be a "living, breathing organism" and should be flexible to adapt to a changing society may sound like a fairly reasonable concept until you consider the simple truth that the writers of the document wrote specific safeguards into the consitution to prevent just such flexibility.  These American founders were trying to avoid the flexibilty that English law afforded its King and Prime Minister.  The flexibilty that allowed taxation without representation and allowed for the closing of Boston Harbor.  The same flexibility that allowed troops to be quartered in the homes of Bostonians and permitted the shutting down of the colonial American press.  The founders, wanted hard and fast limitations set forth to prevent the establishment and entrenchment of factions that would rise to power and create an oligarchy, rule by the few.

The proponents of a "living constitution" are exactly what the founders of this country feared.  A loud and obnoxious faction, a minority of Americans, who want to establish their views and gain power by subverting the republican democracy as it was created.  They would avoid going to the people through legislative action, because they know their views are not popular or generally accepted, and instead utilize the courts as an ally (at worst) or a pawn (at best) in forcing their will on the rest of us.

This goes against the very freedoms our founding fathers bled and died to grant us.  It would subjugate the majority of Americans to the whims of small but extremely vocal special interest groups.  These same groups claim enlightenment and use academia as a club with which to bludgeon any Americans who disagree with their positions.  There is a plethera of groups using these fascist gestapo tactics and they must be stopped.

The courts are for arbitrating not legislating - and that should be the mantra of any American who truly values his or her rights.

Everyone's favorite paranoid socialist is now calling on Tony Blair to return las Malvinas/Falkland Islands to Argentina.  Referring to the British PM as an unconditional ally and subordinate to "el loco", he called Blair a "peon of imperialism" and the "principal ally of Hitler" (reffering to Bush). 

Of course, these comments follow on the heels of a chiding he received from Blair for declaring his alliance to Cuba.

For those who don't remember the Falkland Islands war, there were actually British people living on these islands undisturbed for years until it became politically useful for Argentine Pte. Galtieri to raise a little nationalistic sentiment by attacking the British subjects there.  The UN wholly condemened the action and British went and reclaimed (euphemism for "kicked butt") the islands. 

I lived in Argentina in the early 90s (ten years after the war) and some people still had mild resentment toward the British (and Americans also, because apparently, to them, we all look alike).  Argentina, though completely out of bounds attacking those defenseless, Brit-populated islands, has still not renounced her claim.

Bottom line:  Chavez is certifiable and looking for a fight with the U.S. and Britain.  Behavior like this will only make his own people suffer in the long run as relations continue to deteriorate.  Just another wacko socialist making absurd claims and hurting his own cause - when will they learn?

There's a new show taking Europe by storm.  Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price directed by Robert Greenwald, portrays the "perils of runaway capitalism" and fuels the anti-capitalist mentality that has already shaped most modern European nations.  Greenwald's film screened to a "large and appreciative audience" according to Reuters.

Wal-Mart, based in Betonville, Arkansas, has criticized the film by saying it is not an accurate portrayal of the company.

"Let's be clear about Mr. Greenwald's intent: it is not to present a fair and accurate portrayal of Wal-Mart," the retailer said in a statement last year.

"It is a propaganda video -- pure and simple -- designed to advance a narrow special interest agenda."

No kidding.  American liberals are determined to drive this country far left of the founder's intent.  They are determined to erase capitalism and erode democracy by completely undermining individual choice and accountability. 

With so many jobs avaiilable, (FYI national unemployment is at 4%) why are people choosing to work without health benefits?  What working conditions are so deplorable?  Not enough paid vacation?  I've been to Wal-Mart and seen employees on breaks, eating their lunches, using the restrooms.  I've even seen them hanging out talking at the counters when the store isn't overwhelmed with shoppers.  At the Wal-Mart closest to the undisclosed location where we are living there is even a guy who gets paid to wear a blue smock, sit by the door and sing loudly (and out of tune) to everyone who enters.  He's not the pianist at Macy's but I'd say that's a darn easy job for a retiree.  And frankly, I have given serious thought to being a Wal-Mart greeter when my kids are grown.  I'm all about smiling at people and handing out stickers for minimum wage. 

Now I'm not saying this to insinuate that the folks at WM aren't working for a living because they are and they are on their feet for eight hours running back and forth stocking shelves and hunting for that item that was listed in the circular but has mysteriously disappeared from the shelves.  They work and they are paid for their time.  I appreciate these people because wiith a family of six and a military salary, Wal-Mart comes in mighty handy. 

There are jobs all over this country that have no health benefits and pay minimum wage.  There are jobs that don't allow you to leave the premises for your lunch or breaks.  I worked in daycares while I was in college and was never allowed to leave for my "lunch break" because the child to adult ratio had to be maintained - I was not compensated for that time. That means that legally I had to stay in my "classroom" while I got my unpoaid break.  (Not much of a break, huh? - More like a daily raping of my time.)  Did I feel mistreated?  You betcha! You know what I did to get even?  I finished school and got a degree so that I could get a better job.  When I walked away from my last daycare job, it was with a college diploma and toward a new career with amazing benefits.

If you feel mistrated because you aren't getting free babysitting and a gym menbership as company perks then get out the want ads and get another job.  Go back to school, move on, move up.  That's called social mobility and it is a wonderfully accessible part of the American capitalist society.  But don't blame your disappointment in life on a lack of benefits because you chose the job.  And don't blame it on a lack of opportunity because my tax dollars are funding pell grants, welfare checks, medicare and dozens of other programs designed to take care of you while you take steps to improve your circumstances. From my daycare days, I know that the gov't also pays child care costs for some people while they go to college.

In this country, you don't have any excuse for staying poor.  There are hands outstretched everywhere you look offering a step up. 

Pell Grant Information

Enlist and get the GI Bill

Other financial aid for schooling

Child care expenses authorized under Pell grants and fed. finanaced student loans

Department of Labor (jobs, layoff help, disability, etc)

US Employment and training administration

and that is only the beginning...

A wide coalition of nations (all of whom the liberal left will ignore) have joined with the US, calling for Iran to abandon it's quest for nuclear capability.  On ABC's This Week Condi Rice is quoted as saying,

"The really remarkable thing over the past several months is there is really now a tremendous coalition of countries saying exactly the same thing to Iran, the 'permanent five' - the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France - are united with countries like Brazil and India and others."

The interview continues:  "And the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors has reported the Iranians up to the U.N. Security Council," Rice said.

With a consensus among nations, Iran is only isolating itself with its actions, Rice said, adding that Iran still has the option to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.

"The Russians have given them a proposal; the Europeans gave them a proposal," Rice said. "The question is, will they be allowed to have technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon?"

I think the real question is, "If it comes to a showdown with Iran, how quickly will Democrats be able to dismiss the international coalition and accuse President Bush of being a 'go-it-alone' cowboy?"

Only time will tell.