One of the Greatest Teachers

As 2005 inches closer to becoming history, it's an appropriate time to look back on the year that was.

For me, one of the most significant events of 2005 was the death of Pope John Paul II.

John Paul's importance as a leader on the world's political stage cannot be underestimated. Along with Ronald Reagan, he was instrumental in freeing millions and millions of people from Soviet oppression.

His remarkable ability to empower and inspire people bridged the boundaries of religious affiliations.

John Paul's papacy was not without controversy; and he had plenty of vocal critics regarding plenty of issues. Some even considered John Paul to be evil incarnate.

While expressing disagreement is legitimate, I think the hate that some felt for John Paul was completely unfounded. Their agendas blinded them to his goodness. What a tremendous loss!

Throughout his life, John Paul was a teacher. He taught in the most effective way -- through example. He didn't isolate himself within the Vatican walls and coldly deliver proclamations to his flock from a distance. He reached out to the world, to all people of all faiths. He lovingly embraced them, and billions returned that embrace.

Among the greatest lessons that the Holy Father taught was how to deal with suffering and approaching death. The world witnessed his struggle with his infirmities; yet in spite of his physical decline, his spirit continued to soar.

John Paul showed us that all life has value and is precious in God's eyes.

Colleen Carroll Campbell writes:

In the anguish of that moment and the agony of his last days, the world caught a glimpse of a great soul. John Paul had spent a lifetime testifying to the sanctity of human life and the redemptive value of human suffering. Now he was bearing that witness in his very body. Identifying himself as "a sick man among the sick," John Paul embraced his suffering and, in doing so, encouraged us to embrace the sick and suffering around the world and in our own homes. He sat before us, broken and frail, and invited us to look upon his weakness with love, to mourn with him the tragedy of death, and to celebrate with him the promise of resurrection.

...John Paul's death captivated the world because it was a consummation of the message he had preached throughout his 26-year pontificate: that the dignity of the human person is not dependent on his age or his condition, his attributes or his achievements. It is an everlasting and irrevocable gift from God, one that shines all the more brightly when all else has been stripped away.

Though shrouded in the silence of Parkinson's, John Paul had still managed to speak to a hurting world about the meaning hidden in suffering, the strength perfected in weakness, and the hope that defies even death. His lessons could not have been more timely. As we look to the new year, may we learn well from the example he left us in 2005. And may John Paul the Great rest in peace.

John Paul II was a truly good man and one of the greatest teachers of our time.

I consider myself blessed to have been among his students.

Support for Bush

Once again, the Left is out of touch and living in a pre-9/11 fantasy.

Rasmussen Reports offers some interesting figures on the "domestic spying" issue, very interesting.

As always, I must add my qualification that I believe polls reveal more about the creators of the survey than its participants. Polls can be constructed to "discover" the desired results.

However, even taking that into consideration, this new poll from Rasmussen will most likely give the foaming at the mouth Dems and their lib mainstream media mouthpieces pause.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

I think most Americans are not critical of the Bush Adminstration's tactics for combatting terror because they realize that their personal privacy is not at risk. They know themselves to be loyal Americans and, as a result, not targets of terrorism investigations.

Even the majority of Dems support what the Bush Administration has done in this case. Even they have an inkling of exceptions regarding privacy that may need to be made in the name national security.

It appears that Americans get what the Leftists don't.

Unlike those on the far radical Left, Americans know that the Bush Administration does not have a devious plan to erode the civil liberties of citizens. It's about safety.

IT'S THE TERRORISTS, STUPID!

Triumph in Iraq

Craig Jenness

The UN has given its stamp of approval on the legitmacy of the December 15 Iraq elections.


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A United Nations official said Wednesday that Iraq's recent elections were credible and there was no justification for a rerun of the vote that gave a strong lead to the Shiite religious bloc dominating the current government.

...The United Nations official, Craig Jenness, said at a news conference organized by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq that the U.N.-led international election assistance team found the elections to be credible and transparent. "Turnout was high and the day was largely peaceful, all communities participated."

...Iraqi officials said they had found some instances of fraud that were enough to cancel the results in that place, but not to hold a rerun. There were more than 1,500 complaints made about the elections, with about 50 of them considered serious enough to possibly result in the cancellation of results in some places.

"After studying all the complaints, and after the manual and electronic audit of samples of ballot boxes in the provinces, the electoral commission will announce within the next few days some decisions about canceling the results in stations where fraud was found," said Abdul Hussein Hendawi, an elections official.

He said fraud had been discovered in the provinces of Baghdad, Irbil, Ninevah, Kirkuk, Anbar and Diyala.

Jenness said the number of complaints was less than one in every 7,000 voters. About 70 percent of Iraq's 15 million voters took part in the elections. He added that the U.N. saw no reason to hold a new ballot.

"Complaints must be adjudicated fairly, but we in the United Nations see no justification in calls for a rerun of any election," he said.

No election is perfect; but what took place in Iraq two weeks ago came close.

Just as in America, voter fraud must be weeded out.

Without question, tainted election results discredit the democratic process. I'm not diminishing the significance of problems in the Iraqi elections. Any fraud is a serious matter.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi voters should be proud of their blossoming democracy. They owe their precious freedom to the bravery and sacrifice of the U.S. military and the coalition partners.

It still disturbs me that these successful elections, this unquestionable triumph, received relatively little attention.

The New York Times managed to take the Iraqi elections off the national radar screen by timing its "domestic spying" splash to coincide with that stupendous news out of Iraq.

I guess it was too difficult for the Times to accept. Very slimy.

Business as usual at the New York Times...

Dowd Demonizes Dick

In "Vice Axes That 70's Show," Maureen Dowd displays her usual lunacy.

This time, she digs her claws into Dick Cheney. She digs deep, ending the year with a big, liberal, paranoid bang.

It's vintage Maureenie - exactly what we've come to know and ... , well, what we've come to know.

Dowd writes:

We start the new year with the same old fear: Dick Cheney.

I can't say that I'm afraid of Dick Cheney. Nope, I'm not starting off the new year with that fear.

Maureenie doesn't speak for me.


The vice president, who believes in unwarranted, unlimited snooping, is so pathologically secretive that if you use Google Earth's database to see his official residence, the view is scrambled and obscured. You can view satellite photos of the White House, the Pentagon and the Capitol - but not of the Lord of the Underworld's lair.

Maureenie is being intentionally misleading. She asserts that Cheney "believes in unwarranted, unlimited snooping." That's ridiculous.

The Vice President believes in doing all that we can do to protect ourselves from TERRORISTS. That's not the same as a license for "unwarranted, unlimited" snooping.

Have 900 hundred FBI files been discovered in Cheney's office?

Oh, that's right. I'm thinking of the Clinton White House.

If the Bush Administration has been digging into the private lives of individuals not considered to possibly have connections with TERRORISTS, or individuals that do not pose a possible NATIONAL SECURITY RISK, I would deem that a shameful, inexcusable abuse of power.

For instance, if the FBI files of prominent Dems were found in Cheney's possession, I would call that a serious infraction. Such actions would be akin to the abuses under President Clinton. It would be completely unacceptable.

However, as usual, Maureenie makes generalizations that she cannot back up.

While she calls Cheney "pathologically secretive," I think Maureenie is pathologically delusional.

"Lord of the Underworld's lair"? That is positively cartoonish.

Maureenie has truly lost it. She sounds like the looniest of the Left, and that is really loony.

Vice is literally a shadow president. He's obsessive about privacy - but, unfortunately, only his own.

I consider the New York Times and Maureenie to be obsessed - with bringing down the Bush Administration.

"He's obsessive about privacy - but, unfortunately, only his own."

What a silly statement!

Like so many libs, Maureenie has gone so over the top that her views are laughable. What she writes cannot be taken as serious analysis.

Speaking of privacy, a few months back, didn't the New York Times attempt to snoop into the adoption records of the children of John Roberts?

YES. Privacy concerns? Right.

That brings to mind another example of liberal hypocrisy.

In September, Michelle Malkin wrote:

"Have you heard what Democrats working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tried to do here in my home state of Maryland to bring down Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele?

"Steele, a rising star in the party, is considering a Senate bid. Two of Schumer's staffers, including a former researcher for David Brock's Media Matters, obtained Steele's credit report by using his Social Security number, which they got from public documents. Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

"There has been no outcry from privacy advocates, the ACLU, the champions of clean campaigns, or any major MSM editorial board. Needless to say, if it had been Republicans involved in this outrageous scheme and the target had been a liberal minority politician, it would be a front-page NYTimes scandal. The Times (surprise, surprise) has yet to cover the story..."

The libs' selective outrage is so unbecoming, not to mention discrediting.

Back to Maureenie:

Google Earth users alerted The Times to this latest bit of Cheney concealment after a front-page story last week about the international fears inspired by free Google software that features detailed displays of things like government and military sites around the world.

"For a brief period," they reported, "photos of the White House and adjacent buildings that the United States Geological Survey provided to Google Earth showed up with certain details obscured." So Google replaced those images with unaltered photographs taken by a private company.

Even though the story did not mention the Cheney residence - and even though it's not near the White House - The Times ran a clarifying correction yesterday that said, "The view of the vice president's residence in Washington remains obscured."

Fitting, since Vice has turned America into a camera obscura, a dark chamber with a lens that turns things upside down.

Considering that the Pentagon was hit and the World Trade Center was destroyed by TERRORISTS, does anyone really think that it's out of line to obscure the details of high profile targets?

Way to assist TERRORISTS, Google! Very nice.

Moreover, is Maureenie actually saying that Cheney controls Google? She is suggesting that he somehow managed to keep views of his residence shrouded in secrecy.

That's just goofy. Typical Maureenie.

Guys argue that women tend to stew and hold grudges more, sometimes popping up to blow the whistle on a man's bad behavior years later, like a missile out of the night, as Alan Simpson said of Anita Hill.

Yet look at Cheney and Rummy. Their steroid-infused power grabs stem from their years stewing in the Ford White House, a time when they felt emasculated because they were stripped of prerogatives.

More of Maureenie's psychobabble and armchair psychoanalysis--

Funny, as well as psycho.

Clearly, Maureenie has issues.

Rummy, a Ford chief of staff who became defense secretary, and his protégé, Cheney, who succeeded him as chief of staff, felt diminished by the post-Watergate laws and reforms that reduced the executive branch's ability to be secretive and unilateral, tilting power back toward Congress.

The 70's were also a heady period for the press, which reached the zenith of its power when it swayed public opinion on Vietnam and exposed Watergate. Reporters got greater access to government secrets with a stronger Freedom of Information Act.

Chenrummy thought the press was running amok, that leaks should be plugged and that Congress was snatching power that rightfully belonged to the White House.

So these two crusty pals spent 30 years dreaming of inflating the deflated presidential muscularity. Cheney christened himself vice president and brought in Rummy for the most ridiculously pumped-up presidency ever. All this was fine with W., whose family motto is: "We know best. Trust us."

Oh my God! Maureenie has really gone over the edge. I think she's in desperate need of an intervention.

Her construction of these lame scenarios creeps me out. It's weird.

The two regents turned back the clock to the Nixon era, bringing back presidential excesses like wiretapping along with presidential power. As attorney general, John Ashcroft clamped down on the Freedom of Information Act. For two years, the Pentagon has been sitting on a request from The Times's Jeff Gerth to cough up a secret 500-page document prepared by Halliburton on what to do with Iraq's oil industry - a plan it wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan (and overbill the U.S.). Very convenient.

Defending warrantless wiretapping last week, the vice president spoke of his distaste for the erosion of presidential authority in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam.

"I do believe that, especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats we face, it was true during the cold war, as well as I think what is true now, the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," he intoned. Translation: Back off, Congress and the press.

Checks, balances, warrants, civil liberties - they're all so 20th century. Historians must now regard the light transitional tenure of Gerald Ford as the petri dish of this darkly transformational presidency.

Maureenie is truly doing a disservice here.

She is completely dismissing the realities of past presidencies, Dem presidencies. Maureenie is the Queen of Sins of Omission.

Consider this: when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, supported by President Ford, pushed a plan to have the government help develop alternative sources of energy and reduce our dependence on oil and Saudi Arabia, guess who helped scotch it?

Dick Cheney. Then and now, the man is a menace.

Of course, she's suggesting that the Demon Dick wanted to personally profit from U.S. oil consumption.

Gee, what did the Clinton Administration do to help the country kick its oil addiction?

Maureenie fans, consider this:

Researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government examined the environmental policy record of former President Bill Clinton. Environmental quality improved overall during the decade, the researchers found, continuing a trend that began in the 1970s, although improvements were much less than during the previous two decades.

From 1997, something else to consider:

[In the 1996 election, Clinton's] record on the environment wasn't based on a record of positive achievement but instead on his attacks on Congress. The president had prevented deep cuts in spending on the Environmental Protection Agency and he claimed credit for stopping the most egregious attempts to revise regulations such as those regarding endangered species and water quality standards. But the real Clinton environmental record centers not on the salvation of Nixon-era regulations and agencies, but on what has been left undone.

Criticism from environmental groups has centered on the lack of action in two important areas: local air-quality control standards and global greenhouse emissions. On air-quality, the White House has taken what it would like to call a centrist position. The Clinton administration remained silent on demands by EPA head Carol Browner for tougher standards, but also resisted Republican demands for changes that might reduce standards for certain localities.

If we are to accept the theory that Cheney was motivated by a quest for personal profits from oil, what was Clinton's reasons for failing to push for stricter environmental regulations and alternative energy sources?

Obviously, in terms of the truth, Maureenie is thoroughly misguided and intentionally misleading.

She's lucky that the Times and other lib propaganda rags suffer from the same lack of direction and morality. The woman has an audience that accepts her babbling as gospel and buys into the demonization of Vice President Cheney.

It's sad, but true.

The Recruits

Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah is spouting off about the arsenal of weapons that he has poised to attack Americans and our allies.

He claims that his weapons stockpile includes more than 200 human bombs.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- A top Taliban commander said more than 200 rebel fighters were willing to become suicide attackers against U.S. forces and their allies _ a claim dismissed as propaganda Monday by Afghanistan's government, which said the hard-line militia was weakening. In an interview late Sunday with The Associated Press, the commander, Mullah Dadullah, ruled out any reconciliation with the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai and claimed the country's new parliament _ its first in more than 30 years, inaugurated last week _ was "obedient to America."

..."More than 200 Taliban have registered themselves for suicide attacks with us which shows that a Muslim can even sacrifice his life for the well-being of his faith. Our suicide attackers will continue jihad (holy war) until Americans and all of their Muslim and non-Muslim allies are pulled out of the country," he said.

Gen. Mohammed Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry, dismissed Dadullah's claims of rebel strength as "propaganda" and said Afghanistan had enough security forces to deal with the rebels.

"The Taliban are isolated. The Taliban have no power. They are using land mines and terror activities ... or suicide attacks. These kind of operations show they are not strong and that they are weak," Azimi told the AP.

Azimi nails it.

Engaging in terrorist tactics and suicide attacks reveals the weakness of the radical Islamic fundamentalists, not their strength.

They practice a hateful ideology, where victory is only measured by destruction, including destroying themselves.

In November, Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said intelligence indicated that a number of Arab al-Qaida members and other foreigners had entered Afghanistan to launch suicide attacks, and a senior government official said 22 would-be suicide bombers were believed to be in the country waiting for orders to attack.

Dadullah implied that the Taliban and al-Qaida were working together, and said mujahedeen from various parts of the world, including Arabs, were fighting in Afghanistan. He said the foreigners made up about 10 percent of the fighters.

"Both Taliban and al-Qaida have the same objectives," he said, warning that anyone supporting the Americans and the government "will be dealt with."

...In another sign that links between the Taliban and al-Qaida have continued, a tape of al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri surfaced this month in which he praised the Taliban chief Mullah Omar. In the tape, al-Zawahri claimed the rebel leader had won back control of extensive areas of western and eastern Afghanistan, though government and U.S. officials say the Taliban's influence is in fact waning.

...Dadullah ruled out reconciliation and talks with Karzai's government, saying it "owed its existence" to non-Muslims, and to do so would amount to "joining Christianity and working for Christians."

"My talks with them will only be for their destruction and nothing else," he said.

Karzai has encouraged Taliban members to leave the extremist group, renounce terrorism and go through a formal reconciliation program. So far, several hundred rank-and-file members and some 50 senior officials have done so, including some who ran in September's parliamentary elections.

That's not very PC of Dadullah to be so intolerant of Christians, is it?

To illustrate the Left's goofy relativism regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, and bin Laden, let's flashback to an interview that Bill O'Reilly did with Michael Moore in July, 2004.




O: Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.

M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you can't kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—

O: Why was that?

M: That’s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

Moore really is clueless.

He thinks the Taliban should have been allowed to remain in power. Apparently, he believes that just the al Qaeda members directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks should have been "tracked down."

That's the old Bill Clinton law enforcement 1990s strategy of dealing with terrorism. Of course, we know what a miserable failure that was.

In Moore's world, the 9/11 attacks were not acts of war. They were crimes.

Taliban commander Dadullah brags to the AP about the band of suicide bombers that he has at his disposal. The links between the Taliban and al Qaeda were, and still are, irrefutable; yet Moore actually said that he didn't see the Taliban as a threat to the United States.

Dr. Dean also considered the 9/11 attacks to be criminal.




Remember this? Two years ago, December 26, 2003, an interview detailing Dean's plan for bin Laden was made public.

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

This comes from the chairman of the DNC. It's truly mind-boggling. It's frightening. It's insane!

This is the mindset of the whiny liberal appeasers that view Bush and the Republicans as the enemy rather than the terrorists.

Moore's cluelessness and Dean's lunacy remind me of House MINORITY leader Nancy Pelosi and her many utterly witless comments regarding the War on Terror.



From the Washington Times, June 23, 2005:

On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.

"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter.

A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."

In June, Pelosi declared the war in Afghanistan to be over.

In the final days of December, Dadullah thinks otherwise.

What clearer examples could there be that the libs cannot be trusted with national security?

In his address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001, President Bush prepared the country for a long and difficult struggle in battling the ideology that prompted nineteen men to hijack civilian airliners and kill three thousand men, women, and children on our soil.

Obviously, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and like-minded Leftists didn't get it then and they don't get it now.

I have to believe that they don't understand the enemy and they don't understand what's at stake.

If they really understood, would they proceed in trying to undermine the Bush Administration's efforts to keep Americans and all free people safe from the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists?

Can the libs really be that self-serving and politically motivated?

Could anyone be that irresponsible?
__________________

(Hint: To answer these questions, just read the New York Times or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.)

Silent Night

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy will one day walk on water?

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy will save our sons and daughters?

Did you know,
that your baby boy has come to make you new?
This child that you've delivered,
will soon deliver you.

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy will give sight to a blind man?

Mary, did you know
your baby boy will calm a storm with his hand?

Did you know,
that your baby boy has walked where angels trod?
When you kiss your little baby,
you've kissed the face of God.

The blind will see
The deaf will hear
The dead will live again.
The lame will leap
The dumb will speak
The praises of The Lamb.

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy is Lord of all creation?

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy will one day rule the nations?

Did you know,
that your baby boy is heaven's perfect lamb?
This sleeping child you're holding, is the great I AM.

Selective Outrage

Arlene Getz asks in an Internet piece for Newsweek, "Where's the Outrage?"

It's right here.

I'm outraged that Newsweek continues to promote its transparent anti-Bush campaign by giving Getz a forum for her drivel.

She writes:


Back in the 1980s, when I was living in Johannesburg and reporting on apartheid South Africa, a white neighbor proffered a tasteless confession. She was "quite relieved," she told me, that new media restrictions prohibited our reporting on government repression. No matter that Pretoria was detaining tens of thousands of people without real evidence of wrongdoing. No matter that many of them, including children, were being tortured—sometimes to death. No matter that government hit squads were killing political opponents. No matter that police were shooting into crowds of black civilians protesting against their disenfranchisement. "It's so nice," confided my neighbor, "not to open the papers and read all that bad news."

I thought about that neighbor this week, as reports dribbled out about President George W. Bush's sanctioning of warrantless eavesdropping on American conversations. For anyone who has lived under an authoritarian regime, phone tapping—or at least the threat of it—is always a given. But U.S. citizens have always been lucky enough to believe themselves protected from such government intrusion. So why have they reacted so insipidly to yet another post-9/11 erosion of U.S. civil liberties?

Maybe Americans have reacted "insipidly" because they understand the post-9/11 world, an understanding that the Left seems to lack. If liberals do understand the realities of wartime, then they have made a conscious decision to pursue personal political gain by risking national security.

Getz's comparison of life in the U.S. today with apartheid South Africa is disgraceful.

Such ridiculous assertions are the ramblings of an obviously confused person, someone incapable of grasping the issues, let alone reality.

Can you imagine discussing counterterrorism with Getz, listening to her goofy rant, nodding politely, and all the while thinking, "That poor befuddled woman"?

I'm sure there are many well-meaning Americans who agree with their president's explanation that it's all a necessary evil (and that patriotic citizens will not be spied on unless they dial up Osama bin Laden). But the nasty echoes of apartheid South Africa should at least give them pause. While Bush uses the rhetoric of "evildoers" and the "global war on terror," Pretoria talked of "total onslaught." This was the catchphrase of P. W. Botha, South Africa's head of state from 1978 to 1989. Botha was hardly the first white South African leader to ride roughshod over civil liberties for all races, but he did it more effectively than many of his predecessors. Botha liked to tell South Africans that the country was under "total onslaught" from forces both within and without, and that this global assault was his rationale for allowing opponents to be jailed, beaten or killed. Likewise, the Bush administration has adopted the argument that anything is justified in the name of national security.

"Anything is justified in the name of national security."

Unbelievable!

Where was Getz on September 11, 2001?



Did she see people jumping from the upper floors of the burning World Trade Center towers, preferring to plunge to their deaths rather than be consumed by the flames?

Did she hear the heart-wrenching final messages of love left by victims of the attacks on the answering machines of their family members?

Did she attend funeral after funeral of the firefighters murdered when the towers collapsed? Did she look into the eyes of the widows and the children of the fallen?

How can she compare a government that jailed, beat, and killed its own citizens with life in post 9/11 America?

It is absurd.

No connection can be made with eavesdropping to prevent a reoccurrence of the horror of 9/11 and the abuses of apartheid South Africa.

President Bush is not the leader of a repressive regime. There is no systematic effort to strip away our freedoms. The fact that Newsweek and other liberal rags are free to publish their lies proves that.

Botha was right about South Africa being under attack. Internally, blacks and a few whites were waging a low-level guerrilla war to topple the government. Externally, activists across the globe were mobilizing economic sanctions and campaigns to ostracize Pretoria. By the same token, we all know that Bush is right about the United States facing a very real threat of further terror. Yet should Americans really be willing to accept that autocratic end-justifies-the-means argument?

For so many around the world, the United States is as much a symbol as a nation. Outsiders may scoff at American naiveté in thinking that their conversations are private, but they envy them for growing up in a society so sheltered that it made such a belief possible. Among those who feel this way is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Anglican leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his principled fight for justice in his native country. "It's unbelievable," he told me in an interview, "that a country that many of us have looked to as the bastion of true freedom could now have eroded so many of the liberties we believed were upheld almost religiously."

The problem with Leftists like Getz whining about the erosion of civil liberties is that they act as if American history began the day George W. Bush took the oath of office as the 43rd President of the United States.

Why wasn't there concern about the erosion of civil liberties under other administrations?

Do I need to go into the activities of Clinton's tenure?

Several instances of "erosion" prior to Bush's first term have been highlighted by a number of publications in recent days.

A few examples:

1) Clinton enemies were targeted by IRS audits.

2) The confidential tax returns of Paula Jones were leaked to the media.

3) The Clintons had 1,100 FBI files sent to the White House Counsel's office.

4) Warrantless eavesdropping occurred under the international communications espionage network, codenamed Echelon.

5) One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.

6) In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

7) In 1978, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

8) In 1978, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.

These are just a few recent examples. A quick glance at what FDR or Lincoln did as wartime presidents strenthens the case that Getz and her lib cohorts are being highly selective in their criticism of the Bush Administration.

Furthermore, it appears that Tutu's knowledge of activities by previous administrations is quite limited.

Tutu recalled teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., when Bush won re-election in 2004. "I was shocked," he said, "because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view." Tutu made these comments to me exactly a year ago next week. I haven't seen any reaction from him about the latest eavesdropping revelations, but I doubt he is remotely surprised at the U.S. president's response: a defense of the tactic, together with a warning that the government would launch an investigation to find out who leaked the news to The New York Times.

This is disgusting.

Tutu's belief that freedom of speech is being squelched under President Bush is embarrassingly misguided.

Those buying into the Left’s propaganda are the naïve ones.

Moreover, why is Getz outraged over President Bush's defense of utilizing the same tactics that other administrations used?

Short answer: She's a propagandist, a partisan hack.

Getz concludes:

It's not fair, of course, to suggest that all citizens are indifferent to violations of their privacy and their rights to free speech. Yet as I've watched this debate play out, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that not enough Americans really care. Like my Johannesburg neighbor, they seem to hope that unpleasant news will disappear if you just ignore it. It didn't then, and it won't now.

I am not indifferent to privacy issues. Believe me, I really care. I am certain that I value my privacy as much as Getz values hers. I share her concern about the importance of protecting our civil liberties. I agree with her that "unpleasantness" won’t go away simply by ignoring it.

However, there is a problem with Getz’s argument: It is not grounded in reality.

She is either being intentionally misleading in order to instill fear in Americans to convince them to lose confidence in Bush; or she is worrying about monsters under the bed.

Comparing America in 2005 to apartheid South Africa is nuts.

She frames the debate as being about an assault on civil liberties, as though the evil “King George” is bent on abusing the American people. She ignores the fact that provisions of the Patriot Act and other tactics are being used to combat TERRORISM, not harass or threaten or trample on the rights of citizens with impunity.

While I believe that we must always focus on upholding our freedoms, it is disingenuous of Getz and others to turn the matter of how to effectively handle the very real terrorist threat into an imaginary war on the civil liberties of Americans, waged by the Bush Administration.

IT'S THE TERRORISTS, STUPID!

BUSH LIED

"The man in the White House is a liar."

Who said that?

Of course, the possibilities are endless.

Dr. Dean
Jimmy Carter
John Kerry
Russ Feingold
Ted Kennedy
John Edwards
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Dick Durbin
Joe Biden
Jay Rockefeller
Hillary Clinton
Chuck Schumer
John Murtha
60 Minutes Staff
The New York Times Newsroom
Maureen Dowd
Paul Krugman
Frank Rich
Michael Moore
Cindy Sheehan
Al Franken

(I'll stop there. I'm starting to feel nauseous.)

Although all of these Americans have made that statement in some form, the specific quote goes to SADDAM HUSSEIN.



Al Jazeera (the Eastern bureau -- not the NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR outlets) writes:

Saddam Hussein has accused the White House of lying about his alleged stockpiles of chemical weapons as well as the claim that he was tortured in US custody.

Speaking on Thursday at the start of the seventh session of his trial on charges of crimes against humanity, the former Iraqi president rekindled his battle of words with Washington.

"Zionists and Americans, I mean officials, hate Saddam Hussein," Saddam said. "The man in the White House is a liar. He said there are chemical weapons in Iraq.

"He later said that, 'We did not find anything in Iraq'."

Referring to a White House statement that his claims that he had been tortured were preposterous, Saddam said: "They lied again when they said that what Saddam said was wrong."

On Wednesday, Saddam accused the Americans of beating him in custody and said he had the bruises to prove it.

Saddam said: "I had my injuries documented by three American [medical] teams." He did not say where or when he was allegedly beaten.

This must be playing well in the enlightened liberal elite circles. Saddam is an ally.

We know Dan Rather is his personal buddy.

Saddam sounds just like someone on the radical Left.

Would distinguished ex-President Carter argue with Saddam's comment that Bush is a liar? Would any of the people I cited?

NO. They've all been saying the same thing.

The question: Has Saddam taken his cues from the American Left, or has the American Left taken cues from Saddam?

In the end, the answer is irrelevant. They're on the same page.

The things that Saddam is saying in order to garner support from his backers, insurgents, and assorted terrorists, the ones that kill innocent civilians and our troops, is what American libs are saying.

Isn't that nice?

STOP THE INSANITY!

Enough!

It's time for Americans, particularly elected officials and members of the media, to quit playing games with our national security.

While the 9/11 attacks were a watershed for some of us, for others they appear to be ancient history. Apparently, these individuals have repressed that day and those acts of war against the United States.

In the aftermath of 9/11, why was the Patriot Act passed nearly unanimously?

Simple. We were blind-sided. Through the loss of three thousand precious lives, we saw our vulnerability.

A network of fanatics hiding out in caves managed to devastate the most powerful nation in the world and slaughter thousands of innocent people. The horror of 9/11 demanded dramatic measures.


I think the government responded appropriately. Only one Senator failed to act in the best interests of the American people -- Russ "I'm a maverick, let me be President" Feingold.

Now, four years later, others have joined in the recklessness of Russ.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday passed a six-month extension of the terror- fighting USA Patriot Act as a last resort after Democrats and a small group of GOP senators blocked President Bush and Republican congressional leaders' attempt to make most of the anti-terrorism law permanent. Approval of the six-month extension came on a voice vote, and cleared the way for a final vote in the House possibly as early as Thursday. Sixteen provisions in the current law expire Dec. 31 unless the Congress and White House acts.

Patriot Act critics said White House-pushed legislation did not provide enough civil liberty safeguards and blocked the Republican- controlled Senate from approving it last week.

H. R. 3162 was enacted "to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."

___________________________________

Note: The Patriot Act is about dealing with TERRORISTS, not harassing law-abiding Americans.

It's about protecting the civil liberties of innocents, not stripping them.

It's about upholding our freedoms and our way of life, something that the TERRORISTS seek to destroy.

The Patriot Act is directed at our ENEMIES, the ones that ripped apart thousands of lives.

It's not some devious scheme to violate the privacy of Americans.

___________________________________

Other than Feingold, every senator casting a vote recognized the necessity of giving government officials the tools necessary to effectively combat terrorism.

What's changed?

Is terrorism less of a threat today than it was in 2001?

Listening to the Dems and their lib counterparts in the MSM, one is led to believe that we are in more danger now than ever.

Nevertheless, the very same people that claim that "Bush's war" has made Americans less safe by swelling the ranks of terrorists are the ones calling for the elimination or weakening of the country's ability to fight terrorism.

That's irrational.

The six-month "extension ensures that the tools provided to law enforcement in terrorist investigations in the Patriot Act remain in effect while Congress works out the few differences that remain," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., one of a small group of Republicans who crossed party lines to block the Patriot Act legislation.

While I am thankful that the Patriot Act will not expire as we ring in the New Year, this extension stuff is a joke.

It should never have gotten to this point. Republicans are in the majority. They could have sent the terrorists an unequivocal message that America is not weak.

Instead, the Dems and RINOs revealed that there is a limp faction in the government, a willingness to allow Americans to be victimized.

"This will allow more time to finally agree on a bill that protects our rights and freedoms while preserving important tools for fighting terrorism," added Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in 2001.

Let me translate Feingold's statement:

"This will allow me more air time on the cable channels and Sunday news programs. It will give me greater exposure and set me up as a major player in 2008. This will be an important tool in preserving my position as a mainstream media darling. Barbra Streisand might invite me to her estate."

Despite insisting earlier that a short-term extension of the Patriot Act would not be acceptable, Bush seemed to indicate in a late-night statement that he would sign it.

Why would Bush sign it even though he considers a short-term extension unacceptable?

It's not because he's weak and appeasing the Dems. It's not because he has to kowtow to the RINOs. It has nothing to do with his poll numbers.

Bush will sign the extension because he will not allow Americans to be put at risk. Letting the Patriot Act expire would do precisely that. Therefore, he will compromise because of his committment to do all he can to not give the terrorists an opportunity to kill here again.

Unlike the Dems and the RINOs, President Bush refuses to play politics by sacrificing the security of the American people.

Thanks to his resolve, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.

This certainly isn't because the terrorists have had a change of heart. It's because officials and agencies are working tirelessly to avert another disaster.

The liberals, (meaning the radical Left Dems and the fake Republicans), need to stop putting Americans at risk by undercutting the government's efforts to prevent the type of bloodshed we witnessed on that Tuesday in September, four years ago.

Suggesting that the Bush Administration is evil and wants to abuse its power by spying on Americans is insane. It is the byproduct of an irrational, liberal mindset.

It is imperative to put national security ahead of politics. Case closed.

Dems and RINOs must remember that they are infidels, too. Their children and grandchildren are the terrorists' targets. They should keep that in mind when this six-month extension is on the verge of running out.

How Low Can the Times Go?

The New York Times has hit rock bottom with this one.

James Risen's shameless promotional campaign for his soon to be released anti-Bush Administration book is putting the American people at risk.

These libs act as if they are in a vacuum, as though they can lie and attack and mislead and distort without harming U.S. national security.

It disgusts me.

Drudge reported last Friday:

[N]ational security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

THE TIMES SAT ON THIS STORY FOR ONE YEAR!

From Editor and Publisher:

Times journalists told NPR the approaching release of Risen's book forced senior editors to focus grudgingly on the NSA story. They otherwise would have been scooped in a book by one of their own correspondents. (Risen had been on book leave for the first five months of 2005, according to the Times.)

Grudgingly? They have got to be kidding.

Michael Getler is the ombudsman for PBS and was previously a deputy managing editor, foreign editor and ombudsman at The Washington Post. He says the Times deserves credit for its scoop. But he wonders why it took so long.

"The guideline is that the story gets published when it's ready," Getler said. "And what befuddled people is hearing about the fact that the Times had it and held on to it for so long. It doesn't diminish the impact of the story at all, but it diminishes the messenger."

Newsweek magazine reports that President Bush recently summoned Times Executive Editor Keller and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. to the White House to try to talk them out of printing the article. They omitted some details, but ran it.

...Keller would not be interviewed for this story. In a second statement, he said the publication of the NSA article "was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event." Keller added: "After listening respectfully to the Administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it."

Keller has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why the Times ran the story now. Not even close.

The Times people contradict themselves within this very article.

At first, they say that they were forced to run the story to keep from being scooped by their own reporter. Yeah, forget national security, worry about being scooped.

As slimy as that is, it's even slimier that Keller would insist that publication of the articles were not timed to "Jim's forthcoming book."

Even though the President of the United States personally requested that the Times not run the story, Keller and Sulzberger did it anyway.

Supposedly, "the Times held back after government officials said the article would compromise their ability to track terrorists. In a statement, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said government officials convinced the newspaper that the president had the legal authority to order the wiretaps. Keller said subsequent reporting showed there were deep divisions within the administration about the extent of Bush's authority."

Isn't it amazing how the "subsequent reporting" coincided with the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, and Risen's book? I find it stunning. I mean, what are the odds?

After waiting a year, Sulzberger and Keller's decision to expose "Bush and his abuse of power" at this moment was all just a coincidence.

Sure it was.


President Bush said he expects the Justice Department to investigate who leaked to the Times. That's unwelcome news for a newspaper that just lost its fight to keep former reporter Judith Miller from having to testify about confidential sources in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case.

First, I must say that I consider anything from the Times to be "unwelcome news."

Second, I, too, want to know who leaked to the Times. I think it's weird that the mainstream media were whipped into a frenzy over the "outing" of a CIA employee who was not covert; yet they don't seem to be flipping out over a leak that could have dramatic implications for our national security.

The terrorists must be loving this.

Furthermore, if the Times is so horrified that Bush abused his authority, where is the outrage over the actions of Dem presidents that engaged in the same activity?

More from Drudge:

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

In addition, Andrew McCarthy wrote a great piece exposing the idiocy of the drooling Leftists.

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That’s Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.

When not cavalierly talking "impeachment," here's the Left's talking point of the day:

What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?

I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

* Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

* Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

* Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

* Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

* Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

* Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

* Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

* Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

* Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

* Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

McCarthy's list goes on and on. He concludes:

These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached.

Thankfully, the New Media are pointing out what the MSM conveniently ignore.

Drudge and McCarthy provide concrete instances revealing just how desperate the Left has become in their effort to destroy Bush. They are dismissing the actions of past presidents and the daily activities of law enforcement officials, all in the name of undermining the Administration.

Meanwhile, the lib media mouthpieces for the Dems continue to promote the terrorists' agenda. Once again, their reporting is indistinguishable from what Al Jazeera is putting out. Al Jazeera picked this up from Reuters:

The eavesdropping programme is the latest in a series of administration policies in Bush's declared war on terrorism that have prompted questions over whether the line has been crossed between protecting the public and protecting civil rights.

The senators calling for an investigation demanded detailed information on the programme, including on its legality.

"It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorised, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts," they said in a joint letter.

The news outlet that terrorists utilize to air propaganda is on the same page as the lib media. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.

Politics is politics. It's dirty. Fine.

However, messing with national security and the government's ability to keep Americans safe should not be politicized. The Leftists are relentless in their efforts to undermine the Bush Administration.

The price of the Left's political games could be another 9/11.

That's inexcusable.

I wish the Times would splash an analysis of Clinton's Echelon spy progam.

Not going to happen.

THANK A SOLDIER WEEK

You say you support the troops. Let the troops know.

This is THANK A SOLDIER WEEK.

What can you do?

1) Use this form to e-mail a soldier.

2) Tell a friend to do the same.

3) Don't hesitate to thank a member of the Armed Forces that you pass on the street.

4) Donate to charities that support the military.

List of recommended organizations

The THANK A SOLDIER WEEK effort is not partisan. How could it be?

All Americans support the troops, right?

Persons of the Year -- Huh?

Over seventy-five years ago, TIME magazine started its tradition of selecting a "Man of the Year," later renamed "Person of the Year." Charles Lindbergh was the first to be given this recognition in the January 2, 1928, issue of the magazine.

Over the years, TIME has made some bizarre choices.

Complete List From 1927-2004

According to the website:

TIME's choices for Person of the Year are often controversial. Editors are asked to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill—guidelines that leave them no choice but to select a newsworthy—not necessarily praiseworthy—cover subject.



In 2001, although Rudy Giuliani was chosen as the Person of the Year, there was outrage over the possibility that TIME would make Osama bin Laden its end of the year coverboy.

I think the controversy arises because many people think of the title as an honor. The confusion is understandable; but it should be remembered that it's not an award. According to TIME's own criteria, the Person of the Year is not meant to be a stamp of approval.

The editors are supposed to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, not necessarily a nice guy. TIME's 1979 choice, Ayatullah Khomeini, or the 1938 choice, Adolf Hitler, certainly reveal that making the cover is not necessarily a recognition of positive accomplishments.

Nonetheless, when a Hitler sort gets the nod from TIME, the decision is deemed inappropriate. It shouldn't be, but it is. Again, many people tend to think of being selected by TIME as an honor.

That aside, the editors have not only made some controversial selections, but some that were just plain stupid.

Some embarrassing choices:

1982 - The Computer

1988 - Endangered Earth (as "Planet of the Year")

I think opening up the field to include "things" was a mistake. How could the Clapper have been overlooked?

"Planet of the Year"? How lame! Maybe I'm letting personal feelings get in the way. I guess I hold a grudge because I thought Pluto was more deserving in '88.

Although not nearly as weird as the 1982 and 1988 choices, I question TIME's judgment for the 2005 title holders.



Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates were this year's picks.

Nancy Gibbs explains:

For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME's Persons of the Year.

I commend Bill and Melinda Gates for their generosity.

I admire Bono for lobbying world leaders to do what they can to "make poverty history" and for his raising of awareness.

Unquestionably, these three individuals have done good deeds and there is less suffering in the world because of their commitment to use their status and power to make it happen. They deserve recognition for being a tremendous positive force.

BUT--

TIME editors cannot be serious about considering them to be the "person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill."

Bill and Melinda Gates have donated truly enormous amounts of money. Bono has succeeded in convincing the most powerful leaders in the world to see things his way, and provide aid, and forgive debt. Together, they've made a dramatic difference in so many lives.

I just don't think that they were the figures that had the greatest impact on the news.

As wonderful as billions in debt relief and vaccinations are, that was not the most influential story to come out of 2005.

Although the accomplishments of these Persons of the Year are far-reaching and praiseworthy, I think happenings in the Middle East were of much greater significance this past year.

I want to make it clear that I'm in no way diminishing what the trio achieved or the significance of their accomplishments to the millions of people directly affected by their work, or the ramifications of their efforts for the rest of the world.

However, I don't see how TIME could overlook the players in Iraq.

The emerging democracy in a country that had been held hostage by a brutal dictator and murderous regime has had a far greater impact on the news in 2005 than anything else.

If I could choose the Person of the Year, it would be the Iraqi voter -- hands down.

A free Iraq will change the dynamics in the Middle East. Freedom in that region will choke off the ideology that breeds terrorism. It will wither and die. As progress is made, the world order is being altered.

TIME's editors chose to ignore that. As the Iraqi elections exhibited, fear and oppression were replaced with courage and self-determination in 2005. We are witnessing a rebirth in Iraq and hope for a lasting peace throughout the Middle East.

I suspect that TIME did not want to acknowledge that.

All that the editors really need to do to determine the person or "thing" that most impacted the news would be to look through the 2005 issues of their publication.

Who or what dominated?

Apparently, they don't read their own magazine.

It could have been much worse. TIME editors could have gone completely off the deep end and chosen Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame as the Persons of the Year.

I have no doubt that they both would have been anxious to do the cover shoot.

Pope Benedict, Linus, and the Grinch

As he did a week ago, Pope Benedict again commented on the commercialization of Christmas.

Last Sunday, while delivering his weekly Angleus blessing to a crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square, Pope Benedict said, "In today's consumer society, this time of the year unfortunately suffers from a sort of commercial 'pollution' that threatens to alter its real spirit."

Yesterday, the Holy Father once again decried the materialism that overpowers the meaning of Christmas.

ROME (Reuters) -- Pope Benedict urged Roman Catholics on Sunday not to commercialise Christmas, saying joy -- not expensive objects -- was the real gift of the season.

..."Joy is the real gift of Christmas -- not expensive gifts that only cost time and money -- but joy," he said, speaking in a hoarse voice.

"It is joy that should be communicated. We can communicate joy in a simple way, with a smile, a gesture," he said.

...In his improvised sermon, the Pope also told the faithful to remember that God was the "only insurance" to help people deal with sickness, loneliness and death. "Only one insurance protects us. Only the Lord, and he tells us not to be afraid," he said.

I love that the Pope is reiterating this message.

If you are bigoted and automatically dismiss all things that the Catholic Church offers the world, perhaps you're more comfortable listening to Dr. Seuss.

In 1957, Dr. Seuss created the Grinch to deliver a similar message -- Christmas is about a joy that cannot be bought.





"Pooh-pooh to the Whos!" he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Christmas is coming!
"They're just waking up! I know just what they'll do!
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
"The all the Whos down in Who-ville will all cry BOO-HOO!"

"That's a noise," grinned the Grinch,
"That I simply must hear!"
So he paused. And the Grinch put a hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow...

But the sound wasn't sad!
Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so!
But it WAS merry! VERY!

He stared down at Who-ville!
The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook!
What he saw was a shocking surprise!

Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any presents at all!
He HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming!
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"






Charles Schulz echoed these thoughts in his 1965 creation, A Charlie Brown Christmas.

In the midst of Charlie Brown's depression and spiritual crisis, Linus explains:



"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you this day is born in the City of Bethlehem, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men'".

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie brown.



The commentary of Pope Benedict, the Grinch, and Linus holds significance for people of all faiths, believers and non-believers.

For a moment, take out the Christian message. Set aside the religious references and their opinions about the connection between the birth of Christ and the commercialization of the celebration of Christmas.

For a moment, think about materialism in general, and how it impacts your life.

What do you value?

What lends meaning to your existence?

What gives you peace?

Be honest.

For instance, I've heard SO many people say, "My family means more to me than anything else."

I've noticed the disconnect between what those people say and what those people do. It's very simple to make that statement. It is quite another thing to put the words into action.

SO often, the ones claiming to care most about their loved ones actually behave in a manner indicating that their careers come first, and large homes, and expensive cars, exotic vacations, and the myriad material goods that the marketplace has to offer.

If you have all that money can buy, does it make you happy?

If you don't have this stuff, are you miserable because you are lacking?

Materialism doesn't do it for me.

I learned when I was very young that money and all it allows one to acquire is worthless in the end.

Worthless.

I believe that the most precious thing we have on this earth is time.

It can certainly be wasted. It can be lost, but can't be retrieved. When time is squandered, we are utterly powerless to undo it.

I value life and love. Relationships, principles, honor, integrity, and justice are important to me.

Basically, if it comes in "packages, boxes or bags," it's unimportant.

Of course, there are material items that I cherish, like hand-written notes from my grandparents and great-grandparents; or my mother's cookbook, a binder of family recipes she typed up, with additional jottings that she wrote in the margins; or the dining room set that generations of my loved ones gathered around to share meals, in times of great joy and tremendous sorrow; or the hand-made gifts and cards I've received from my children.

But even these material things are only meaningful to me because of the lives behind them. It's the love symbolized by the items that gives them value.

In terms of 21st century culture, I'm a misfit. I don't look to its gods of materialism and consumerism to guide me. I find no peace or comfort there.

I know what I care about. I know what matters to me. It's not money or anything it can buy.

In short, when it comes to Christmas gifts, I'm really easy to shop for.

The Apolitical Speech

In his nationally televised address Sunday night, President Bush did not sidestep any of the tough issues regarding the war in Iraq.

Complete text

It wasn't spin.

To me, the speech was apolitical. I think the very candid address was what the American people needed to hear.

Bush cut through the politics and the grandstanding that passes for debate from both sides of the aisle.

He spoke as an American president, not a Republican president.

He spoke to the American people, not only his base. He acknowledged the differences of opinion citizens hold about the war.

Bush clearly and succinctly made the case for seeing the mission in Iraq through to a victorious conclusion.

He didn't sugarcoat anything. He acknowledged the challenges of establishing a democracy, admitting that some intelligence was flat out wrong, and that progress in training Iraqi forces and rebuilding had taken longer than expected.

He pointed out the positives and wasn't afraid to deal with the negatives. He was realistic about the situation. There is no reason to deny failures in Iraq just as there is no reason to ignore successes.

Bush could not have been clearer about America's policy and the nature of the enemy.

My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

Not surprisingly, the usual Dem suspects were critical.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address to the American people on the postwar effort in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism drew mixed reviews from members of Congress and some of the people who want to replace him in 2004.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, called Bush's remarks "nothing short of outrageous."

"In 15 minutes, he attempted to make up for 15 months of misleading the American people and 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction," he said.

In his speech, Bush called Iraq the "central front" in the war on terrorism and said foreign terrorists were to blame for recent violence there. But Dean said the security vacuum caused by the war itself is to blame for that situation.

"The president has created a much more dangerous situation in Iraq," Dean said. "The president has created Iraq to be the front line of terrorism."

This isn't news. It's the same old sorry garbage from Dr. Dean, cheering on the terrorists. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of him.

John Edwards weighed in with this:

"[Bush] retreated to the same rhetoric about progress and peace that do not match the reality occurring every day in Iraq. It is a country consumed with chaos, not a shining example of progress in the war against terrorism."

More defeatist rhetoric from the Dems. Again, that's no surprise from the party of pessimism.

Ted Kennedy also weighed in and as usual broke the scale.

He said he "had hoped to hear acknowledgment from the president of our failures in Iraq, the war on terrorism and the administration's concrete plans for solving them with our allies and through the United Nations. It's not enough to go to the United Nations with a resolution. We must go with the right resolution, and it's not clear that this administration is ready to swallow its pride and do that. Words don't matter. We need deeds."

I suspect Teddy was drinking when he listened to the President's speech. If he wasn't inebriated, then he should consider having his hearing checked. I honestly do not know how this man has managed to be elected to serve in the Senate for over FORTY YEARS!

Something that was driving me nuts as I read through the different reports from the MSM on the speech was their fantasy about a lack of support for the mission in Iraq.

Six in ten Americans believe we should do what the President is proposing. While the President himself acknowledged the deep divide in the country regarding the war, it should be remembered that a majority of Americans believe it would be a mistake to cut and run.

The majority of Americans understand the necessity for completing the mission. They are not willing to accept defeat. They understand how high the stakes are.

The reality is the majority of Americans have not bought into the Dems' retreat and defeat policy for Iraq.

I thought Bush's straight talk was particularly effective.

As I said before, this speech was not political spin. The President was direct and humble, yet confident and firm.

He said:

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

That was spoken like a man of principle and conviction rather than a sleazy, poll-driven, opportunistic flip-flopper.

I particularly liked when Bush spoke to his critics.

We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

The Dems refuse to accept a scenario that includes progress and eventual victory in Iraq. I don't know. I guess many Dems are just naturally pessimistic and defeatist. Their comfort zone is malaise.

Maverick Joe Lieberman is not like these Dems, at least when it comes to Iraq. He's different. He admits that it would be a colossal mistake to "seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Dean, Edwards, and Kennedy want to do precisely that. Thankfully, the majority of Americans are against them.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, RIDGEWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

UPDATE: COLD IN THE NIGHT




Over a week ago, I commented on the Ridgeway Elementary School winter program. On Friday, a comment left on that blog entry directed me to the website of the Dodgeville, Wisconsin School District.

According to the district, the Liberty Counsel grossly misrepresented the matter.


PRESS RELEASE

Thursday, December 8, 2005

As part of its winter program, the Ridgeway Elementary School is presenting “The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift,” a production copyrighted in 1988 by Amalgamated Talents, International, Van Nuys, CA. The production was written by Ann E. Lambert, arranged by Dwight Elrich, and illustrated by Stan Sakai. The production tells the story of a family going out to buy a Christmas tree using a collection of familiar Christmas carol melodies to tell the story. To the delight of their families, our students have performed this program several times over the past 18 years. The remainder of the program includes the singing of traditional Christmas carols.

Our district policy allows us to perform both religious and secular music in our curriculum and performances. We include both in order to achieve balance.

In addition, parents of children in the Dodgeville district received this letter:

December 12, 2005

Dear Parents,

This letter is written to inform you of recent developments in the school district that have drawn national attention. We want you to hear directly from us the facts of the matter.

On December 7,th we began receiving emails from around the country, but largely from outside of Wisconsin, from people representing the conservative Christian point of view regarding the secularization of Christmas. They wrote to us complaining that Ridgeway School personnel changed the lyrics to “Silent Night” for its winter program. Furthermore, they claimed the school allows the display of menorahs and other non-Christian religious symbols, but does not recognize Christ.

Please know that neither of these accusations is factual. No person at Ridgeway Elementary School altered the words to “Silent Night.” Rather, as part of its winter program, the Ridgeway Elementary School is presenting an adaptation of “The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift,”- a production copyrighted in 1988 by Amalgamated Talents, International, Van Nuys, CA. This production was written by Ann E. Lambert, arranged by Dwight Elrich, and illustrated by Stan Sakai. The original production told the story of a family going out to buy a Christmas tree using a collection of familiar Christmas carol melodies. To the delight of their families, our students have performed this program several times over the past 18 years. The remainder of the program includes singing of traditional religious and secular Christmas carols. Our district policy allows us to perform both religious and secular music in our curriculum and performances. We include both in order to achieve balance.

In addition, allegations have been made that the program will include a “Christmas Witch.” This is NOT correct. As part of the Social Studies curriculum, first graders study various cultural celebrations, hence there may be pictures in first grade classrooms of a Jewish menorah, St. Lucia of Sweden, and Santa as he is portrayed in different countries. They may also include La Befana from Italian folklore, who as the story is told, is an elderly grandmother who is sweeping crumbs out of her doorway as the Three Kings pass by on their way to find the baby Jesus. Because she is too busy she declines an invitation to accompany them and forever after regrets her hasty decision. She spends the rest of her days giving presents to children at Christmas time, still searching for the Holy Child. She is not the caricature witch Americans visualize at Halloween; rather, she is a peasant grandmother dressed in a dark dress with a white peasant scarf. The important point here is that these classroom images are NOT part of the winter program. Unfortunately, some misinformed persons believe the Dodgeville School District has, “replaced Christ with a Christmas Witch.” This is not true. It is extremely unfortunate that individuals believe what they read on the internet without first verifying the facts.

According to the Liberty Counsel, a Florida based legal organization that advocates for “religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family,” they received complaints from “concerned parents” in our school district. The Liberty Counsel, which is endorsed by Reverend Jerry Falwell, submitted an article to WorldNetDaily.com alleging the above misinformation. Once released on the internet and then on talk shows, the story has become further distorted as people offer opinions on the distortions. Most recently, Pat Robertson weighed in on this subject on his television broadcast. It is further disappointing that none of these parties have investigated and verified facts before issuing statements and threats of a federal lawsuit if the district does not alter its program.

We want our parents and district residents to know, contrary to allegations, the District does include Christian and other religious music in its music curriculum and also in its programs, in compliance with our district policies. Administrators have explained this to the concerned parent and in its press release to national and local media. The press release is also posted on the District website under “News and Information.”

Despite what you may read on the internet or hear on talk shows wherein individuals offer opinions, vent their wrath, and denigrate the school district and the people of Dodgeville, Ridgeway, and Wisconsin in general because of their misperceptions, we here know the facts central to this issue. We respect the beliefs of all of our families.

Please be assured that due to the tone of the literally thousands of emails and voice messages being received, the District is proactively setting in place safety and security procedures. Although NO direct threats have been made, some of the mail has vague innuendo and warrants prudent precautions. For this reason the District is offering admission tickets to the DES and RES performances for family and community members only. If you are a parent or community member who has not received information about the tickets and would like to attend, please contact your elementary school.

We are dedicated to providing a quality educational experience for the children of our communities. Thank for your continued support.

Sincerely yours,

Diane Messer
District Administrator

At the time I commented on this, I said that "Ridgeway Elementary School in Ridgeway, Wisconsin, is definitely a contender for the award for the most blatant example of the bastardization of Christmas."

I went on to say:

"I have no problem with the children learning about the traditions, religious and secular, of various cultures.

"What's disturbing is that Christianity is banned from the decorations and the program.

"If the school intends to be inclusive, why is it excluding any images or songs related to Christmas?"


Clearly, Ridgeway Elementary School is being inclusive. Christianity is not being banned from the winter program. References to the celebration of Christmas are not prohibited in the classroom.

I, for one, came out against them before the district issued the press release, when the school was in "no comment" mode. Until yesterday, I was not aware of the district's statement.

I regret that I did not learn Ridgeway's side of the story, the truth of the matter, until now. I regret that my opinions were not grounded in fact.

If I had e-mailed or called the school to object about the supposed hostility being directed at Christian students (I didn't), I would send another e-mail or call again to apologize.

This story did get a lot of national attention. As it turns out, most of that attention was a complete misrepresentation of the facts regarding the school's program and policies.

Instead of being a "contender for the award for the most blatant example of the bastardization of Christmas," I think Ridgeway Elementary School's personnel and the Dodgeville School District deserve recognition for the balance and respect with which they are instructing the children about this season of holidays.