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.

After 6 months in a dumpy little apartment in Virginia, 10 days in a hotel suite with four small children and 1 very long and very tiring day of travel, we have finally returned home!  I never thought I'd be so glad to see army housing but this place looks so good to me today~

The boys are getting reacquainted with their toys (all the ones that didn't make the cut 6 months ago and were left behind) and my daughter who was only 6 and a half months old when we left is beginning to explore.  When we first arrived, she was terrified and actually cried every time I walked away from her but she is now sleeping peacefully in her own crib.

And here I am talking to you guys - sheesh I need to get a life

I did watch a bit of the Brown inquisition this morning.  In all that I saw, he never implied that the President was negligent (something the dems, no doubt, were looking for) but he made a huge deal over the difficulties of working with DHS (Homeland Security).  One of my favorite parts was when he described the White House as extremely responsive whenever he called and noted that they always asked "What can we do for you?"  He said that for most of his tenure his answer was always "Keep DHS out of my hair."

Just another example of beauracracy failings, it appears.  Sometimes, there are just too many people in the loop for the work to get done in time.  What ever happened to "the era of big government is over"?  Bill Clinton said it and NEVER followed through and GWB hasn't done much better so far.  

He also clarified the letter he sent to the WH seeking guidance about answering questions before Congress.  He said that the press reported erroneously that he was seeking Executive privilege and that he was only seeking guidance because he knew the prez could invoke EP and didn't want to say anything that would confliict the president's right.  He said the press twisted the story to make it sound like he was arm twisting or threatening to tell some dirty little secret.  Imagine that?  The press misleading the public to breed contempt for Bush.  No! Never! Turns out in the testimony I heard, he never even claimed to have actually spoken to Bush but only to two senior staffers (Andy and Joe) who he claims were completely trustworthy in that they always took to the prez any word/counsel/requests that Brown sent.  It was all very interesting and I have found many right wing pundits all too ready to attack Brown in fear of him saying something bad about GWB.  Some of the blogs I read this morning were conducting preemptive strikes against Brown and frankly, from what I saw the strikes weren't needed and the attacks were unfounded.  The prez. let him speak, why can't the bloggers who support him do the same?  Anyway, that's just my take on the whole thing.

Anyone catch the rest of the hearing (after about 11 a.m. ET)?

Here's my question - if the muslims are so peeved with the Danes, the French, the Spanish and all those nasty little Europeans who published the now thoroughly famous cartoons of "the prophet",  why the heck are so many of the protest signs in ENGLISH?

Hate provoking imamas and lovely groups like Hezbollah are sending a clear message:

“Defending the prophet should continue worldwide,” Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, told the crowd. “Let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.”

“Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a word, a demonstration but let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ... we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices,” Nasrallah added.

Bloggers all over America are crucifying the Sate Department for taking too soft a stance and not offering unflinching support to the Danes and yet we are still the focus of all the rage in the Arab world.   Interesting.   Our mideast policy needs a serious change. 

Page 3A of today's USA Today carries a four paragraph blurb in the Nationline section that is a perfect example of the fact that Muslims haven't cornered the market on behaving badly or misplacing blame for things they don't like.

Ignoramus Reverend Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas is convinced that America's acceptance of gay culture and lifestyles are the reason U.S. soldiers are dying.  Apparently, Fred isn't the only idiot out there, his imbecilic parishoners (also read: evil minions) picket soldiers funerals and hold up signs with statements like (no joke)  "Thank God for IEDs". 

Slow-thinking protester Margie Phelps, daughter of the obtuse pastor and one of six simple-minded protesters who picketed a service this week outside of Fort Campbell, Kentucky says of her personal mission, "My job in this, the last of the last days, is to show America her abomination."

Fortunately, these six morons were met by 170 counterprotesters, a group made up of flag-waving locals and military wives.  Unfortunately, they are too stupid to explain to the rest of America what our soldiers have to do with the promotion of homosexuality.  Combatting one of the last American insitutions that does not embrace homosexuality seems rather counterproductive, don't you think?  

Can't you just hear Napoleon Dynamite saying, "Idiots!"

Apparently, these dim-witted inbreds (most of the 75 member congregation are extended relatives of the pathetic pastor) also think that miners are somehow promoting gay and lesbian issues.  They protested outside a memorial service for the men who died in the Sago mine disaster while families were inside grieving.  "Thank God for dead miners" and "God hates your tears" were among the clever posters they devised.

Described in some media reports as "fundamentalists" these freakish followers of Phelps' fiendish brand of filth give true Christians a bad name.  They aren't fundamentalists, they aren't even Christian, a religion whose namesake offered mercy to an adulteress about to be stoned.  But maybe, after all their protesting out in the hot sun, they're thirsty.  Anyone want to help me pass out some kool-aid?

Well, I've been all over the net today and have read reports and blogs and comments about the funeral of Coretta Scott King.  And there are a few arguments that need to be shut down here and now.

First, many democrats in an effort to deny the bad behavior of the party frontmen (and women) at the service are making some form of the following argument:  No one can criticize the service except the family of Mrs. King, all of whom seemed to be in agreement with the partisan Bush bashers.

WRONG!  If that is the case, then it should have been a private funeral service for family and friends only.  This was a public funeral service, widely televised because the woman lying in the coffin meant something to this country and it's continuing struggle to offer freedom to all.  The service was meant for the entire country and we all deserved to participate in mourning her.  It was not a family affair.

Secondly, many dems are pointing to the fact that the largely partisan audience approved of the comments.  Another lame argument as clearly these speakers were preaching to their own choir.  Democrats carried nearly all of the black vote in this country. 

Once again WRONG.  Whether or not those present applauded has no bearing on the propriety of the conduct of two former presidents and a U.S. Senator.  The argument that because many people are doing something, it must be okay, has become a party tenet for the dems.  you'll remember well the "Everybody lies" campaign of the '90s when Bill got caught in his most public deception.  Even small children are taught that just because someone is doing it, doesn't make it right.

Bottom line:  Once more, the President asked for a cooperative tone in Washington and the dems refused.  He spoke of Corretta, her life, her heavenly reward.  They spoke with inference, innuendo and ill-disguised partisanship.  An opportunity to bring Americans, in this sharply divided country, together for a moment of national mourning to honor Mrs. King was squandered.  The contemptuous speech and thinly veiled references to the current administration and its policies have once again proven the democratic party incapable of reaching across the aisle and unwilling to operate with any sense of etiquette and decorum.  Few are the democrats who will show any level of cooperation and compromise without first desecrating the rules of decency.  They repeatedly do themselves a disservice and yesterday, they did one to us all.

Massachusetts gay rights activists have turned into big brother by publishing the names of every single signer of a petition to ban gay marriage.  This list is published online specifically so that gays can "be aggressive personally".  The gay folks in Mass. are being encouraged to boycott any business dealings with petition signers. 

I'm not at odds with the boycott - that is a legitimate tactic to express your disapproval of people's political views.  However, publishing the names of individuals is highly suspect. Signing a petition to require lawmakers to address policy issues is akin to voting.  You have a right in this country to express your political views with some degree of anonymity and without fear of being personally confronted by your neighbor.  These are not businesses, these are individuals and this technique is pure fascism.  It is just like requiring Jews to wear the Star of David. 

Gays and Lesbians wouldn't want to be outed.  Those who "come out of the closet" would want the freedom to do so on their own terms.  The same principle applies to these petition signers.  They deserve the right to out their political views when they are ready to do so.  www.knowthyneighbor.com  has crossed a line and has made themself the Massachussetts thought police. 

There ought to be a law against this breach of privacy.

Want to sign my petition?

just another day for some politicians who are all about playing the game for personal gain.

This is a blurb from Foxnews.com illustrating (again) that C-L-I-N-T-O-N is listed in the thesaurus under "political", "pandering" and "insincere".

Canceled Contribution

New York Senator Hillary Clinton has put her money where her mouth is when it comes to criticizing Wal-Mart, returning a $5000 donation the retail giant made to her political action committee last November. Last week, Clinton blasted Wal-Mart for its lack of employee benefits and her staff tells Newsday she returned the money because of "serious differences with current company practices."

Clinton, you may recall, served as a paid member of the Wal-Mart board of directors from 1986 to 1992, a time when the company's benefits were less than they are today.

Gateway Pundit has put together a few choice comments about the Cartoon Jihad and, how surprising, it's all America/George Bush/the Neocons fault.  Of course, this must be true as last year neocons all over the country observed "Bring an angry muslim to work and teach him to make a firebomb" day.

Ironically, when some far right American pundits used exactly this same explanation for 9/11 (i.e. It's our own fault, we asked for it) they were quickly lambasted by almost everyone, including, the same wild-eyed libs who are now embracing the idea.

Guess where this story goes.  The Gimme-a break File!

Continuing to make the rounds is the "Mother of all Downing Street Memos" as it is billed by some.  A memo that is being reported on in England as describing a meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush regarding the situation in Iraq.  This memo, purpotedly from a January, 31, 2003 meeting implicates W. in a conspiracy to draw fire by flying a U.S. U2 Recon plane painted with U.N. markings over Iraqi air space accompanied by U.S. fighter jets.  Surely, this would give the U.N. no option but to face down the Arabic Napoleon.

There are quite a few suspicious aspects of this story that need to be addressed, not the least of which is that it is surfacing just in time to promote the book in which it figures.

Other flaws include:

A U2 typically fries at 70,000 feet.  That means you wouldn't be able to see it from the ground.  You'd need a radar to know it was even there.  Turns out that radars don't identify paint schemes.  Some may argue that a U2 doesn't necessarily fly that high.  That's true - and it would have to fly much lower were it to have fighter escorts because those fighters can't fly at 70,000 feet. 

Assuming that the plane flew right over Saddam's palace, drew fire and George Bush tried to use this open aggression to push the UN into war,don't you think the UN (who would know when and where they were flying missions) would say something like, "Actually, George, that's not our plane."  catching him red-handed in front of the entire world. 

Bush, having been a fighter pilot, would know all of this information about the U2. 

Furthermore, as I have already mentioned in previous posts, U.S. planes were under routine attack in the no-fly zones.  Saddam had been firing on our pilots for nearly ten years as they flew missions during Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.  Why we would need to draw fire, I can't possibly imagine. 

The question we ought to be asking is why for ten years our troops were having weekly skirmishes with Iraqi surface to air missiles and we waited to 2003 to put him out of a job.  Another good question is:  Why didn't the mainstream media keep us informed about Saddam's ten year target practice?  Three countries patrolled the no-fly zones from 1991 until 1996, claiming authority under the UN Security Council Res. 688 (which didn't specifically authorize the zones) these countries patrolled initially to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq and other repressed groups within the country from further aggression by Saddam's regime.  The three participating countries were, the U.S., the U.K.  and, get this, FRANCE!  Suddenly, in 1996, France pulls out.  (Specific dates may be worth cross referencing with cleared oil-for-food payoff checks as that was the same year that the UN passed Resolution 986 which established the aforementioned Oil for Food Program aka International Organized Crime.)

Interestingly, the facts in this case are all being obscured by a "memo" that has been shown to an author in England.  And I have it from a very reliable liberal source that this author is a friend of his, so the memo must be legit and the conspiracy must be true!  All I can say is...

You know where that got Dan Rather.

"Allah Akbar".  According to a witness, that was what a young muslim boy shouted after shooting a priest through the back, sending bullets into the 60 year old clergyman's heart and liver and killing him.  (HE SHOUTED "ALLAH AKBAR" By Michelle Malkin ) 

I wouldn't even begin to suggest that muslim's have a monopoly on violent 14 year olds or even on out-of-control protests.  And I won't decry the violence that is happening throughout Europe and the middle East with any more fervor than that with which I speak out against the horrors of such practices in my own backyard.  Where I am drawing a line, however, is with those who keep proclaiming these acts of terrorism are solely the domain of a radical fringe.  When this many adherents are in the streets violently protesting,  those denials just don't hold water. 

This is not a fringe movement:

(pics from MichelleMalkin.com)

This is a culture that has declared all out war on freedom and anyone who practices and allows it.  Our government is so afraid that the State Department issued a statement denouncing the offensive cartoons.  Chechnya won't even allow the Danish cartoonists (who are running for their lives) entrance into their country for fear of their own muslim terrorists retaliating if the government shows any support for free speech. 

What these people clearly do not understand is that while freedom allows men to become the vilest of sinners it also allows them to become the most venerable of saints.  For every ugly riot in American history, for every lynching, for every public scandal, the incidents of human kindness are exponentially greater.  The times when Americans band together to help neighbors in need as well as people halfway around the world suffering from the terrible aftereffects of tsunamis, earthquakes, poverty, hunger and disease.  For every offensive cartoon, there are countless examples of inspiring and uplifting expressions of free speech.  What these people don't know, or won't recognize is that the same freedom which allows men to abase himself, also allows him to be exalted. 

Perhaps they have been in chains too long to appreciate the beauty of being free.  If such is the case then our only choice is to undermine their captors and force them from the darkness of dictatorial compulsion into the warmth sunlight of the free world. Whatever the reason for their attitudes and actions, we cannot allow their blind hatred to bend our will.  We must show determined resolve and clear dedication to the liberties we espouse and we must fight, without any reservation, movements like this one that would enslave us all.

(pics from Reuters)

Once again the MSM (mainstream media) throws blood and bait in the water to start a liberal feeding frenzy.  Creating a public discussion of whether the President has the legal power to order a killing on U.S. soil, NBC news claims an exclusive report that is all about... nothing.  Notice that the question posed isn't "Can a U.S. president order a killing?"  but "Can BUSH..."  Deliberately bringing into play the intense partisan feelings about this particular president, Newsweek/NBC asks this question as if the answer wasn't just as applicable to every single U.S. president past and future.

Media watchers are well aware of the "throw a log on the fire" technique of journalism.  In a 24 hour news cycle world, with viewers who have a two minute attention span, making the news is, apparently,  only about half as good as making it up.  When there's nothing to run, the press is quick to fill air time and column space with reports of 'what if'.  This report is exactly that.  What if a terrorist had a bomb and was walking across the national mall?  Could President Bush order the military or other Federal security forces to take the terrorist out?  An interesting question?  Maybe.  News?  No. 

I'm sure tomorrow there will be talking heads discussing the dangerous ramifications of such an executive power.  Liberals will be angry that John Kerry isn't the one with such authority and the ACLU will be wondering how to file a suit on behalf of the dead would-have-been bomber. 

Thanks again to the MSM for inventing stories that polarize an already angry nation.  Call me when the president gives the order - that'll be when this discussion matters.

For those who want a very concrete answer, here goes.  The commissioning oath of military officers which is very similar in nature to the oath taken by all members of Congress and the President compels the affirmed to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The next phrase is "and to obey the orders of the President of the United States..."  (Notice, there is no mention of the Congress.)  And by the way, ever hear of say... the war of 1812.  Maybe a little skirmish called the Civil War.  Both took place on U.S.Soil on both occasions, U.S. Presidents called upon the military to fight and kill.  Oh yeah, we, also shot down 39 Japanese planes and sank 5 of their midget submarines over and off of Hawaii on December 7th, 1941 without even receiving presidential orders. So there.

As a young girl interested in politics, I always wondered how we got from there (the founding of America) to here (the great society and an elephantine beauracratic government).  Age and unfortunate experience have opened my eyes to the sad reality that paternalistic public programs and an ever expanding and encroaching federal government have undermined the principles for which patriot blood was shed not so long ago.  The painful truth is that this government in no way resembles what the founders envisioned and each day more closely aligns with what should be its polar opposite. 

Some issues, such as gun control and the patriot act, bring Americans from either side of the political aisle into the fray.  They battle over these issues fiercely, but at the end of the day, liberty remains on the on the chopping block awaiting the crushing blow.  Sadly, the acceptance of an increasingly socialist government has pushed the ideals of our forefathers far out of the mainstream of political thought.  The only true spokesmen seem to be far-right fringe groups who have been so effectively marginalized that a majority of Americans aren't even aware of the validity of some of their views. 

I'm not suggesting a return to the absence of government regulations nor am I advocating that we become so decentralized that we can't defend ourselves and promote democracy on a global level.  What I am saying, is that, our government has, to the nation's detriment, become an increasingly socialist state.

The good news is that, with the rise of bloggers and "citizen journalists" and the breakdown of the mainstream media(MSM) filter, we can get the word out and encourage Americans to hold fast to the principles that make us free.  The only question now is, in the shadow of a bloated, beauracratic government and a wantonly, willful, welfare state, will anybody really care?

Once again, Cindy Sheehan's Venezualan comrade garners international attention with his complete and total ignorance.  Comparing President Bush to Hitler, and clearly reading a page from Howard Dean's talking points, little Hugo condemned the "imperialist, fascist" power to the north and vowed to arm his country as relations between his nation and ours rapidly deteriorate.  According the Chavez, Adolf Hitler is like a suckling child compared to George W. Bush. 

Not lost on this reader, however, is the fact that Presidente Chavez, elected on a socialist platform (that's national socialism - or NaZi in German) gave this rousing speech to thousands of supporters from "a stage decorated with a huge red image of himself as a young soldier."  Sieg Heil!

On a side note, a compilation of Presidente Chavez' speeches will be published and released by Doubleday in April.  The project, translated into English and edited by a Cuban journalist, F. Castro is tentatively titled "Mi Lucha". (Mein Kampf)

WWII American propoganda painted the German soldier as a monster that relished killing and torturing others.  It painted him as unthinking and unfeeling - a knuckle dragging neanderthal - who lived to wreak havoc and leave destruction and death in his wake.  It was a psychological tactic designed to allow young American soldiers, most of whom were completely unexperienced with the horrors of war, to kill another man or boy in cold blood. 

Today the same tactics are being used by Americans.  Not by the military establishment, mind you, our soldiers know very well that they are killing men who probably have wives and children, adversaries with mothers and fathers.  They understand that their enemy is no less complex than they themselves are.  They do not relish the duty which they are called upon to fulfill but they recognize that freedom is a right all men must share if any of us it to be free from the threat of terror.

No, the propoganda war isn't being waged by the U.S. military but against them.  Anti-war protestors levy charges of "baby-killer" and "mercenary" against Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines daily.  Spurred on by left-leaning politicians and partisan hate-mongers, these voices fill the air with the vilest rhetoric and the most judgemental accusations.  The shouts of protestors and the angry descriptives they use to reference our military appear designed to convince us that those in uniform are subhuman monsters who either relish the act of killing or who are able to emotionally detach themselves from their actions. 

The ability of anti-military citizens to shout these characterizations with such hate and venom attests to the fact that they have become vicitims of their own propoganda.  They have become the mindless bigots they claim to despise.  The descriptives they attribute to our servicemen and women are mirrored in their own behavior.  They have demonized an entire group of people and endeavor to enrage others by using a generalized caricature of their own misperceptions.  Living with the hypocrisy required to accuse our soldiers of mistreating and dehumanizing Iraqi insurgents while reducing our soldiers to lemming-like homicidal minions must demand an immeasurable amount of self-delusion. 

That such "pacifists" have become the most hateful and horrifyingly biased of our people is a tribute to the American soldier.  Amidst the frantic antics and loud sounds of the anti-war protestors, the American soldiers trudge on.  Standing ready, ever ready, to protect the freedom of even those who unfeelingly and unthinkingly despise them.

A small group of men gathered together in relative secrecy with the intent of undermining their government.  They schemed for months, planning the tactics and choosing the method by which they would overthrow and quite possibly kill government officials.  They seized government weapons and carried out brutal and secret attacks in the dead of night.  Often forced to use improvised devices, they attacked from unseen positions and engaged in a conspiracy with a foreign power to bring that nation into the bloody conflict they were waging on their own soil.  They formed illegal militias to wage war with their own government and participated in the illegal destruction of government property.  Women and children participated in the insurgency and were used as spies, as well as marksmen.  The propaganda they produced was so inflammatory that it was considered contraband and it frequently incited illegal gatherings where they staged recruitment for their cause.

Their cause was far from popular.  Had the general public been made completely aware of their plans, their unpatriotic actions would have been impeded and their cause quashed at it's earliest stage.  Records show that more than half of their countrymen either opposed their rebellion or refused to participate in it.  The mafia they established incited others to riot and arm themselves.  Eventually, they led their followers into bloody skirmishes with the government until many were dead, all were exhausted and humiliated.  At the end of their campaign, their coup completed, this unelected, unrepresentative group of insurgents had successfully installed themselves in the seat of power and formed a new government, the ideals of which were imposed upon the masses.

Today we call them the fathers of our country and the founders of the Constitution.

A special thanks to Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Monroe, Adams, Madison, Paine and all of the other men who left a brand new country in their bloody wake and forced freedom upon us.  What makes them different from other insurgents?  They did not set about to acquire personal power but to disperse it among the citizenry - to place in every man's hands the right to speak for himself and affect his own governance. 

A New York art fan got his feelings hurt this week when he attended the National Black Fine Art Show.  Unlike some Muslims across Europe who are protesting the depiction of Mohammad in political cartoons with violence,  Mr. Manhattan emailed his local CBS news channel bringing attention to a painting by Harlem artist, "Tafa" currently exhbited in the show.

From the WCBSTV report:  The art show's producer Josh Wainwright, insisted he hadn't even made the Bin Laden connection. "Knowing what you know now would you have barred the painting from being part of your show?" I asked. "Absolutely not," he replied. Wainwright says he's a military veteran and despises Bin Laden, but he added, "I don't think it's anyone's job or vocation to limit the expression of artists."

While some at the show did recognize the Bin Laden face on the Christ body, we found none who were offended. Instead most defended "Tafa" the artist's right to speak his mind. The painting is bordered with hand lettered expressions and names including "mujahadin," "McCarthyism," and "Amadou Diallo," a man killed by New York City police in 1999.

The report does say that the Bin Laden imagery was intentional, according to the artist. 

Kudos for mr. manhattan who typed his frustration over the issue and sent it to the local CBS affiliate instead of setting a car on fire or raiding an embassy.  Just another example of why the world needs democracy.  People need to be free to safely and appropriately express outrage.

As for the painting itself, here's my take:

I just don't see the problem.  I'm no art critic - and I don't think I've ever attended an art show because (yawn) it's just not me but this painting actually seems to make sense to me.  The fact that Christ is upside down shows that the character depicted is an "anti" christ figure rather than an actual representation of Jesus.  Considering the fact that it is Bin Laden makes the inversion highly appropriate since Christ preached peace and healed others while Bin Laden preaches violence and kills.  A complete inversion of anything Jesus taught.  That fact is further illustrated by the words bordering the picture - all references to people and events we associate with fanatics who endeavor to enforce their beliefs by the sword.

And you know what they say about people who live by the sword...

Felicitaciones to the Spanish who finally grew a spine!  Maybe the Spanish are finally learning the lessons of caving in to the demands of a tyrranical ideology.  They fled the Global War on Terror in a desperate attempt at appeasement but, now, faced with the reality of Islam induced censorship some Spaniards are standing fast.

I'm against censorship.  I'm against treating other people's beliefs with the complete disregard and disrespect shown in these cartoons, as well.  But above all, I'm against the hypocrisy of a culture that says "We can call you infidels.  We can kill your innocents.  But we'll be damned if you draw a picture!"

It's not the outright lies that are hard to combat.  It's the subtle ones, the ones that simply insinuate and imply a truth that just isn't so.

I was surfing Planned Parenthood's website today.  Sometimes I just get bored.  And there tucked in among the exposition about the freedom to choose was the insidious code word for people like me who abhor the practice of abortion.  "Anti-choice".  That's what they are calling me now.  "Anti-choice". 

I'm here to say, to shout, to scream to anyone who will listen.  This is just not true.  Everyone believes in choice.  The most die hard of Christian fundamentalists believes in choice, free will is another name for it.  The problem we have is with timing.  And it's not just us.

By law, abortions become illegal at a certain stage of pregnancy and thus you no longer have a choice.  It is not choice we are opposed to, it is all about where on the time line of your reproductive history the choice comes. 

Do you choose on your child's first birthday?  Legally, that's too late.  It's infanticide.

Do you choose as the baby's head is crowning in the labor and delivery room?  Again, that is legally too late.  The child is viable.

Do you choose at 24 weeks when the baby is moving and kicking inside, his or her heart beating and at which point babies can now survive through miraculous medical developments?  Would that be too late?

Do you choose at 14 weeks when perhaps you have already experienced quickening, the baby's first movements?  Would that be too late?

Do you choose at 8 weeks?  4 weeks?  2 weeks - when you first realize that you may have conceived?

Why not CHOOSE before you act so that the choice is one you'd rather make - not to get pregnant at all?  At that stage of the game, you have so many more options.  Why not decide to either practice safe sex (I am not advocating premarital sex in any way) or to wait to engage in risky behavior (after all a woman's body was designed to carry out this incredible species continuing mission) until you are prepared to deal with the consequences?  

We "anti-choice" people desperately want you to choose!  We want more than anything for you to choose!  We simply want you to choose sooner rather than later.

The debate in this country continues to rage over the war in Iraq with rhetoric from both sides that is increasingly inflammatory and insistent.  This heated and ugly debate is symptomatic of a much larger problem.  Americans do not share a common vision of this nation's place in the world. 

Nearly two decades ago American president Ronald Reagan convinced a majority of us that this country should and could be a "shining city on a hill".  The idea of the nation standing, like our own lady in the harbor, as a beacon of freedom and a bastion of liberty is an appealing notion.  In spite of having a somewhat checkered past,   America is proud of her long forward march to freedom.  And for Americans, it is almost unimaginable that the peoples of the world aren't clamoring to become just like us. 

There was something that Reagan forgot to warn us about, however.  The sewage runs downhill.

All over the world, countries are getting a taste of America.  They are forming opinions about our democratic system based on the hateful rhetoric of politicians and the angry accusatory tone of protestors.  They are making inferrences about our way of life based on the steady stream of Hollywood productions beamed into their houses and huts via satellite.  They are viewing and listening to the absolute worst of America. 

American television shows and music, magazines and fashions hold certain values paramount, among them,  unrestrained sexuality, irresponsible consumerism and personal freedom without responsibility.  In some parts of the world, the vision of America engendered by these qualities flies in the face of local cultural and religious sentiment.  On other parts of the planet, these television endorsed depictions of our nation only serve to remove the impetuous for change.  After all, why struggle to emulate a culture that only offers more of the same evils that already trouble your own community.

My husband tells the story of serving in the Balkans a decade ago and facing considerable disbelief by his Bosnian friends when he spoke of his family.  One even went so far as to ask directly, "You mean you live with your wife and children?"  Apparently, thanks to their limited exposure to Americans and abundant exposure to American t.v. thought that all Americans were divorced.  Watching America via satellite must be like viewing Mad Max.  To them, we are a completely foreign world that has not only  shaken loose of the restrictions of dictatorship and tyranny but has also abandoned the comfortable and venerable conventions of an older society. 

Apparently, Americans value the freedom to buy and produce pornography, frivilously spend hundreds of dollars on a pair of sneakers or legitimize hate speech by publishing it in the op-ed section of the Washington Post more than the freedom to set a positive example to the world of the beautiful fruits of freedom.  We have allowed our love of our own freedom to stand in the way of our desire to free all men everywhere.  Until Americans start policing themselves a little better (and that means willingly abdicating some personal freedoms for the general welfare), no one is going to want what we have. 

Perhaps if we cleaned up some of our own cultural and societal garbage, the bottom of the hill would be cleaner and the view would be awe-inspiring. 

By now, all of America knows the Cindy Sheehan was escorted from the gallery of the house last night before the SOTU address.  Apparently, Sheehan was unaware that an invitation to such an occasion carries with it an implicit dress code and standard of behavior.  Also, in the too dumb to attend category was the wife of a republican representative who wore a t-shirt (supporting the prez) and was also escorted out.

Just me talking here, a simple and not very socially adept borderline redneck, but I've got wonder why Sheehan would wear a t-shirt to the SOTU.  The rule of thumb in this case is if the person who invited you is wearing a suit and tie or a nice dress, then you should be in the same attire.  Did you notice any Senators there in cut-offs and "Nuke Iraq" tees?  I must've have missed the part where democratic icon Sheila Jackson Lee was swishing up and down the aisles in her mini-skirt, while adjusting her "Don't blame me I voted for Kerry" tank top.  No, even the Congress, filled to overflowing with bad mannered folks (in both parties) knows better than to wear ideology ads across their chests during an event such as this. 

Personally, I think Sheehan, not content to lay only her son Casey's body on the altar of liberal ideals, threw herself in front of the truck called "Security" last night, knowing full well it would make this morning's papers.  She has to know that people have been escorted out for similar expressions of opinion in the past (gasp - even when Clinton appeared to speak before Congress...)

Of her experience, after being escorted to a secure location, she writes, "After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there." I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain...."

It appears that Cindy has forgotten to list several other notable things that she has recently lost:  her sense of propriety, her mind and apparently her Cosmo subscription (because even they would have advised her to wear a classy but low-cut black suit).

Got an email from Donald Wildmon over at the American Family Network this morning.  Apparently, Venezuela's Chavez, inspired by his own socialist politics as well as the supercharged anti-war rhetoric of (who else) Cindy Sheehan has called for an end to "imperialism"  (pronounced  yoo-ni-ted-statz).  In response to this new unholy alliance, the AFA is calling for a boycott of CITGO gas stores which is owned by the venezuelan government. 

In another case, I might join in (facts are I don't get gas at CITGO anyway) but I'm wondering how taking money away from poor and hungry Venezuelans is really going to make a difference.  This is like sanctioning Saddam.  It didn't do anything but give fuel to Saddam's supporters and was ultimately useless.  The oil for food scandal at the UN proves that where there is a will to undermine international disciplinary measures, there is most definitely a way. Certainly, a boycott by even a few hundred thousand Americans isn't going to make much of a statement.  Not to mention it reinforces the idea that Americans are capricious and merciless in their use of the capitalistic system.  This measure would be used by Chavez' supporters as further justification of his leftist policies. 

I'd like to propose my own solution.  How about we ignore Chavez.  He's a fly.  Insignificant and unimportant and looking for attention which he has neither earned nor deserves.  Canada is essentially socialist (have you seen what they pay in taxes?) and we ignore our neighbors in Ottawa when they express anti-American sentiment.  For that matter, Chavez' rhetoric can't even imaginably be described as any more inflammatory than some of the vile things we've heard from factions within our own Senate. 

Some don't like Chvez' semi-socialist policy of redistributing the wealth of his country's oil production.  Surely, the U.S. handed more money to 9/11 families than Chavez can possibly distribute among the entire populace of his country.  And anyway, to paraphrase the President in his SOU address, 'these democracies may not look like our own'.  South American countries have a modern history of swinging from political extremes and it may yet be a few years before things settle down on that continent.  So long as the slow move to a stronger democracy is a relatively peaceful forward march we have no cause for alarm.

I don't like Mr. Chavez.  I disagree with most of his ideas and find his paranoid accusations of the American government to be proof of his having a few screws loose.  However,  I don't see him as worth the cost of alienating the Venezualan people who we hope eventually use their own voices  to move their government closer to the political center.