Thomas E. Dennely hits a homerun with his piece in todayÂ’s Newsday about the ACLU and Christmas.

As the holiday season gets into full swing - and as sure as the sun rises in the east - the American Civil Liberties Union will soon appear on the scene to remind Americans that there should be no display of religious symbols on public property, for to do so is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Presumably believing that the ACLU is the self-appointed guardian of religious freedom within our nation, it sees no inconsistency when the same ACLU legally supports the members of the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan in using public property to spew their venom. This graphic inconsistency should blow one's mind. It is thoroughly repugnant when the ACLU legally supports such hate mongers in their use of public property, while legally opposing both Christians and Jews doing likewise with Christmas and the Festival of Lights, for example.

Dennely then goes on to point to the many ways in which the very Founders that the ACLU claims would approve their actions took a strikingly different position on the issue of “separation of church and state”. I strongly encourage you to read his column.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

I can’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I canÂ’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Even the passing on of the Christian faith to children is an offense to the Islamists.

Approximately 30 Christian children fled in panic after a mob of Islamic militants raided and vandalized their Sunday school class, which was being held in a private home last weekend in Curug, Indonesia, according to a Christian group called Voice of the Martyrs (VOM).

The violence came less than a month after three teenaged Christian schoolgirls were attacked and beheaded as they walked through a cocoa plantation on their way to school. One girl's severed head was reportedly placed in front of a church, eight miles from where the bodies were found, in what locals viewed as a stark warning to Christians.

VOM reported that in the most recent incident, the mob "terrorized" the children at the Curug Sunday school class and destroyed several desks and chairs, guitars, a keyboard, organ and fan in the classroom. Voice of the Martyrs is a Christian organization that documents persecution of believers.

The children began to flee in panic, according to VOM, after which the mob then allegedly evicted the remaining adults and children from the home "by force" and "sealed" it by plastering posters denouncing the school over the doors of the building.

When will the government of Indonesia act to protect the human rights of its Christian citizens?

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

What other bits of information are school personnel not permitted to disclose to parents, and how are we to know?

A federal judge ruled that a lesbian student can sue her school district and her principal for revealing her homosexuality to her mother.
Charlene Nguon, 17, may go forward with her suit claiming violation of privacy rights, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna ruled in a decision dated Nov. 28 and announced Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Orange County's Garden Grove district had argued that Nguon openly kissed and hugged her girlfriend on campus and thus had no expectation of privacy.

However, the judge ruled that Nguon had "sufficiently alleged a legally protected privacy interest in information about her sexual orientation."

No trial date was set. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

"This is the first court ruling we're aware of where a judge has recognized that a student has a right not to have her sexual orientation disclosed to her parents, even if she is out of the closet at school," said Christine Sun, an ACLU attorney who brought the case.

Now this creates quite a quandary, in my opinion? How are we, as teachers, supposed to know what students have and have not disclosed to parents – especially when information is public in the school setting? After all, this girl was very public about her sexuality at school. And does this same measure of privacy also include other details of a sexual nature, such as a teacher becoming aware that a child is sexually active (but not being abused)? Where are the lines? This ruling leaves me very unsure.

MORE (AND DIVERSE) DISCUSSION AT: American Madness
, My Amusement Park, Boots and Sabers, Althouse, Right on the Left Coast, Pliwood Munkee, Education Wonks, Eyes of Faith, Digital Brownshirt, Left Turn On Rights, Just to the Left, New World Man, Right Side of the Rainbow, The Colossus of Rhodey.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

When an agency of the US government is acting to undermine the elected representatives of the American people, it is time for Congress to investigate, and perhaps abolish, that agency.

Especially when those within the agency -- which is charged with protecting national security and aiding the war effort -- are leaking national security information in a desperate attempt to undermine the war effort.

The Dec. 1 edition of The New York Times carried a story about the damage done to U.S. interests by the revelation that the CIA maintains a number of secret interrogation prisons for terrorists in Europe and elsewhere. ("Reports of Secret U.S. Prisons in Europe Draw Ire and Otherwise Red Faces.") Governments throughout the continent are now demanding explanations from the U.S. Department of State and otherwise strutting their outrage that the U.S. might be kidnapping suspected terrorists from European soil and transferring them to other nations.

How did this bit of classified information become public? It was a leak from within the CIA (to The Washington Post in that case) -- and a breathtaking one at that. Though the agency has been steadily leaking damaging stories about the Bush administration since 9/11, it has now crossed a new threshold with a leak that severely damages CIA activities and arguably harms national security -- all for the sake of crippling George W. Bush.

If the leaking of the name of a stateside non-covert CIA employeeÂ’s name merited investigation, how much more does this violation of national security coming from within the CIA itself?

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I have a little bit different take on the current flap over the military planting pro-American news stories in Iraqi papers. Some want this to be seen as proof that the war is going badly, and that “good news” must be bought.

Richard Edelman, CEO of the Edelman public relations firm, rips the practice as "utterly unacceptable behavior" and told the Poynter Institute that it is "a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media."

Here's a journalism lesson: If they're buying fake news, the real news must be really bad.

Others want to call it undermining journalistic ethics.

But I see it as a simple use of propaganda to help bring victory. If it were possible to slip some truthful coverage about the war into German newspapers in 1943, would it have been unethical to do so? Or would it have been one more means of undermining the enemy? Heck, what are Voice of America and Radio Marti?

Every bit of good news that brings support to the new Iraqi government also serves to undermine the terrorists. Every word is a bullet, every story a bomb, directed right at al-Zarqawi and his minions. Getting the good news out is key to winning the war. We should not refuse to use the truth as a weapon.

UPDATE: Captain Ed offers a different -- and much more extensive -- take on the story and how the military should have proceeded in this case. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he does have a good point.

This still comes back to building credibility with the Iraqi people. The free press in Iraq is a vitally important part of building the democratic structures necessary to make Iraq into a strong and free ally in the Middle East -- an example of how Arabs can lead themselves, without the traditional strong-man rule of dictator or emir. While exploiting newspapers to surreptitiously get out our point of view might seem like a smart tactical move to counter al-Qaeda propaganda, it's probably a huge mistake strategically in the long run. We're already teaching the Iraqis that their press is nothing more than paid mouthpieces for hidden Powers That Be, feeding into the common Arab predilection for grand conspiracies.

UPDATE 2: More interseting views from Dafydd at Big Lizards.

In other words, the huge "scandal" is that Coalition forces commissioned American soldiers to write "factual" accounts (nobody disputes that they were factual) of military engagements and rebuilding efforts, to counter the malicious lying by the terrorists and the American and international MSM. These accounts were handed to a third party in order to protect the Iraqi newspapers from reprisals by Zarqawi. The stories written by the soldiers were run as ads and paid commentary, which is a normal way to get your message out in Iraq; and they were supposed to have been identified as having been written by American soldiers.

But somehow, attribution didn't always get attached. Who could be responsible for that? Was it deliberate "propaganda," as the Associated Press has taken to calling it?

In fact, the Times even admitted that typically, the stories were identified as adverts, and were sometimes run in special fonts, typographies, and colors. But evidently, not every Iraqi stringer working for the Lincoln Group identified the purchaser as the Coalition when he sold the stories.

In other words, the LA Times even admits that the US military did nothing wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess I have a little bit different take on the current flap over the military planting pro-American news stories in Iraqi papers. Some want this to be seen as proof that the war is going badly, and that “good news” must be bought.

Richard Edelman, CEO of the Edelman public relations firm, rips the practice as "utterly unacceptable behavior" and told the Poynter Institute that it is "a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media."

Here's a journalism lesson: If they're buying fake news, the real news must be really bad.

Others want to call it undermining journalistic ethics.

But I see it as a simple use of propaganda to help bring victory. If it were possible to slip some truthful coverage about the war into German newspapers in 1943, would it have been unethical to do so? Or would it have been one more means of undermining the enemy? Heck, what are Voice of America and Radio Marti?

Every bit of good news that brings support to the new Iraqi government also serves to undermine the terrorists. Every word is a bullet, every story a bomb, directed right at al-Zarqawi and his minions. Getting the good news out is key to winning the war. We should not refuse to use the truth as a weapon.

UPDATE: Captain Ed offers a different -- and much more extensive -- take on the story and how the military should have proceeded in this case. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he does have a good point.

This still comes back to building credibility with the Iraqi people. The free press in Iraq is a vitally important part of building the democratic structures necessary to make Iraq into a strong and free ally in the Middle East -- an example of how Arabs can lead themselves, without the traditional strong-man rule of dictator or emir. While exploiting newspapers to surreptitiously get out our point of view might seem like a smart tactical move to counter al-Qaeda propaganda, it's probably a huge mistake strategically in the long run. We're already teaching the Iraqis that their press is nothing more than paid mouthpieces for hidden Powers That Be, feeding into the common Arab predilection for grand conspiracies.

UPDATE 2: More interseting views from Dafydd at Big Lizards.

In other words, the huge "scandal" is that Coalition forces commissioned American soldiers to write "factual" accounts (nobody disputes that they were factual) of military engagements and rebuilding efforts, to counter the malicious lying by the terrorists and the American and international MSM. These accounts were handed to a third party in order to protect the Iraqi newspapers from reprisals by Zarqawi. The stories written by the soldiers were run as ads and paid commentary, which is a normal way to get your message out in Iraq; and they were supposed to have been identified as having been written by American soldiers.

But somehow, attribution didn't always get attached. Who could be responsible for that? Was it deliberate "propaganda," as the Associated Press has taken to calling it?

In fact, the Times even admitted that typically, the stories were identified as adverts, and were sometimes run in special fonts, typographies, and colors. But evidently, not every Iraqi stringer working for the Lincoln Group identified the purchaser as the Coalition when he sold the stories.

In other words, the LA Times even admits that the US military did nothing wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

Was John Murtha, once long ago, a hero? Perhaps, but I donÂ’t care

Really, I donÂ’t.

I don’t care if he has this medal or that award – or even if he single-handedly thwarted an alien invasion from the Planet Zarg. None of it matters – and all of it is irrelevant.

It isn't relevant to the debate.

Not after he has denigrated the service of our men and women fighting today, and indicated that they have been beaten by a rag-tag band of terrorists.

Rep. John P. Murtha is continuing his assault on the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, asserting this week that the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

The Pentagon and a senior Republican senator sharply disagreed with his assessment.

Speaking to civic leaders Wednesday in Latrobe, Pa., in his home district, Mr. Murtha also said the Pennsylvania National Guard is stretched so thin that it will take a year before it can send fully equipped units overseas again.

"You cannot win this thing militarily," Mr. Murtha said later at a press conference. "Most of [U.S. troops] will be out of there in a year if I have my way."

The Murtha plan is now perfectly clear – “We’ve lost – cut-and-run, boys!”

Might I offer a few words from a leader from our past -- one Abraham Lincoln?

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

I’ll reserve judgment as to which is the best way of dealing with Congressman Murtha, or whether such a course of action is advisable. But I will say this much – his statements certainly render void any political coverage to which his past service may have entitled him.

ANd let me add that I've read and heard the words of Jean Schmidt.

She did not call the man a coward.

But she should have.

And I do.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review.

“Eat Yuletide, You Atheistic Bastard!”

Now there’s a winner for you – be sure to read the column.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review.

“Eat Yuletide, You Atheistic Bastard!”

Now there’s a winner for you – be sure to read the column.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

This just goes to show that poll results are only as good as the questions asked.

Some 56 percent of U.S. consumers think Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is bad for America, according to a Zogby International poll released on Thursday by one of the retailer's most vocal critics.

The national poll -- commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-funded group that has been pressuring Wal-Mart to raise employee wages and benefits -- surveyed 1,012 randomly chosen adults on their attitudes toward the world biggest retailer.

Respondents were asked to choose which of two statements more closely fit their personal opinions.

The majority, or 56 percent, picked: "I believe that Wal-Mart is bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost for consumers." Thirty-nine percent agreed that "Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day."

The problem is, in my opinion, that the poll unreasonably restricts the choices available to those polled. Where is the middle ground choice? You know, something like "Wal-Mart is both good and bad for America. It provides low prices for consumers and good entry-level jobs, but it also negatively impacts some local businesses and communities." I'd bet that such a choice would have attracted a majority of those polled -- folks like me who see that Wal-Mart, like any other corporation, is primarily about the bottom-line and will adopt policies and practices based primarily upon profit-margins.

Even more troubling is this question -- which proves that those who conducted the poll were incompetent.

Thirty-three percent strongly agreed that Wal-Mart was a retail monopoly that threatened the future health of the U.S. economy, but 35 percent did not agree at all.

Uh -- Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, and no poll results can make it one. Other businesses can and do make a go of it in the retail industry, though Wal-Mart is the bibbest of the bunch. As such, the only thing that is proved by the results is that 33% of the polled group (and, I would presume, Americans as a whole) are ignorant boobs when it comes to economics.

Love Wal-Mart or hate Wal-Mart -- that is your choice. But be honest in your attempts to bersuade others of your beliefs, and don't use junk polling data to tryy to bolster your point.

(DISCLAIMER: As I wrote this point, I realized that the only items I am wearing that are not Wal-Mart/Sam's Club purchases are my wedding ring and my cross.)

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Bresident Bush has made it his practice to meet with family members of sevice personnel killed in Iraq when possible. He has even met with Cindy Sheehan -- though she seems tohave forgotten her words of praise for the President at the time.

Here is an account of one such meeting.

For about 20 minutes Tuesday, the MacKenzie family met privately with President Bush as he offered sympathy and listened to stories about Pfc. Tyler MacKenzie, a 20-year-old solider killed in Iraq earlier this month by a roadside bomb.

"We cried, and I had to pull out some Kleenex and give it to everyone else," Tyler's grandmother Mary MacKenzie said.

"I had to give some to the president, too, because he didn't have any."

The meeting was arranged through the office of U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. Tyler MacKenzie, who graduated from Greeley West High, was the first Weld County resident killed in the war.

Both David and Julie MacKenzie, along with grandparents Emmett and Mary MacKenzie, saw Bush speak at the Brown Palace Hotel before the Secret Service moved them to a quiet room to meet with the president.

Emmett MacKenzie, a 75-year-old Korean War veteran, said Bush reassured them that there would be no pullout of troops until Iraqis could provide their own security.

"He said we wouldn't quit, and we told him we didn't want to quit until the job was done," Emmett MacKenzie said.

"We want to continue, and we're behind him 100 percent."

Another family for pursuit of the only valid exit strategy -- VICTORY.

Why is it that such families do not get the sort of coverage and respect that one America-hating mama gets?

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.