The Forging of the Hammer that Falls Upon the Anvil

I first began this post on July 31st, shortly after starting this blog. I decided to update and publish this draft for my New Year's Eve post.

This past sunday (*ahem*...again, this was originally started on July 31st) I refound the blog that inspired me to become a blogger myself. I forgot how I had originally found it. But what hooked and reeled me in, was discovering his series of entries describing how he had undergone the transformation from Democrat to Republican. It even gave me the germ of inspiration for my first blog entry here. So I owe him my gratitude for giving me my jump start. (Note, that this is his current blog).

Before that, I became fascinated with poliblogs, following and reading much of Hugh Hewitt's opinions regarding old media and new media and the rise of citizen journalists. He's been one of its prominent, foremost advocates, spearheading a whole alliance network of information exchanging. Also, what he brings with him is credibility amidst criticism of the blogosphere as a bunch of know-nothing hacks in pajamas. You can say that about me (usually in my underwear and no shirt, but that's probably more information than you wanted to know), but not about someone like Hugh Hewitt who is a Constitutional Law professor (I suggest you visit his blog if you believe President Bush violated his Constitutional authority in wire-tapping; a story which looks to be a losing strategy for Democrats. Radioblogger often has transcripts of many of his interviews with some of the most brilliant legal scholars and analysts this side of politics). Hugh Hewitt decimated and dissected MSM's incompetence and dishonest self-importance throughout this past year, on his program Wednesday.

Besides political blogs, the milblogs have been one of the greatest sources of perspectives and opinions to drink in. I am now a thorough blog-junkie.

Creating this blog was mostly done for myself; so I have a place to formulate my ideas and arguments, and collect different sources of information together in one place for me to fall back upon when I need to refresh my memory on news items. It hasn't quite worked out that way, as the amount of news data and opining out there is vast and I find myself with little time to blog the way I would like to. So I've learned to find a comfortable niche and not worry about publishing and opinionating on things that my friends and others are doing so much better than me on, anyway.

What I love, is that I'm forced to do my research if I want to opine on anything with some level of knowledge and not look like a complete ignoramus. It's made me into a better, more knowledgeable conservative opinionist. Visiting liberal sites, something I hadn't done before, has also helped keep me more honest. There is nothing worse than arguing a partisan point, when the facts don't back you up; and nothing better than reading those sites as a cross-reference, and coming away with a stronger belief that your side is on the right. Certainly, I regard myself as center-right; but nothing pushes me over further and further to the right, than reading the strong opinions of liberals.

Within minutes of publishing my first introductory post here, Mark found me out, and posted a greeting. It was quite a shock as he still won't tell me what he was doing to find me. Especially so quickly, when to this day, not even most of my friends know about my blog, let alone care to pay it a visit.

I am thankful to Mark for extending the first hand of friendship to me in the blogosphere. Through him, I have "met" other bloggers and enjoy the community and readership he has developed over on his blog. In addition, for the past 6 months that I have been here, I have developed some other great relationships and thank all of you out there (including those liberals who visit and cause me to struggle and squirm; and even the others who do nothing but feel like a bad rash- at least I don't feel ignored, so thanks for the itch). I may not post all the time on your blog, but I do visit my blogroll often. With so much to read out there on a daily basis just to feel informed, I sometimes neglect leaving a comment behind. So please don't feel neglected by me. Sometimes, too, I just need a break from being "inside the wardrobe" and attend to my life in "the real world". Hey! I think I just coined a phrase: "coming out of the wardrobe". If "coming out of the closet" means you are admitting publically that you are gay, then "coming out of the wardrobe" means......"you are stepping back into reality"? Hmm...except that Narnia was real...in the context of the books....ok, gotta think that one through a bit more.

As an aside, today at work I received my order from Amazon of "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution". I think this book should be in everyone's library. For anyone who cares about The Constitution, the interpretation of it, the history of how it's been interpreted, and how it is currently being interpreted.

We live in a remarkable day and age where information is at your fingertips; where news dissemination is streamed in "real time", in an instant rather than waiting for you next morning on your front porch; and where you can debate and share opinions with strangers who become friends, from anywhere on the globe.

Don't forget about CJ. Today's the last day of voting. He's about 30 votes behind. It's not too late!

God bless everyone, everywhere and looking forward to more in 2006. See you folks next year!

Post-Christmas/Winter Holiday Greeting

A friend of mine sent this e-mail forward to me yesterday, and I thought it was worth publishing here:



For My Democratic Friends:

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for a multicultural, socially responsible, gender-neutral, environmentally conscious, secular celebration of the winter solstice holiday, with respect for your religious/secular persuasion and traditions, or your choice not to practice religious traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. This wish is given without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting may be subject to clarification or withdrawal and is not transferable. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, implies no warrantees of any kind, is void where prohibited by law or wherever it may cause any person to be uncomfortable in way. "



For My Republican Friends:

"Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year"

What the President Said on December 24th.....

...in a radio address to our troops:

“Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will.”

My question to you is: Was the President of the United States out of line by including such a blatant invocation of God and religion into his address? Did he somehow "offend" those non-religious, American souls? Was he being exclusive? Was he in violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment?

Since I suspect most reading this are fellow bloggers, who do their news research and cross-references, I will come clean right away, and admit that the above address was delivered by the President...

....in 1944! You see, President Bush never said these words. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did, 60 years ago in a radio address to the troops serving in WWII.

I first posted the above ruse a year ago on a message board, after listening to Michael Medved pull this stunt on his listeners. He baited the atheists and Wall-of-Separation advocates to wax indignant and work themselves up. "How dare the President do this!" "Grrr! I'm offended, wah, wah, wah!" Like Mr. Medved, I waited for some responses to generate before coming clean.

The thing is, President Bush has the reputation of being a "devout Christian"; and there is a lot of talk about "the religious right", as if that's a dirty, nasty thing to be. The fact is, President Bush is a devout Methodist. As
Zell Miller put it, "I can identify with someone who has lived that line in 'Amazing Grace,' 'Was blind, but now I see,' and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning."

I think labeling President Bush as some sort of Christian jihadist, however, is a perception pushed by the media. The fact is, every U.S. President, beginning with George Washington, has addressed this country as a Christian nation. You might argue that the Roosevelt quote was from 1944, that we didn't know any better then, and we are better off in this ultra PC, ultra-sensitive world we live in now. But stats I've heard are that the U.S. is no less Christian than it was 60 years ago; nor has the number of practicing Jews and Muslims in this country significantly increased in those 60 years. Christians make up about 90 percent of the population here. And it isn't just conservatives who are religious, obviously. Why should the "rights" of the minority oppress the majority? We are a nation obsessed with trying to make things fair and equal to everyone, to a point of absurdity.

According to
Paul Kengor a year ago, President Bush, speaking as President, has been no more religious than the majority of any other President of the U.S. On Average, President Clinton has mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year while President Bush has mentioned Jesus/Christ 4.7. And according to a book I read, A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler, President Bush is seen to talk about his deep and abiding faith most often when it is usually brought up by the press who obsess over it.

Bush's biggest year of referencing Jesus/Christ was 2001, the year of 9/11. 7 times. In 2002, 5 public statements. In all of 2003, his Presidential Documents only show a mention of Jesus twice: an Easter address and a Christmas one. That's 14 statements in 3 years, compared to 41 that Clinton mentions Jesus in his 8 years of office.

In addition, Bush from 2000-2003 is listed in Presidential Documents as having only spoken on three occasions in a church. In contrast, Clinton spoke 21 times. Bill Clinton freely mixed politics and religion (“By the grace of God and your help, last year I was elected President.” ). Yet President Bush is the one who gets nailed to the cross by the media as being "too religious".

He lit a menorah at the White House a year ago, before Rabbis and about 200 others from the Jewish community; he's also said prayer in mosques, as well as stressed about tolerance for Muslims in this country and how Islam is a religion of peace (I've got a lot of thoughts on this, but that's saved for another post, perhaps). In fact, no American President has ever gone so far out of his way to stress tolerance for Islam.

So, when he lit that menorrah, was President Bush somehow pissing on the Christians, atheists, Muslims, and wiccans of this great nation of ours? When he prayed amongst the Muslim community, did he somehow offend, because he left out all the non-Muslims, making them feel "unwelcomed"? Is this being "divisive", or could it be showing acceptance and tolerance and being welcoming toward all Americans of all faiths?

Time for a rant...

As my regular readership (of about 3) have heard me say time and time before, I myself, am non-religious. My dad is atheist and my mom Buddhist. Yet my family every year celebrated Christmas, the way we chose to celebrate it, without being threatened by it. We celebrated the tradition of Christmas, which I see as a very deeply rooted American tradition. My childhood was a very happy one, enriched by having Christmas trees to decorate each year as well as presents to give and receive, while growing up. I watched "The Little Drummer Boy" claymation and "A Charlie Brown Christmas" back when they were televised every year. These are crammed full of religiosity. Yet was I somehow damaged by that, being the good non-Christian that I am? Did my non-Christian parents feel threatened by it? Not at all.

Furthermore and practicality-wise, commercialism is good for the economy. Money gets circulated around; people are in a festive mood. It's a special time. You can look at gift-giving from a Scrooge standpoint; or see it as an opportunity to make another fellow human being have a moment of happiness. The commercialism and the spirituality are intermingled, each benefiting the other, in my opinion. Being selfish and selfless, to me, are yin and yang.

I don't want to say "Happy Holidays" without also adding "Merry Christmas" to folks. I know Jewish families who aren't threatened by Christianity and say it to people freely. I am not offended by Nativity scenes and references to Jesus. I love seeing a neighborhood that is lit up and decorated from house to house to house. There is a sense of unity and community. Of being connected to something greater than yourself. I love Christmas songs...the one time to listen to some beautiful (and some awful) music you don't play any other time of the year.

I don't see Christmas as excluding anyone.

The way I see it, this modern nation of ours, with all the good and the bad that has taken place to bring us to this point in time, is founded upon a cultural heritage of Judeo-Christian values and traditions. Since sometime after the 1860's, Christmas has been celebrated as a national holiday. It's roots are steeped in things other than Christianity; yet in its present incarnation, it is a perfect blend of religion and non-religion. I see what it has become as distinctly American, in flavor.

Some of the deeply religious Christians may cry out in indignation that Christmas has been hijacked, that it's been commercialized, diluted of religious meaning, and that the "true" spirit has been lost. But, as I made clear earlier, I absolutely love the commercialism every bit as much as I have a reverent respect for the religious heritage.

It is because of the commercialization, that Christmas has become a thing that goes beyond the bounds of religion. In Miracle on 34th Street, that janitor kid bemoans how there are all kinds of isms in this world, but the worst one is commercialism. And yet, the person he is saying it to is the very embodiment of commercialism: Santa Claus!!! Without delving into the historical, spiritual roots of St. Nick, it is Kris Kringle that carries on God's work. I see him as deputized by the Almighty. Do you really think if Jesus was so selfless as to endure and sacrifice for the souls of mankind, he really gives a flying care if celebrating Christmas entails honoring him by "honoring" him? Or honoring him by promoting peace on earth and good will toward all?; the Puritans centuries ago didn't even want to acknowledge a day of birth for the Christ-child; that it somehow diminishes his Resurrection.

Is it so bad to make the children of the world happy with the "fairy tale" of a Sinterklaas? Is Jesus jealous of the attention, or lack thereof? I think not. I would imagine Jesus could care less about winning a popularity contest with, say, a fat man in a red suit.

It is the responsibility of the religious to remember the religious aspects of Christmas. To be angry at the nonreligious, commercialization of Christmas is just misguided. It is a beautiful thing that their religious holiday is celebrated even by those who aren't Christian.

I do not feel oppressed by our government when it mentions or references "God". I actually feel comforted by it. "Freedom of religion" does not equate to "Freedom from religion", which is what atheist fundamentalists want. We live in a very tolerant nation founded upon a Judeo-Christian heritage that tolerates all religions. Over time, without it being force-fed to us by a very slim minority (or suppressed by militant secularists intolerant of all religious references in public government and private businesses) , other religious traditions and cultures will become naturally adopted and adapted into mainstream American tradition and culture.

It sickens me that we have become such a hyper-sensitive society. Being offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" to you is as ridiculous as me getting offended if, say, someone handed me a Valentine's Day Card and wished me a Happy Valentine's Day when I didn't have a date or a girlfriend to celebrate it with. How ridiculous if I were to run screaming to the ACLU that someone had offended me, by presuming that I celebrate Valentine's. Of course, there is no "Establishment Clause of Separation of Love and State" in our Constitution; but I think the analogy is clear.

Merry Christmas! Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All!


Previous related posts:

An America Where it is
Always Winter, Never Christmas

The Eradication of American Heritage

In Whom Do We Trust?

Anti-ACLU + Veterans Day= Joke of the Week

Radical Atheistic Fundamentalists

UCLA Study Determines Liberal Bias

*yawn*....how many more studies are needed for liberals in denial to finally wake up and smell the bias? I can't believe how many people I know who continue to argue that there is no liberal media bias.

Something to tune into this Saturday...

One of my favorite conservative thinkers is Thomas Sowell. There is a repeat broadcast of a FOX News special this Saturday, 2pm Pacific Time: Thomas Sowell: In the Right Direction. I only caught part II the last time they ran it. Hopefully, the full hour will be shown, rather than the lame half hour, 2-parter.

Arming Citizens with Ordinary Tools is Arming Terrorists with.....What Exactly?

I understand that today, the ban against small scissors and other sharp objects has been lifted by the Transportation Administration, allowing passengers to bring aboard such tools upon their person, or in carry-on bags, during flight.

Apparently, 9/11 families, flight attendants, and others think it's a bad move on the part of the TSA. According to Corey Caldwell, spokesperson for the Association of Flight Attendants, "TSA needs to take a moment to reflect on why they were created in the first place -- after the world had seen how ordinary household items could create such devastation...When weapons are allowed back on board an aircraft, the pilots will be able to land the plane safety but the aisles will be running with blood."

"Ordinary household items". Yes, anything and everything, in the hands of someone with the proper mindset, can be improvised and used to wreck great harm and havoc. "Scissors less than 4 inches in length" is nothing more than a tool. "Screwdrivers less than 7 inches long"- although for the life of me, I don't know why anyone needs to take one on board unless it's to do some maintenance work on the foldout trays- is a tool, no different than the sharpened pencils in your briefcase.

Bob Hesselbein, the Air Line Pilots Association's national security committee chairman, says pilots believe that it is more important to read a person's intent by observing behavior, rather than worry so much about what it is that passengers are carrying. As he puts it, "A Swiss army knife in the briefcase of a frequent flyer we know very well is a tool.....A ballpoint pen in the hands of a terrorist is a weapon." And that's exactly right. I wrote a post before about how the Israelis do it, and the value of profiling behavior.

Right after 9/11, I complained to my dad about the unreasonable ban on such items as taking nail clippers and tweezers aboard airlines. He agreed, that it is an overreaction response. It is similar to how a public school banned plastic bags because a student dies from suffocation; or scissors are banned from school because a troubled kid turns violent. Scissors are a tool. How does one participate in art class without such tools?

I think most people who are outraged by the TSA's decision are not thinking things through clearly and logically. And do not understand that the argument here is rather similar to the ones made for and against the availability of firearms. As it's commonly joked about, "Guns don't kill people anymore than spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat".

Also, TSA's decision is based upon allocating their limited budget and limited resources intelligently, and not squander it wastefully and unecessarily to give people a false sense of security: "Homeland Security Department officials are increasingly concerned about airports' vulnerability to suicide bomb attacks. TSA officials now want airport screeners to spend more of their time looking for improvised explosive devices rather than sharp objects."

If I were a criminally-minded terrorist seeking to harm passengers, I could just as easily kill you by taking a ball-point pen and ramming it through your eye-socket; or rupture your carotid artery; as a terrorist I would have made it my life's mission to train in violence and know just what body organs to target. I could take the metal pitcher used to serve hot coffee, utilizing both the pitcher and its contents for something other than what it was designed for; or improvise a can of hairspray or perfume as an "offense spray" and eye irritant.

I personally am not afraid of small tools, because that's all that they are: tools. And rest assured, that if terrorists are able to legally bring aboard small knives, even, with blades under 4 inches, they won't be the only ones doing so. I'll bring aboard my own "equalizer". I'm pretty handy with a pair of tweezers and know just where to pinch you! So back off, terrorists!

Firearms, on the other hand are weapons; federal air marshals so armed, might be a good thing; but I'd question the wisdom of mandating airplane pilots to be required to carry one; especially if they are uncomfortable and unmotivated in training diligently in combative handgun use for close-quarters. The whole advantage of a firearm is in its superiority at causing damage from a distance. Aboard plane, much of its weapons' superiority is compromised and a it can be argued that a sharp blade flailing around at lightning speed might overwhelm what is just a "bullet shooter"; that when not aimed at you, other than perhaps a muzzle flash and some powder burns, can't really harm you the way a knife can.

Of course, then there's the issue of stray bullets possibly damaging the hull of the plane. Not sure I like the idea of that...

What happened aboard the 9/11 flights will never happen again. We were caught unawares. We had not anticipated that terrorists would hijack with the goal in mind of not surviving the act of hijacking, and turn airliners into flown missles. In a post-9/11 world, hijackers will find themselves faced outnumbered and overwhelmed by passengers and crewmembers who know that passivity is not the proper response to terrorism. Scissors and screwdrivers or not.

Thanks are in Order

Many thanks to all those who supported me in the Radioblogger contest. Although the top 4 movie reviewers each won a Crosley radio, I am pleased to know that if the rules had been written such that only the top movie review would win the prize, that prize would have gone to this blogger. So thanks everyone!

Hugh Hewitt on Presidential Power

First, read the NY Times article. Then go over to any number of leftwing sites. For those Bush supporters who are worried whether or not President Bush has violated his Constitutional authority as Commander-in-chief, I suggest you high-tail it on over to Hugh Hewitt for reassurance:

Presidential Power and the Surveillance of Foreign Powers Conspiring with United States Citizens

Presidential Power, Part II

Presidential Power, Part III

Presidential Power, Part IV

Presidential Power, Part V

Froggy and Goldstein on Surveillance

Leon at RedState.org

Bush was Right!

Mike's America got mentioned in the BBC again, thanks to this post. Keep it up Mike! then go over to Trucker Philosophy. I remember hearing that song on CSPAN, during a televised pro-victory support the troops rally. All the liberal sites are making fun of it. Let 'em.

And the Moral of the Story is....?

"Thou shalt not murder."-6th Commandment

With so many more important things to talk about, thought I'd post yesterday's news, because it's a quickie (plus it has freakin' Johnny Cash!):




I found this video on YouTube.com, without searching for it. The creator of the video wrote the following:

I was at San Quentin for the protest of Stanley "Tookie" Williams' execution. This is a rough cut with horrible audio but I wanted to get something up quickly.

Mike Farrell's statement is outrageous! I'm sorry, but his statement aimed at Governor Schwarzenegger makes him a moral idiot.

One thing that Michael Medved pointed out on his program, was that the dedication in his 1998 book, Life in Prison, (this is after he supposedly reformed himself) was a further sign that Tookie is unrepentant and unremorseful of the murders; and there is not one shred of doubt as to his guilt in the 4 murders (other than wishful thinking); his inability to accept responsibility for his crimes against our society shows us that he is still a killer at heart.

The fact that he wrote anti-gang books? So what? He's still lionized by the Crips. Besides, he didn't really author them, in the sense that someone else did the actual writing, from what I understand. The fact that he was nominated for a nobel peace prize? Again, so what? Does that award still have any credibility amongst anyone, whatsoever? (Remember, people like Kofi Annan and Yasser Arafat have won it, as well as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair being nominated for it in 2002)

If Tookie did any good in the world while still living, I think his death has also been a positive for society: The surviving family members of his victims will now achieve closure and peace; and the ones who wish to remember him as a man who has influenced children with anti-gang messages will have their martyr (and those children will also see, by example in his execution, that yes, indeed...crime doesn't pay- Tookie ultimately did give his life to become the embodiment of that message, now, didn't he?).


"I went to see the preacher to teach me how to pray
He looked at me and smiled
Then that preacher turned away
He said if you want to tell him something
You ain't gotta fold your hands
Say it with your heart, your soul and believe it
And I'd say amen"
-Bon Jovi, Bang a Drum


"So I save a prayer when I need it most
To the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
And sign it from a sinner with no name
When I meet my Maker
Will he close the book on the hearts I broke and the lives I took ?
Will he walk away 'cause my soul's too late to save ?"
-Bon Jovi, Santa Fe

"Blood money
That's what I call it
'Cause money for blood ain't no fair exchange
Blood money
Bought and then sold you
But your conscience is all you can take to your grave"
-Bon Jovi, Blood Money

Disarming Ourselves, and Letting Terrorists Walk in Through the Back Door

Or....."How Democrats and 4 Republican Senators have gone Ahab on us."

I posted earlier this year on the irrational fears over The Patriot Act. In light of the filibuster that happened over its renewal, all I have time to post up right now, are the opinions of others I am in total alignment with. Yesterday, I managed to catch some of Hugh Hewitt on the radio, and here's the interviews he had, over at Radioblogger (mostly transcripts):
Arizona senator John Kyl interviewed

Have the Democrats Gone Ahab on Us? (listen to the audio portion- it's a hoot!)

Lileks on the knuckleheads that filibustered

Hugh Hewitt's program continues to be one of the very best in intelligent political talk.

And then there's a good read over at Captain's Quarters to check out.

Quote of the Week

I found two that I really enjoyed:

"Every purple finger is a bullet in the chest of terrorism."-Mohammed Al-Rehaief (video at The Political Teen).

"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!" -Betty Dawisha, Iraqi ex-patriot in Dearborn, Michigan as she cast her ballot (You can find the video and a great post up at Mike's America).

"This year Santa Claus is wearing desert camouflage, and he's bringing freedom to Iraq."-Sgt Hauser, stationed in Iraq, on the Laura Ingraham Show (not this week, but last week...still wanted to share it, though).


Contrast that to the typical negativity coming from the left. The pro-defeat Democrats and liberal independants seem at their happiest when there is tragedy news that makes the Bush Administration look bad. How horrible this week must have been for them.

According to Grouchy Old Cripple, this is a photo he took of an actual billboard sign:


I do believe he lives in Atlanta. Why can't we get billboards like that in Los Angeles?

Well, at least I see my favorite talk radio station advertised on billboards out here:

This one is on Venice Blvd heading east, right at Sepulveda.

I also see one on Pico Blvd heading east every morning, also before crossing Sepulveda.

Amidst all the Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers still floating around out there in traffic, these signs are a welcomed relief.

God bless Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt for keeping me entertained and informed from point A to point B in Los Angeles.

I may have to add Just a Woman to that list of favorites, soon.

Ok! Polling is Up!

And you don't even have to dip your fingers in purple ink! Just click yourselves on over to Radioblogger and vote! (*ahem*...don't forget: I'm in the contest as well!). I believe voting is today and tomorrow only.

Go on! Give us the finger!

Purple finger, that is.

I was on my way to work, and Hugh Hewitt continues to be one of the "go-to guys" when it comes to intelligent perspective and immediate coverage of what's going on, that matters to us in the world.

According to him, Iraq the Model and PajamasMedia will be places we will want to keep our refresh buttons on, as the Iraqi people "get out the vote". By tomorrow morning, you'll want to check in for the latest in photos and possibly live coverage. History is unfolding before our very eyes, and if the naysayers and defeatocrats don't climb on board, they will look back and find themselves as having stood on the wrong side of history as obstructionists.

Even mainstream media seems to be waking up. Hugh Hewitt had a soundclip from ABC or some station interviewing an Iraqi woman who said something to the effect that those who are criticizing President Bush and saying bad things about them: "let them all go to hell."
Go Iraq!

The Gospel of C.S. Lewis Spreading

With a successful opening weekend at the box office, the next installment for the Chronicles of Narnia,Prince Caspian, gets the green light go-ahead.

Great Stuff over at Gateway Pundit

Not exclusive to Gateway Pundit, but just about everything I've wanted to mention but don't have time to blog about is found here. Click.....click.......also, check out his version of Time Magazine's Pictures of the year.

Put that Turkish Delight down and Go Vote!

Hey! Don't forget to go to Radioblogger and vote! Doesn't have to be for me, just participate. I submitted my review late last night and I think contest ends tomorrow. I wasn't sure if I'd be included in time. (Update: Ok...I'm not sure, but I don't think the contest has started yet).

I am supposed to go see the movie again either end of the week or next week.

And don't forget about CJ. He's a good soldier.

I've had craving for Turkish delight all day.

I wonder if that's what the Democrats have been feasting on these past couple of years? It would explain much....

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Blogs are being talked about in the papers this weekend, Sunday:

In the Los Angeles Times:

Meet the Truth Squad- interviewing CrooksandLiars.com.

Where, you overpaid fools, was Little Green Footballs?

And from the New York Times:

Conservative Blogs are More Effective- by Michael Crowley.

Of Turkish Delight and Narnia

I am extracting this movie review from my previous post, "An America Where it is Always Winter, but Never Christmas" to qualify for the Radioblogger contest. So don't forget to read all the reviews there and vote.


Through the Wardrobe



This weekend, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe sees major nation-wide release; and I for one am excited to go see it. The Chronicles of Narnia were the Harry Potter books of my time. I remember the cartoon with great affection.

It amazes me that people's irrational fear of being exposed to religious allegory or their hostility toward Christianity will ruin any chance of enjoyment of such a well-crafted, enchanting story, that is at its very essence, a very positive story about good versus evil.

We live at a time in our history where we are hyper-sensitive of offending anyone, that we are held paralyzed by it.

The Paul Harris Guardian article mentions that Phillip Pullman, a fantasy author and harsh critic of the books, says of them:

"they are stories of racism and thinly veiled religious propaganda that will corrupt children rather than inspiring them."

and

"Lewis's books portray a version of Christianity that relies on martial combat, outdated fears of sexuality and women, and also portrays a religion that looks a lot like Islam in unashamedly racist terms."

Ok..he's obviously had one too many Turkish delights...As to the first quote, I read these books at an age when I was still in grade school; yet I was astute enough to pick up on the Jesus parallel and Christian elements, without knowing a thing about C.S. Lewis, himself. Guess what? It didn't harm me; nor did it convert nor corrupt me.

As to the last part of the second quote, my answer is: so what?!

I could care less if there are parallels between Islam and say, Calormen (can't remember if that's the right country), and that Calormen is treated as "the other". I remember consciously thinking about this when I read A Horse and His Boy. For some reason, I was sensitive and aware to the fact that it was East versus West (I think I was probably around 10 years old). But it did not bother me in the same sense that playing cowboys and indians didn't make me more racist toward Indians; or playing WWII didn't make me more hateful toward the Japanese. Reading about a fantasy country that bore striking similarities to Persia and Arabia did not make me feel animosity toward Middle Easterners. I think that sometimes we don't give children enough credit for having a discerning mind.

When "The Last Samurai" and "Dancing with Wolves" came out in theaters, who did you, as a viewer, feel sympathy toward? When you left the theater, did you come back to reality, or were you stuck on hating white, imperialistic Americans? The real racism in movies like that is the need to have a white protagonist be the star of the film, where Tom Cruise is a better samurai than the natives and he, as a foreigner, still gets the girl.

Go and enjoy visiting Narnia (Christian allegory and all)....a land under a spell such that it is always winter, and never Christmas; that is, until the coming of Aslan.

And have a Merry Christmas!


I was supposed to see the movie on Saturday, but was as impatient as Edmund was for Turkish delight. So Friday, I snuck off to The Bridge in LA and caught a 10am matinee showing. I avoided long lines and parking hassles, but found myself trapped in a theater filled with a few busloads of school kids on a field trip to see Narnia. Well, it turned out not to be such a bad experience. The children were relatively well-behaved and respectfully silent once the movie began. It was also interesting to note what parts of the movie got them excited. There were a few applauses; most notably when Aslan was resurrected. I also remember cheers when Edmund was saved and at the end when the 4 children were crowned; and once more, when the movie ended. The kids helped me remember what it's like to see and appreciate cinema through a child's eye lens. From an adult perspective, I don't think the movie is perfect. But I really have nothing to complain about. The overall production of it, script adaptation, and casting was well-done. Part of it did feel a bit wooden or rushed; but I was still able to be captivated by the screen-telling and the emotions that it was attempting to convey. Much of its heart, as it is in the book, lies in the relationship between the 4 children. In the book, I was always enthralled by the nature of Edmund and how the traits that were making him villainous in the beginning, matured into those of a hero in the end. I remember watching a news magazine show, like 20/20. And in it, parents were taking their "problem" kid- that one bad apple in the bunch- to see the expert. The kid was a bully, a loudmouth, misbehaved, was unruly, disobedient, etc. Well, the experts warned against just flatout stifling the kid's personality as undesireable. They explained that this is the same kind of kid, who if nurtured properly, will mature to be the one who stands up to the school bully; who isn't afraid to speak his mind; or who will recognize and resist child predators in sheeps clothing. Well, it just reminded me a bit of Edmund who achieves a transformation and redemption after undergoing his harsh treatment at the hands of the White Witch, Jadis (and after laying off the enchanting influence of her Turkish Delight!).

Am I the only one, by the way, who notes similarities between Kai bewitched by the Snow Queen in Hans Christian Andersen's tale, along with glass splinters and Edmund's being charmed by the White Witch and her Turkish Delight?

And what child cannot identify with Lucy? I think there are times when every child wants to be believed and taken seriously. Even though the professor only has a small role in this movie and in this novel, he is most endearing in that he, an adult, is willing to believe Lucy, even when her siblings are in doubt. Part of it, of course, is that you get the sense that he himself has had his own adventures in Narnia; but the other part is that of an adult that is willing to take children seriously and not casually dismiss them as having an over-active imagination.

What I really appreciated about the film was that here is an epic-style movie (hopefully one of seven!) that is fit for family viewing. The battle toward the end is well done and bloodless. I thought this was in good taste; exciting without being gratuitous in the violence.

And I loved the appearance of Father Christmas, of course!

Oh..something else I remember from my theater experience: when Edmund opened the platter of Turkish delight, I heard some kid several seats away from me gasp, "So that's what it looks like!"

Finally, for you adults who find yourselves, like me, too lazy to go back and reread the books (or if you've never read them before), I recommend purchasing the unabridged audio collection. It features such voices as Michael York, Patrick Stewart, Lynn Redgrave, and Kenneth Branagh among others. I listened to Michael York read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in its entirety and it dusted off remembrances of sentences long forgotten in the attic of my memories. C.S. Lewis has some remarkable ways of telling a good story. You should hear (or read!).

An America Where it is Always Winter, but Never Christmas

That is what the radical atheist extremists envision for America; that is the direction the militant secularists are steering this country in.

A decade ago, I don't recall "Christmas" as being such an issue. But these past 2 years, it is ridiculous to me, to deny that there isn't indeed a "war against Christmas" going on. (Do stop by Jack's Shack and read our back-and-forth).

Consider....

Red poinsettias were banned from Ramsey County Courthouse in St. Paul (watch the ACLU go after that city's name!) Minnesota because someone found it to be a "Christian symbol".

Pittsburgh renamed the Christmas Season, "Sparkle Days". How preposterous is that?! Are they daft? Are they insane? Were they drunk on eggnog?

The Independent School District of Plano Texas banned red and green clothes from being worn at their school "winter break" parties. Nor were they permitted to write "Merry Christmas" to soldiers in Iraq.

In Rochester, Minnesota two 13-year old girls were suspended for wearing red and green scarves and saying "Merry Christmas" in a school video.

In Connecticut, a library refused to display paintings of Jesus' Nativity and Resurrection as part of a rotating display of local art.

In Queens NY, a school district that allowed a menorah and Islamic star & crescent, refused to allow a child to display a Nativity scene.

The Indiana University School of Law removed their Christmas tree and replaced it with a generic winter scene.

Hanover Township, NJ, the school district attempted to outlaw Christmas carols at school concerts.

In Maplewood, NJ, a school banned purely instrumental Christmas music.

Central Michigan University warned Christians that Christmas may be offensive within the workplace; but a similar warning was not issued to nonChristians for observances of their respective holidays.

A soldier before deployment to Afghanistan simply wished to hang an ornament that said "God bless America" on the Wisconsin State "Holiday" tree.

Also in Wisconsin, an elementary school there has eradicated all religious references from "Silent Night", replacing the time-honored song with winter weather-themed lyrics.

In Baldwin City, Kansas, a public school had a long tradition of having a member of the community come to the school dressed up as Santa to visit the elementary school children. That is, until the ACLU stepped in.

Resource: The ACLU vs. America

(I will continue to add links and examples in, as time permits)


I'm not much of a Bill O'Reilly fan, although I do watch his program more than on occasion; but in regards to his crusade to root out the Christmas grinches who are extracting Christmas out of Christmas, and replacing it with all things generic, I am completely on board with O'Reilly. (Incidentally....I found this "gotcha moment" worth a chuckle; in regards to this, though...I think that's an overreaction response on the part of offended conservative Christians).

The term "Holiday" is so generic, that "Happy Holidays" sounds like a generalization you could replace any of our national holidays with, when you think about it literally.

It's not that I find anything particularly wrong with "Happy Holidays" as a greeting. Growing up, I used it hand in hand as an alternative to "Merry Christmas", and in some cases, subsconsciously took into consideration, a person's religious faith, or lack thereof. But now I feel coerced into it. I'm now offended by the offended. There is nothing at all wrong with wishing someone "Merry Christmas". I say, just accept it in the spirit with which it is delivered. When people say it, the feelings behind it are a message of peace and goodwill; not of hate slapping you in the face.

One of the arguments I've seen put forth by atheists is in regards to the commercialism. They think so negatively, like a bitter scrooge, that they think of it in terms of avarice and greed. Practically-speaking, the commercial aspects stimulates money exchange and keeps our capitalist economy booming.

It is also the commercialism that allows a religious holiday to be accessible to those of us outside of the religious celebration. Christmas is celebrated universally all over the globe. And it is commercialization that has given us wonderful traditions and ornamentations of an otherwise solemn observance. I enjoy seeing block after block of houses in a neighborhood decorated with lights; I enjoy jolly ol' St. Nicholoas, the ambassador of Christmas and the embodiment of Commercialism.

It is commercialism that has given us some wonderful movies: It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, A Christmas Story, A Charlie Brown Christmas Special, Dickens' Christmas Carol, and all those claymations.

Certainly, honest Christians complain about the commercialism as well. That it takes away from the true meaning of Christmas. But did you know that complaints about the true meaning being lost amidst the commercialism has been going on for over 150 years? I don't think the commercialism is in conflict with the spirit of Christmas. Only the Scrooges and the Grinches see the negative side and not the positive.


Through the Wardrobe



This weekend, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe sees major nation-wide release; and I for one am excited to go see it. The Chronicles of Narnia were the Harry Potter books of my time. I remember the cartoon with great affection.

It amazes me that people's irrational fear of being exposed to religious allegory or their hostility toward Christianity will ruin any chance of enjoyment of such a well-crafted, enchanting story, that is at its very essence, a very positive story about good versus evil.

We live at a time in our history where we are hyper-sensitive of offending anyone, that we are held paralyzed by it.

The Paul Harris Guardian article mentions that Phillip Pullman, a fantasy author and harsh critic of the books, says of them:

"they are stories of racism and thinly veiled religious propaganda that will corrupt children rather than inspiring them."

and

"Lewis's books portray a version of Christianity that relies on martial combat, outdated fears of sexuality and women, and also portrays a religion that looks a lot like Islam in unashamedly racist terms."

Ok...he's obviously had one too many Turkish delights....As to the first quote, I read these books at an age when I was still in grade school; yet I was astute enough to pick up on the Jesus parallel and Christian elements, without knowing a thing about C.S. Lewis, himself. Guess what? It didn't harm me; nor did it convert nor corrupt me.

As to the last part of the second quote, my answer is: so what?!

I could care less if there are parallels between Islam and say, Calormen (can't remember if that's the right country), and that Calormen is treated as "the other". I remember consciously thinking about this when I read A Horse and His Boy. For some reason, I was sensitive and aware to the fact that it was East versus West (I think I was probably around 10 years old). But it did not bother me in the same sense that playing cowboys and indians didn't make me more racist toward Indians; or playing WWII didn't make me more hateful toward the Japanese. Reading about a fantasy country that bore striking similarities to Persia and Arabia did not make me feel animosity toward Middle Easterners. I think that sometimes we don't give children enough credit for having a discerning mind.

When "The Last Samurai" and "Dancing with Wolves" came out in theaters, who did you, as a viewer, feel sympathy toward? When you left the theater, did you come back to reality, or were you stuck on hating white, imperialistic Americans? The real racism in movies like that is the need to have a white protagonist be the star of the film, where Tom Cruise is a better samurai than the natives and he, as a foreigner, still gets the girl.

Go and enjoy visiting Narnia (Christian allegory and all)....a land under a spell such that it is always winter, and never Christmas; that is, until the coming of Aslan.

And have a Merry Christmas!


I was supposed to see the movie on Saturday, but was as impatient as Edmund was for Turkish delight. So Friday, I snuck off to The Bridge in LA and caught a 10am matinee showing. I avoided long lines and parking hassles, but found myself trapped in a theater filled with a few busloads of school kids on a field trip to see Narnia. Well, it turned out not to be such a bad experience. The children were relatively well-behaved and respectfully silent once the movie began. It was also interesting to note what parts of the movie got them excited. There were a few applauses; most notably when Aslan was resurrected. I also remember cheers when Edmund was saved and at the end when the 4 children were crowned; and once more, when the movie ended. The kids helped me remember what it's like to see and appreciate cinema through a child's eye lens. From an adult perspective, I don't think the movie is perfect. But I really have nothing to complain about. The overall production of it, script adaptation, and casting was well-done. Part of it did feel a bit wooden or rushed; but I was still able to be captivated by the screen-telling and the emotions that it was attempting to convey. Much of its heart, as it is in the book, lies in the relationship between the 4 children. In the book, I was always enthralled by the nature of Edmund and how the traits that were making him villainous in the beginning, matured into those of a hero in the end. I remember watching a news magazine show, like 20/20. And in it, parents were taking their "problem" kid- that one bad apple in the bunch- to see the expert. The kid was a bully, a loudmouth, misbehaved, was unruly, disobedient, etc. Well, the experts warned against just flatout stifling the kid's personality as undesireable. They explained that this is the same kind of kid, who if nurtured properly, will mature to be the one who stands up to the school bully; who isn't afraid to speak his mind; or who will recognize and resist child predators in sheeps clothing. Well, it just reminded me a bit of Edmund who achieves a transformation and redemption after undergoing his harsh treatment at the hands of the White Witch Jadis (and after laying off the enchanting influence of her Turkish Delight!).

And what child cannot identify with Lucy? I think there are times when every child wants to be believed and taken seriously. Even though the professor only has a small role in this movie and in this novel, he is most endearing in that he, an adult, is willing to believe Lucy, even when her siblings are in doubt. Part of it, of course, is that you get the sense that he himself has had his own adventures in Narnia; but the other part is that of an adult that is willing to take children seriously and not casually dismiss them as having an over-active imagination.

What I really appreciated about the film was that here is an epic-style movie (hopefully one of seven!) that is fit for family viewing. The battle toward the end is well done and bloodless. I thought this was in good taste; exciting without being gratuitous in the violence.

And I loved the appearance of Father Christmas, of course!

Finally, for you adults who find yourselves, like me, too lazy to go back and reread the books (or if you've never read them before), I recommend purchasing the unabridged audio collection. It features such voices as Michael York, Patrick Stewart, Lynn Redgrave, and Kenneth Branagh among others. I listened to Michael York read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in its entirety and it dusted off remembrances of sentences long forgotten in the attic of my memories. C.S. Lewis has some remarkable ways of telling a good story. You should hear (or read!).

Confirmation shot...confirmation shot...confirmation shot.

Last night, I read a substantive post by bos'un regarding yesterday's Air Marshal shooting incident.

This morning, Laura Ingraham played some clips of a Katie Couric interview on the Today Show, involving a former Air Marshal, Tony Kuklinski. Katie's questions for Mr. Kuklinski is typical of those who are ignorant of combative firearms training, especially amongst law enforcement. She asked, in essence, "Why shoot to kill? Couldn't the Air Marshal have shot him in the arm?" Mr. Kuklinski points out to Katie how when the s*%t hits the fan, you are under great stress; that in such a situation, you are trained to aim at the largest target- center mass- that will insure the best possible means of stopping the threat immediately. Katie's follow up question seems to completely ignore the first answer he gives. It is utter insanity to think that for humane reasons, you would risk your life and the lives of the passengers to bring the suspect down by "aiming to wound". What would Katie have them do? Aim at a hand? A finger? A leg? An arm? Pull out their phasers and set them on stun? Meanwhile, the suspect who does mean business gets to detonate his bomb. This is also why snipers are trained to aim for headshots and not shoot-to-wound. Shutting down the computer- the brain- results in an instant kill where the suspect is unable to harm his hostage by pulling a trigger, pressing a button, etc.

My teacher explains it to me this way: You aim center of mass with the objective not to kill, but to stop the threat quickly and decisively; the fact that your vital organs tend to be located at "center of mass" is regrettable and unfortunate. In a life and death situation, in real time where you only have split-seconds to make a decision and act, you don't screw around. I think it is this incident (I could be mistaken) that is the one I heard about on the Dennis Prager Show, where a caller mentioned how guards and police were under investigation to determine if they handled or mishandled a recent homicide bombing. According to the caller, a guard hesitated, and decided to tackle the suspect, instead of shooting him. The end result? *Kaboom*: Bomber was able to detonate his device and kill a number of people.

For the armchair responders and Monday morning quarterbacks out there, and I include myself among you, it is rather silly to pass judgment on those who were there and who are trained a certain way to deal with high-stress environments of life and death; circumstances that the majority of us wouldn't know the first thing about on what the appropriate course of action should be.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Rigoberto Alpizar lost his life yesterday, leaving behind a grieving widow. But don't condemn the Air Marshals without knowing the facts and without having been in similar shoes. It is a tragedy, and if you want to hold anyone responsible, blame it on the times we live in, brought about by terrorism. Ultimately, Mr. Alpizar is responsible for his own actions, whether mentally ill or not; whether he was on his meds or not. In bos'un's post, by the way, I address an anonymous comment regarding why couldn't the Air Marshal hesitate, based upon the report that the wife shouted out to them about the medical condition of her husband.

Four Years of Infamy....

December 7th Pearl Harbor blog posts:

A Rose by Any Other Name
4 rows back

The Democratic Party Needs to Find its Joementum

As you all well know, Senator Joe Lieberman has been praised by conservatives and cursed by liberals in recent days, since his op-ed came out.

I'd like to take the moment to pick this apart from Daily Kos:


Interesting that Lieberman, who today told us we weren't allowed to criticize President Bush, had no problems whatsoever attacking a different president: Bill Clinton.

But of course, lying to drag a nation into war is nowhere near as bad as lying about a blowjob. Or something like that.

Talking to the Du loonbats on the Left and many of the Kosheads, is like talking to a brick wall. They just don't get it.

It's not that we aren't allowed to criticize the President. It's the manner in which we dissent during wartime that is so dangerous. That is what Democrat Joe Lieberman understands; that is what he is talking about, when the moonbats quote him, yet don't seem to comprehend. To compare his criticism of Bill Clinton to his attempts to dissuade current criticism of George Bush is to compare apples to oranges. Criticizing President Clinton over a personal weakness in character didn't cost lives and extend a war; it didn't give aid and comfort to the terrorists who I'm sure are regular Daily Kos readers, among other things. Why should the terrorists and insurgents give up what they are doing, when they see the results of their terror, bearing fruit in AP reports and in how our President is unfairly and shamelessly attacked on a relentless basis? What they cannot win on the battlefield, they see as winnable in the media war. When Senator Durbin compares Gitmo to Soviet Gulags and Nazi death camps.....who does that help? Americans and Iraqis? Or the insurgency? When Senators Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, and all the other usual suspects bloviate all over the Senate Floor, that we were led into this war based on lies, that we've made no progress, that we need a timetable and an exit strategy for immediate withdrawal of our troops...who does that help? Who is paying attention? I bet the terrorists are paying closer attention to CSPAN than our own citizens are. And you can bet your life on it, that they pay attention to our news media and scrutinize every negative anti-Bush gallup poll that is trumpeted and heralded around by the NY Times and the world press. And it gives them the one thing they need to cling to, to give them the will to keep going: HOPE. Hope that, like the North Vietnamese, they will prevail if they hold out long enough, thanks to the efforts of the Cindy Sheehans and the Michael Moores and the Barbra Streisands, and our own Senate "leadership".

I don't mind honest dissent and disagreement. I am sure Joe Lieberman and President Bush would both agree.

Mistakes have been made, as they have been made in every conflict; but to then magnify and spotlight it in an attempt to delegitimize the entire war and discredit what we are accomplishing over in Iraq, is just pure insanity; it is partisan politics at the risk of our men and women out on the frontlines. We are in a real war for our civilization; and we are hamstrung by our brothers and sisters who live in denial of this fact. It wouldn't be so bad, to me, if I could trust that the Democrats were unified with Republicans on achieving victory in Iraq. But that's not the case. The political infighting has not been a healthy one; what it has done, and continues to do, is undermine the war effort and show the enemy that we lack resolve; and that America doubts itself. That weakness in ourselves is what the enemy seeks to exploit. We are figuratively handing him the sword with which to kill us. The anti-war Bush-bashing is part of the problem; not the solution.

And no...it has not been proven that President Bush lied to lead us into war; a war that I believe is just and was necessary to wage as part of the GWOT.

It needs to be hammered home to the terrorists that America is not a paper tiger; not under this President, nor any future American president.

Help A Soldier's Perspective this Christmas

I hate to see a good soldier like this beg. It's painful viewing; so get ye hither and vote for our favorite, friendly neighborhood milblogger (that would be CJ nitwits! Seriously: How can you not love this soldier-hero?).

Birthday well wishes to my blog-buddies, Pamela and Mark. (They're getting old....er).

Just 20 more days until Christmas! Ho, ho, ho!

The Color Purple






Bos'un left a comment in my previous post regarding staining your right index finger come the Iraqi election beginning this December 12th, in a show of support for the Iraqi people and their attempts at building a democracy. In addition, A Soldier's Perspective has a great inspirational video that is worth a shout out.

Whether we are a red-state voter or a blue-state voter, Republican or Democrat, I would hope that all of us are rooting for purple solidarity; that we are all cheering for election success and a democratically-held, free Iraq.

Meet the DePressed....

On Meet De Press this Sunday morning, Tim Russert had on Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission. The following really irks me:


MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to your original report. You found that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was "operational." And you found that there was no evidence that the--Iraq cooperated with al-Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the U.S. Is that accurate?

MR. KEAN: That's correct.

MR. RUSSERT: So there's no suggestion that Iraq was, in any way, shape or form, involved with September 11?

MR. KEAN: No, and we can find no evidence whatsoever, and we came out with that statement clearly.

Why does that bother me? Because, for the life of me, I can never understand why Dems and libs continually push this belief that President Bush ever said "Saddam's Iraq had a hand in orchestrating 9/11". What I find so insidious in Tim Russert's question which I italicized in bold, is that it puts the subliminal message into viewers' minds that we went to war with Iraq because we were told by President Bush that Saddam was involved with September 11th. It's always been clear to me since before the war that this wasn't one of the arguments put forth.

When a highly respected journalist and great interviewer like Tim Russert continually does this sort of crap, is it any wonder that so many people are misled, not by President Bush, but by MSM? They continually misreport and mischaracterize exactly what the Administration says, ever since the run-up to war.


Here's what Annenberg's FactCheck.org has to say in regards to an anti-war coalition ad that was running in September:

"Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."

The ad quotes Bush as saying, "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties." Bush said that September 17, 2003, after months of fruitless searching for evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

However, the full quote shows Bush also made clear that he was not claiming that Saddam had any connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, he was knocking down a suggestion made four days earlier by Vice President Cheney, who said on NBC's Meet The Press that it is "not surprising that people make that connection" when asked why so many Americans believed Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Bush, Sept. 17, 2003: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

Since the word "ties" can cover any connection, however weak, Bush was in fact stating the truth. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several "friendly contacts" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a "safe haven," which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

Does MSM-bashing ever get old? No...not really. So long as it is out there, we should continue to hammer it home, the liberal bias that passes itself off as straight, nonpartisan news reporting.

Check out this book, by Stephanie Gutmann. Heard the author interviewed last week on Dennis Prager. This photo should speak volumes about the nature of journalistic accuracy and reporting.