Don Surber: CNN reporter saves the Marines

Don Surber: CNN reporter saves the Marines

You Are What You Eat And It Could Be Killing You

Good afternoon readers!

Last week I shared with the readers at Ancient Eyes For Current Times (AEFCT) the story regarding Pizza Hut's cheese that is farmed out to your children in the schools.. and the potential that what is being used on these pizzas could harm your child!

In THIS week's news... (oh and get ready to gag--)

Congress Bill Takes Rights To Know What's In Your Food
The problem with this situation, is that there have been some astute states and watchdogs that have worked VERY HARD, to make sure that the food industry must disclose what is in the food you eat, and at what amount. If this bill passes, say goodbye to knowing what GMO foods you are ingesting, what possible carcinogens and toxins are in it!

New Cancer Study Obligates FDA To Recall Aspartame
That problem with Aspartame will just *NOT GO AWAY!*
As AEFCT has spoken about before, Aspartame should have never BEEN cleared for public consumption to begin with, IMHO!
They maneuvered, manipulated and worked around all the rules and regs to make it happen.. now as the degenerative diseases and cancers are being linked with the ingestion of Aspartame, there is a growing call from those in the holistic health industry as well as in the western medical industry to take a closer look at and/or removing Aspartame from the market of our food and drinks.

Okay.. so great right?
What do we do with all the people that have been ingesting it for YEARS?
By the Gallons?
By the product, after product, after "lose the fat" product.. ??

In today's news a 12 year old Science Student found that:

Fast Food Ice Dirtier Than Toilet Water!
12 year old in Florida conducts science fair test and finds that the ice that your fast food drinks are served with is more filthy then the toilet bowl water in the same fast food restaurants!

Folks its time to start thinking CLEARLY about the issues that are slipping by with such regularity

(Albeit, that will be hard to *DO* given the Aspartame and MSG and Formaldehyde and Rocket fuel that are already pickling and damaging our brains as it is!)

You are what you eat, America.. and the fact is its beginning to kill you.

So think about it as you eat that:

genetically modified hamburger bun
that contains the
bovine growth hormone hamburger,
served to perfection with
the lettuce that grew via water with rocketfuel in it
garnished with MSG laden ketchup and condiments
and
formaldehyde producing cheese

Oh and while you're at it:

Have some sugary gluten frenchfries that were fried in the oil that is NOT what it was claimed to be
then wash it all down with an
Aspartame Diet Drink
that is pleasantly chilled with
ice that is 70% more bacteria laden then toilet water!

On your way to see your PCP who has ordered a cardiac stress test, blood tests to check those triglyceride levels and the disturbing amount of ecoli in your system and wants to schedule a CAT scan and Mammogram to figure out just what those nasty little 'lumps' are!

Domestic surveillance

Hey Everyone, GTL's Back... **Everyone Cheers**
Now, on with the show.

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.


Domestic surveillance / wiretapping of U.S. Citizens: A necessity for self-preservation, or an unnecessary, blatant violation of our civil liberties?

Anybody who knows me knows I am a huge talk radio fanatic. Talk radio stimulates the mind, helps get the Citizen involved in politics; both on a community and national basis depending upon the program. As my regular readers know, I served in the "sandbox" (location not given for security purposes) recently. When I was over there, one of the many things missing from my life was talk radio and political news in general. While I did have Internet access, it was very limited to say the least. The only talk radio hosts allowed behind the restrictive firewall were the far right ones; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, and folks like that.

Of course, all of these talk radio personalities required a subscription fee for them to be heard over the Internet, so on my very limited budget, and in a moment of temporary insanity, I subscribed to Rush Limbaugh just so I could hear what was going on back home in the political arena even if it was going to be coming at me from a biased, far right point of view. I could have subscribed to any of the guys' podcasts, but I chose Rush for two reasons and two reasons only:

1. Michael Savage (by far the best of conservative radio hosts - not just a Republican Party "yes man" like the others ones are) does not offer a podcast or online subscription to my knowledge.

2. Rush Limbaugh is at least entertaining to me even when I disagree with him, which is quite often obviously.

Whenever I had a few free moments to download Rush's latest podcast during my busy work schedule, I would do so, and then download it to my MP3 player so I could listen to it after work and before going to sleep. I was unable to do this more than just a handful of times because of the work schedule (12 hour plus days, up to 7 days per week), but I was able to catch a few broadcasts.

One day I was listening to Rush as he demonized the liberals for their stance against domestic wiretapping when a caller called in. He introduced himself as a troop who had just come back home from the sandbox and he went on to tell Rush how it dismayed him that he served his country to preserve freedom, democracy, and personal liberty just to come back home and hear Rush demonizing the liberal Americans who were trying to do the same thing on the home front. As Rush went off on this Soldier, I kept listening to hear if Rush, a vocal "supporter" of the troops was going to be thanking this Soldier for his service.

NOPE.

That is when it really hit me that the guys like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh only support the troops who blindly support the Republican Party. I guess I always knew that, but it wasn't until that moment that I realized Rush Limbaugh actually despises those who disagree with him politically, even those troops who are Democrats, or open-minded, left leaning, libertarianish independent thinker such as myself. But back to the topic at hand.

I, much like the Soldier who called in to Rush Limbaugh, signed on the dotted line to preserve and spread freedom, liberty, and democracy. No other reasons; just those. When I heard about the domestic wiretapping of U.S. Citizens over there, I was quite disappointed and heartbroken. Yes, heartbroken.

How could this happen in my America? The Government suspects a Citizen is sleeping with the enemy, the Government takes the information to the judge to gain lawful permission to monitor that U.S. Citizen, the judge says "no"; case closed. But no, the case isn't closed; not under this Administration. Under this Administration, the judge is completely ignored and the snooping goes on anyway.

Now don't get me wrong; I am not one of those on the loony, far left who is going to tell you that "Bush is evil", or "Bush is trying to destroy America". I truly believe President Bush is trying to do his very best to protect America, just like I am, and just like the other more liberal folks are trying to do. We simply disagree on the way the President is going about it, that's all.

But that also doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and say "Well, since the President has the best of intentions, we'll just wait until '08 and the People will vote in people with better ideas who won't resort to the revocation of our civil liberties" either. In fact, I'm going to say the exact opposite.

Wait a minute, allow me to back up for a second. Let's take just a brief moment to give President Bush some credit for his anti-terrorism record so far since 9/11. If we're going to hold him accountable for everything that's gone wrong, let's give the man a few "kudos" for the fact that we haven't been attacked on U.S. soil again since the day those (mostly) Saudi bastards bombed the hell out of the Twin Towers. The man's record speaks for itself.

On the other hand, I will not simply buy into the notion that this is due to the fact that the Government simply snoops around in the private emails, private phone calls, and even the private homes of American Citizens whenever it feels like going on a fishing expedition. I have a very hard time believing that any judge in the United States is going to review the Government's proof that any American Citizen is talking to al-Qaida on the phone, and then say "Nope. You may not monitor those phone calls." If this is what's going on, then I, as an American Citizen, demand that judge be removed immediately from the bench. But I have more faith in our judicial system than that. This is exactly why our Founding Fathers divided the Government and the Judiciary into two separate branches; so this sort of thing would not go on. But it is going on. And that is also heartbreaking to me.

Listen; I hate frigging losing. If you can prove to me that the only reason our Democracy is still intact is because of the suspension, or revocation of our civil liberties and our guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure, I'm going to have to admit that we've lost this War on Terror. I'm not going to be doing that yet. I do not believe for one moment that we've lost this war. I truly believe we can defeat terror without having to give up all that makes America what she is; our freedom and liberty.

Here is where I think the President and his Administration are coming from: it would literally tear them apart to see another terrorist act on our soil; to see Americans be killed by Muslim extremists needlessly. They, like myself, and like all of the other Liberals and Conservatives, are patriots who are trying to do what is best for America. I'll grant them that much. I can totally relate, but let me ask you this:

Would you grant the Government the right to snoop around in your home, your private transactions, your private phone calls, your private emails, your health records, or any personal items you may own if these actions would guarantee our nation would never, ever have another terrorist attack on our soil?

Not ME, bub.

Allow me to use an analogy. Some of us live in safe neighborhoods, some of us live in dangerous neighborhoods and some of us live in semi-safe neighborhoods. Let's say you live in one of the dangerous neighborhoods where somebody gets shot, or at least maimed every other day. Let's say the police have a new program where they can guarantee they will root out all of the "bad guys" in your neighborhood and clean it up and make it safe again if you'll only just allow them to spy on you at will, until they have eliminated you from their "bad guys" list. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you don't have anything to worry about, right?

And this is where the fundamental ideological differences between the left and the right become revealed. Many on the right generally agree that this would be a reasonable trade; "Civil liberties for a guarantee of safety? what a bargain!" Whereas; most of us who lean a bit more to the left are more likely to say "Hell no, you can't come into my house and root around and spy on me! I'll watch my back and take my chances, thank you very much."

To complete my analogy, let's look at the United States as if it were also a neighborhood. It's not that much of a stretch because it is our "neighborhood". It was once thought to be a completely safe neighborhood, but some people in a house down the block just got thoughtlessly, senselessly murdered by a bunch of gang members. The attackers were killed, but other members of this same gang in other areas of town are promising they will kill again in your neighborhood. They say they have members of their gang hiding out in your neighborhood, poised to help the outside gang members destroy your neighborhood; it's only a matter of time. You're stuck with your mortgage and you've put a lot of work into making your neighborhood safe and prosperous, so you feel that moving to another neighborhood is not an option.

Your options are:

A) Work with your other neighbors to create a "neighborhood watch program". You and all of your neighbors agree in solidarity to look out for each other and you take your chances.

B) Take a neighborhood vote and select a small number of "upstanding" and wealthy fellow neighbors to do anything they feel they need to do your homes and businesses of the neighborhood as long as they try to catch the bad guys. You all grant them permission come and go as they please from now on.

Sorry, but I chose "A". How about you?

Carl of The Gun Toting Liberal

In August of 2004 I developed severe breathing problems. The problems grew so bad that I was forced to stop work. For the rest of 2004, and well in to 2005, I was completely disabled, forced to stay home, sometimes unable to leave the house. During this time of enforced confinement, talk radio and the blogosphere became my links to the world. Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt became a regular part of my day. Lest someone say, "Aha! That explains it! He's been brainwashed by the "right-wing!" let me also add that I would listen to Air America until they went belly up hear in Chicago. And, as my blog partner Matt can attest, I spend at least as much time on left wing blog sites as I do conservative ones. I work very hard not to just have my own views confirmed by those I agree with.

But conservative talk radio has remained a constant for me, even as my health has improved. That's why GTL's characterizations of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity offended me so much. Because I have heard Rush go out of his way to thank military personel for their service, regardless of their political leanings. In fact, Rush has a program going to make subscriptions to his website available free of charge to military personel. And its not based on anything other than being a confirmed member of the military. GTL, you didn't have to pay for your subscription. You still don't. And, yes, I do indeed thank you for your service to this country, and to the blogosphere.

Now, GTL has presented the fears over the NSA surveillance program that was illegally leaked to the Mainstream Media. He,in effect, echoed Senators Durbin, Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein et al at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on 2/7/06. And, like them, he shows an ignorance of the facts, and the law. Now, GTL is no lawyer, so he has an excuse. Most of the Democrat Senators are lawyers, and so have none.

There is no excuse for exaggerating the program revealed, not with today's internet access. Here are the facts, taken primarily from analysis by lawyers. Rather than go through these arguments again, I'm going to point toward the references that should be read by all:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez layed out the case in a debate at Georgetown Law School on 1/23/06. The attorneys at Powerline have done an excellent job of summarizing General Gonzalez's speech.

On 2/7/06, General Gonzalez testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After a preliminary bid by Democrats to put Gonzalez under oath for the cameras failed, the Attorney General gave his opening remarks. Again, he layed out why the program leaked to the New York Times is both necessary and legal. One of the key myths being perpetuated today is that FISA allows 72 hours to get a warrant. Here are the facts behind this myth, from General Gonzalez's opening statement:

In this debate, however, I have been concerned that some who've asked, "Why not FISA?" do not understand how that statute really works.

GONZALES: To be sure, FISA allows the government to begin electronic surveillance without a court order for up to 72 hours in emergency situations or circumstances.

But before that emergency provision can be used, the attorney general must make a determination that all of the requirements of the FISA statute are met in advance.

This requirement can be cumbersome and burdensome.

Intelligence officials at NSA first have to assess that they have identified a legitimate target. After that, lawyers at NSA have to review the request to make sure it meets all the requirements of the statute. And then lawyers at the Justice Department must also review the request and reach the same judgment or insist on additional information before processing the emergency application.

Finally I, as attorney general, must review the request and make the determination that all of the requirements of FISA are met.

But even this is not the end of the story.

Each emergency authorization must be followed by a detailed formal application to the FISA courts within three days. The government must prepare legal documents laying out all of the relevant facts and law and obtain the approval of a Cabinet-level officer as well as a certification from a senior official with mass security responsibility, such as the director of the FBI.

Finally, a judge must review, consider and approve the application.

All of these steps take time. Al Qaida, however, does not wait.

While FISA is appropriate for general foreign intelligence collection, the president made the determination that FISA is not always sufficient for providing the sort of nimble early-warning system we need against Al Qaida.

Just as we can't demand that our soldiers bring lawyers onto the battlefield, let alone get the permission of the attorney general or a court before taking action, we can't afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers who are striving valiantly to provide a first line of defense by tracking secretive Al Qaida operatives in real time.

Now, one more myth of the media. What exactly did President Bush authorize? From Strata-Sphere on 2/5/06:

As I posted earlier, it was divulged in the 1970's, during the Church Committee investigations, that NSA routinely intercepts calls to people in the US when monitoring overseas enemies - it is unavoidable. What the NSA did if and when this happened was to bury the information regarding the US side of the communication.

This is probably how 9-11 murderers Midhar and Hazmi were missed when they were making all their calls overseas to what had to be targets of the CIA and German intelligence. The NSA would see the call, but due to short sighted and lazy policies that avoided arguing why these people should be monitored, their information would never be transmitted to the FBI.

What Bush did was direct the NSA to send their leads in the US to the FBI for investigation. That's it. Even if the NSA did expand it surveillance into new methods, without opening the gate between the NSA and FBI the leads would still be hidden from domestic law enforcement.

Remember "connecting the dots?" Remember the 9/11 Commission's Report about the Wall between law enforcement agencies? A Wall placed there by none other than Jamie Gorelick, a 9/11 commissioner? If the hysteria of the Left wins, that Wall will be put back, stronger than ever. One of the provisions of The Patriot Act currently twisting in the wind due to Democrat intransigence is the removal of that Wall.

GTL gave an analogy of a neighborhood, and stated that we could either form a neighborhood watch program, or elect representatives to look out for us. If I'm worried about a burglar stealing my computer, a neighborhood watch program makes sense. If I'm worried about who is going to patrol the streets at night, I'll elect a mayor, a city council, and form a police department also to help keep me and my family safe.

But if I've already lost 3000 friends and neighbors, and seen the destruction of the Twin Towers, I'll do more. And, if the murdering bastards that did the killing are calling my neighbor down the street FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY to plot more deaths, and I have the ability to listen to the conversation and stop it, you bet I'll do that.

The program illegally leaked to journalists with a poltical agenda is necessary.

It is also legal.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case


I tire of this entire argument, but here goes anyway.

Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess the key word here is Unreasonable... Is it UNREASONABLE to listen in on telephonic contact outside of the United States to areas known to have enemy agents in abundance? Is it UNREASONABLE to use every means available to expediently attempt to prevent certain attack on the United States? Is it UNREASONABLE to act within the FISA regulations when possible, but to act outside of them when it is neither prudent, necessary, nor effective?

These programs of foreign surveillance are exactly that FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE. They are not listening in to your pizza order, or your private chat to Gramma, unless of course Gramma lives next to an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

What irritates me more than people trying to get political mileage out of this situation (knowing full well that it is fully and perfectly legal both by actual law and legal president) is that we even know of it at all. This program WAS / is still CLASSIFIED, and as with all of these situations lately I think the real issue is being overlooked, and / or swept under the carpet. SOMEONE HAS committed a crime here, and it is once again NOT the president of the United States. SOMEONE LEAKED highly classified information and once again cut the intelligence community off at the knees, for simple political gain.

Our Homeland Security, Military and Intelligence communities need to be STRENGTHENED, if we ever want to live as a free and peaceful nation once again, not weakened and obstructed. Political gain is temporary, our nations future should not be. But if we don’t soon end the back biting and political backstabbing "AT ANY COST", it very well may be.

We need to focus on the goal, and stop muddying the waters. America is great and we need to keep it that way. We are at war; we need to act like it.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

Added Late... Sorry, Z.

I found myself giggling *ALOT* when I read GTL's opening statement. I remember well listening to my father's radio all through the night, as he would be drifting in and out of sleep to the voices on Talk Radio. Many times, did we cross the western landscapes between New Mexico and Nevada to the voices of people like Rush Limbaugh.

On the topic of the wiretapping, my issue has never been with preserving the safety of American Citizens from possible terrorist or terrorist attacks. My issue is with the way that the lines between what is "legal" and what is not "legal" became far too obscure and blurred as has been evidenced in the hearings with Mr. Gonzales this week. It appears, to the average American Citizen, that the lines have been intentionally blurred and obscured to support something (that by the definition of freedom of speech and the laws regarding privacy of Americans) would not have elsewise been allowable.

In the aftermath of September 11, Americans for a time became terrified. We were angry, confused and afraid of what would come at us next--a situation that had not happened on American land since Dec. 7, 1941. Much like the occasion of Pearl Harbor, American's pulled out the patriotism and the heroism that was needed to pull our nation through a colossus of tragedy and we survived. No.. we THRIVED! However, how long will we live in fear (either real or contrived by others)? What for our worrying will we add or delete to from the plan that is above us and around us? The answer is simple: not a thing. Yes, we need to be cautious. Yes, we need to be wily and crafty to outwit those that would do intentional harm to our country or our citizens, but will that be at the expense of the Freedoms that this country was founded on? I for one would answer that question as a resounding, clanging NO! NO! NO!

I would rather live one day of freedom in my homeland and face the possibility of tragedy on the dawn of the next--then to live in constant fear, never fully experiencing the beauty of my land, my life and my liberty because I am too afraid of what the dawn may bring!

My heart's wish is that this country would remember that we have a back bone and it is not dictated by Washington, its policies or its politicans. All that American's will ever truly need, lives in the heart of every free, liberty loving American. The honor that is upheld in New Hampshire's state motto is one that all American's should look to as the standard of what the true American value on Freedom is:

"Live FREE or Die."

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Houston, We (Still) Have a Problem

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

It was just like old times. All the networks left the game shows for the launch of Discovery. Even Oprah and Dr. Phil were preempted for the Return to Flight. And the launch was a thing of beauty.Until the tile came off. Live. On International television. And the nearest tow truck was still in the hangar. That was July of 2005. There has not been a U.S. manned space flight since.

NASA is working with technology from the '70's. Does anybody have anything left in their house from the '70's? I may have an old Superman comic book stashed away from that period, old and fading, crumpled around the edges, but that's about it.That comic book and the Shuttle program have alot in common. Both are falling apart, and being maintained with tape and chewing gum.
The difference is my comic book is stashed in a closet. The Shuttle is on TV, with men and women aboard her. Men and women who may be younger than the craft they are flying.It's time to start over.

It's time to jettison the worn out bureaucracy of NASA, and invest our space dollars where they can be effective. The X-Prize gave us a look at the future of space flight. Private enterprise can do it better, cheaper, and safer. An influx of funds from the Federal Government could jump start the private space industry with technology from this century. It would also get us to the Moon, and Mars much faster than a plodding NASA ever could.It's time to reach for the stars by looking forward, instead of back to a bloated government entity long past it's glory days. It's time for private enterprise to take the lead in manned space flight.

Private enterprise and competition is the best way to fulfill the dream so many of us have held dear for so long. A nation will get to Mars within the next 20 years. A nation will get back to the Moon and develop a permanent colony there. There are only two nations who have the plans and the technology to do this. One is the United States. The other, working far more aggressively to see the plans realized, is China. It would be a tragedy if the next time we see a man land on the Moon, he is from the People's Republic of China.

The tragedy would be that we let the opportunity slip away, by choosing bureaucracy over individual effort, and Big Government over private enterprise. The X-Prize showed us the way to the Solar System. Let's get moving.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case


I agree with Mark that private space travel is probably the way of the future, but I have reservations about government subsidy of private space flight.

The Associated Press recently reported that the Federal Aviation Administration has proposed 120 pages of new regulations on private space travel. I fear that public funding would accelerate the regulation. Once the government puts up the money, it will have one more incentive to regulate private space travel. Members of Congress would have an incentive to write the conditions of the prize to favor companies to which they are friendly.

As my high school history teacher, Mr. Voshell, used to say, "Whence comes money comes control." Private businesses that accept government subsidies usually find that those subsidies come with strings attached. This would probably be the case with government subsidy of the space travel business as well.

Jason of Leave Us Alone!


While I agree that trying to use outdated equipment, technology and etc for our space program is absolutely ridiculous-- I simply do not support a drive to spend MORE money (that we don't have.. considering the deficit) on going to space and seeing what all is out THERE... when we cannot effectively see and or deal with what is going on RIGHT HERE on THIS planet, in THIS nation at THIS time.

One thing that I realized when the X Prize accomplished what it did was that indeed, private enterprise can do it better and cheaper. That of course, opens up other issues.

As I see it, the Government of the United States, needs to work at governing the people of the United States and not further increase our indebtedness in chasing the stars in space, when we cannot manage the space that we live in, with the social and global issues that we are already currently involved with.

However, when private enterprise is given free reign to open space what can we expect? Do we expect them to respect the integrity of the Heavens anymore then they have respected the integrity of the Earth? Billboards in the heavens that similar to the old Burma Shave billboards will repeatedly direct you to the "Eat At Joe's"? What about Space Walmarts--ahhhh, you KNOW someone will attempt it or at the very least THINK about it. Will they be able to say "Owned by Virgin Records" as they speed by and slap a bumper sticker on a meteor?

Funny analogies, I know, however, I really do think that our audacity and ego has become (overall) that boundless and that if private enterprise is allowed to continue the space exploration there needs to be some sort of "rule book" that is not easily manipulated or gotten past.

The Bible says that "The Heavens declare the glory of God". We need to make sure that they continue to do so and not become just another ransacked "Earth, Part 2".
To colonize the Moon is a great thought, greater still is to fix the issues right here on Earth and let the Moon do what it always has. Colonizing another region (be it here on Earth or in another part of space) would seem to be a grand adventure however, are we only running from the problems we have created here and cannot or will not fix?

To want to achieve travel in space is a wonderful thing, yet here on Earth in the United States we already have trouble guarding our own borders and the issues of travel between here and there. How will we navigate yet more space and more issues? To want to achieve space exploration and colonization, wonderful thing-- however, why must it be a race that we must get there before China? You see, there is NOTHING in our ego, our manner or our thoughts that would lead me to believe that WE have changed, that our hearts have changed or that our desire to conquer has changed. Thus, Space is yet just another thing to be 'mastered' not necessarily respected, yet another thing to be 'owned' not necessarily to be shared.

Until such time as we can work out these issues right here on good old Planet Earth.. we have no business, going deeper into the Heavens with the ego that we have.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times

Season's Greetings

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

We at the Balance of Power have been busy lately (as you can see from the post frequencies). We are trying to bring you a better blog. The holiday season is always a busy one and for us that is no exception. I asked the contributors here this week to talk about Christmas, Hanukah, or what ever other winter holiday they hold dear, and also I ask you, the reader, please leave your comments about the season, I know we would all like to hear them. - Matthew

Our church has an annual Christmas pageant. Rehearsals begin the Saturday morning after Thanksgiving, and each Saturday after that, with the all important Dress Rehearsal a day or two before Christmas Eve. Mary is always a high school girl, and the baby Jesus is always a newborn from the parish. Middle School girls play the Archangels (my 7th grader is Gabriel this year) and the elementary age children play smaller angels, and Shepherds. The preschoolers are sheep, complete with floppy lamby ear headdresses, and lamb costumes. The cast of Herod, the Innkeeper and his wife, and various other parts are filled out by children of the church. The script for this production is the same as it was sixty years ago, when the play was first held in our small chapel built during the Civil War.

I bring my children to each rehearsal, armed with my Dunkin' Donuts coffee, and my book. The coffee I drink, but somehow I never get around to the book. There is always another parent to talk to, or a shepherd to help with his robe, or a wayward lamb needing a bit of direction. In the midst of all this, the book lays silent and unread in the pew. The pageant is a time for community, not for the quiet isolation of reading.

The story is timeless, and best done by children. Somehow, in their innocence, the Christmas story comes alive in a way no dry retelling can do. As the little angels sing glory, and march around the church with their arms flapping, I can almost see the real angels sitting in the rafters, smiling. As the shepherds come running down the center aisle, their bath robes flowing about them, I see those herdsman of long ago, awakened by a strange light and a glorious message. And, as the three wise men present their gifts, to the obligatory tune of We Three Kings, I think of the gifts I need to bring to my wife, my children, and to the Risen King whose pageant this is.

The pageant for me represents all that's right about my church, my faith, and Christmas. In this gathering that dates back at least 60 years, we carry on a heritage that will outlive us all. And, on that Christmas Eve, with parents craning their necks to see their own child, rather lamb or shepherd, or Gabriel herself, I think of the Father craning his neck to look past the multitude of angels crowding around that manger long ago, catching a glimpse of his Child. He must have been beaming with pride on that night, knowing The Plan was reaching fulfillment at last.

It is this marvelous joy that we recreate each Christmas Eve, in that ancient tableau of the pageant.

Mark of Liberty Just In Case


Christmas time has always been more than just a "holiday" for me.

It truly is a living, breathing, giving, loving, living time that I for one, have always wanted to last all year long.

It is true that we live in a cynical world and cynical time.
The dreams of youth are stolen so quickly away leaving very little for a child to believe in, the magic, which is Christmas time. By the time they have reached our ages... we must remind ourselves of what it was that truly made Christmas such a wonderful time. We ask ourselves "Where IS peace and goodwill to men?" "Where is the love that this night bore to the world nearly 2,000 years ago?"

It is not so hard really-- the love and the peace are still there, if we can simply remove the veils from over our cynical eyes to SEE it.

They are in the quietest of places, anonymous givers of gifts, little miracles that still happen all the time.

They are in boxes going overseas to our military personnel from churches and individuals that may never even have met them before, but care all the more.

They are in turkeys and trimmings that are provided from our "kettle gifts" to the Salvation Army.

They are hanging as wishes on the "Giving" or "Angel" trees in most every store nationwide, a child's wish begging to be fulfilled by the spirit and nature of Santa Claus that dwells in all of us.

They are in the smiles that people muster as they bustle through crowded aisles in stores.

They are in the many hours of preparation that church choirs undertake to sing the songs you most love to hear.

They are in the sermons of Pastors and Priests worldwide that are being written and practiced for your benefit even now, a week before hand.

Christmas is all-encompassing if we allow it to be.

It is a wonderful season of memories of times gone by, loved ones missed, cherished babies that are soon to be born.

It is in every cutting of every sugar cookie that a mother undertakes.

It is also in her frantic list making as she plans the holiday meal.

But more then this...

The magic and wonder of Christmas is found in our ability to BELIEVE. For that indeed, is what it all hinges upon!

In this world of today, we are told that "Seeing is believing" yet the reverse is true. "Believing is seeing". That which we can conceive of in our minds, embrace with our hearts is what allows us to see the wonders of Christmas.

Who amongst us can say that we have 'nothing', when we look at a lowly stable scene? The picture of a mother, a foster father, a Child-- surrounded by hay and animals is the gauge by which we measure what we have and what we do not have; what is truly important and of value, and what is not.

Two thousand years ago, we were given an example of simplicity, of peace, of love, of giving. Can we look within ourselves and around ourselves as we fuss with ribbons and bows and boxes and shopping-- to find the remnant of that simplicity today? By believing, my friends shall we see it.

No matter what one's faith in this world, the holiday season rings the bells of unity between us all. In every culture, winter brings us to the depth of cold and dark and the lesson is FAITH and BELIEF.

Can we believe that beyond this cold--there is warmth at the hearth of our hearts? Beyond this darkness, can we believe that the light is not extinguished nor even lessened?

For Israel, they had faith that the lamp oil would not go out and they would not be overcome. For the Christian, they have faith that the light of the Wonder Child of Christmas has not dimmed but burns all the more brightly even to today. For the Pagan, they have faith that the winter will yield to spring again and new growth on earth will begin again, in the cycle of life.

Christmas is the season of FAITH.

May we all have more then we had only a day ago, but less today then we shall have tomorrow.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times


Christmas to me has always been a special time of year, as I figure it is for most people. I found early on however that Santa was not the main point of it all, and the importance of the nativity became redily apparent. Given my name, I was curious about the bible and most especially the book that bore my name (Matthew), the first few chapters tell the story that I came to revere.

The Birth of Jesus Christ
Matthew1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. ...

The Visit of the Wise Men
Matthew 2:1 Now after
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise
men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the
Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him,
“In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

6 "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him." 9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they
offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

It was a time of peril and of hope. A time that very much reflects today, and I dare say the whole of human existance. Christmas is a time to find hope where there appears to be none, a time to be reborn, and start anew.

As well, it is a time for family and friends to come together and enjoy one another.

May your winter holiday, what ever it is, bring you health, happiness, and love. May we soon, see peace on Earth, and may we all show goodwill towards our fellow man.

Matthew of Liberty Just In Case

The Death Penalty

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

Our Guest blogger this week is Jason, of Leave Us Alone. We are glad to have him on board with a great topic: The Death Penalty. Enjoy.

I've always been ambivalent about the death penalty. None of the traditional arguments for or against execution seem persuasive to me, mostly because I believe that liberty is more important than life.

Death penalty opponents argue that with the death penalty comes the risk that an innocent person will be executed. This argument was recently bolstered by a Houston Chronicle investigation of the 1993 execution of Ruben Cantu. Sure, the execution of an innocent person is a horrible tragedy, but so is the imprisonment of an innocent person. If I were wrongfully convicted of a capital crime, I would much rather be killed than spend the rest of my natural life in prison. The conviction of Mr. Cantu, along with the many other wrongful convictions that have taken place, may be evidence that it's too easy to obtain a criminal conviction, but I'm not persuaded that the possibility of a wrongful execution makes the death penalty wrong.

Another argument against the death penalty is that execution lowers society to the level of a murderer. This argument just doesn't hold water. If the death penalty is morally equivalent to murder, then fines and restitution are morally equivalent to theft, incarceration is morally equivalent to kidnapping, and community service is morally equivalent to slaveholding. When we give government the power to punish criminals, we allow it to commit acts that would be crimes if any of us committed them as individuals.

Death penalty proponents argue that the death penalty deters potential murderers. This argument would be persuasive if there were any evidence to support it. However, most research indicates that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Another argument in favor of the death penalty is that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment. As far as I'm concerned, however, death is not the ultimate punishment. Locking someone in a cage full of violent felons for the rest of his or her life is a much worse punishment than euthanizing him or her like a sick, old dog.

It is for that last reason that I lean toward opposing the death penalty as it is currently practiced. The death penalty lets our most heinous criminals off too easily. As Bill O'Reilly asks in a WorldNetDaily column, "...why kill people when you can sentence them in a more punitive way?"

While I lean a certain way, I am persuadable. Does anyone want to persuade me?

Jason of Leave Us Alone


The Answer here Jason, is cost, among other things.

The death penalty in this nation is one of those oxymoronic conundrums that we have. I often find it ironic that the same people that are pro-life are also pro-death penalty. Both are state sanctioned killing right. And still I find little wrong with this dichotomy because of one huge distinction, those to whom the death penalty is imposed have (or at least should have) committed an action that warrants it.

While I support having a higher standard of proof to impose the death penalty, I also think that the associated appeals process is out of control. Beyond all of that however the realist in me sees the real reason the death penalty is important and the answer is money.

I costs allot to keep a man in prison, but beyond that, our prisons currently are very over crowded, which means we either release some, or we build more prisons. Murderers, in my book, have nothing left to contribute to society, keeping them alive, just so that we can punish them more, or really for any other reason, is just bad economics, if not bad government.

Keeping violent murderers alive to be held captive on our dime is ridiculous. In my calloused view I think there should be MORE executions, not less, along with a few other prison reforms. Frankly prison is hardly a punishment anymore. All we are robbing of our criminal element is their freedom of movement, to a man that has nothing, that is hardly a deterrent. After all, any punitive system we have in place should at least on the surface be a deterrent right.

Matthew of Liberty Just in Case


Personally, though I am mostly always to the side of the preservation of life, I am actually an advocate of not only utilizing the Death Penalty but along with our Texas folks to the South of where I am, I think that in certain cases, it ought to be expedited in a few cases. (As in the case of if someone commits murder and two or more credible witnesses SAW it happen).

I do believe that prison (as it is now) has become lax in doing the job that it was instituted to do. When a criminal gets free medical care, free education, free meals, free clothing, a roof over their head and in some cases even cable TV, Internet access and gym facilities--its just not much of a deterrent to crime now is it?

I believe that those that are incarcerated should be working on the "chain gangs" still. Doing things that will benefit the whole of society, whom they are jailed for having wronged anyway.

I believe that punishment and justice should "fit the crimes" and that we need a little creativity in the whole process so that JAIL is actually a DETERRANT again.

As to the Death Penalty, I think that when persons have committed capital crimes against humanity (violent rape, murder) and when they are adjudicated to be non-rehabilitatable (i.e., sociopathic, psychopathic, repeat and serial offenders) it is not only in society's best interest but in many cases the offenders best interest to just be "put to sleep".

For every one person that is on death row that might... MIGHT be innocent, there are ten more that are there because society has deemed it in the best interests of themselves for crimes committed by the offender.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times


The death penalty is a tough one for me. I am strongly, adamantly pro-life. Anyone who has debated me over abortion, or the Terri Schiavo case quickly finds this out. I believe there is something essentially sacred in each individual's humanity, and this does sanctity does not end when a human commits a violent crime, even a horrific murder.

This belief flows from my faith in Christ, and belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. Man is a fallen creature, but still has with him the Imago Dei, or Image of God. This image, while shattered by sin, is not removed. Yet, certain crimes were punishable by death in The Old Testament, and this was not in any way contradicted in The New Testament. The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was about hypocrisy, not capital crimes. And in Romans 13:4, Paul talks about submission to government authorities, who bear the power of the sword. Again, the passage speaks of submission ot authority, and supports the idea of capital punishment.

So, scripturally, I see no contradiction between being pro-life, yet favoring capital punishment. Yet, I can firmly understand those who do hold that capital punishment is wrong. I fail to understand how those on the Left can be against capital punishment, and yet favor Abortion at all costs. This appears to me to be hypocrisy of the highest order.

I believe the greatest case for the continuation of capital punishment in this nation is DNA. The advent of this technology greatly lowers the chances of an innocent man or woman being convicted of a capital crime.

And, there are those who deserve this punishment. The most relevant example of this is Saddam Hussein. His documented destruction of millions of men, women and children, all of whom bear the Imago Dei, certainly makes him worthy of death. And the sooner the better.

Now a more specific answer to Jason's final point, that life in prison represents a greater punishment to the felon. In the prisons of the West, this is simply not true. Forfeiting your freedom, while living in what would be seen as luxury to much of the Third World, is not a punishment for someone like the BTK murderer. Death is the most logical punishment for one such as BTK, or Saddam.

By the way, if you're wondering if you missed Mark's post over the past couple of days, rest assured you didn't. Due to having some minor surgery, I simply didn't get a chance to add my post on this important topic. So, I took my assistant editor's prerogative, and posted late.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case

Cut and Run: Democrat Policy in Iraq

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.

OK, I'm tired of the idiocy. Here on the Balance of Power, I rarely use this language, but this time it fits. I would love for someone to tell me exactly how we would benefit from pulling out of Iraq right now.

In the last week Rep. John Murtha called for the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq. Now I respect Rep. Murtha's service, he is a decorated Vietnam Vet, but as a current member of the military, who is actively involved in this particular conflict, I would have to adamantly disagree with Rep. Murtha.

We are at a juncture right now, Iraq is on the verge of democracy, so why in the world would we stop now. We are just mere moments from achieving our goals, why would we cut and run now. It seems that the militaries adversarial relationship with the press has taken it's toll on Rep. Murtha's perception of reality. This whole movement smacks of partisan politics to me. It doesn't even stand up to the most favorable of scrutiny.

Whether or not you believe that we should have gone to war, whether or not you think this is a just war, you must agree on a basic level that we should not pull out of a military operation before it has reached it's objective. The ramifications of that are enormous. Simply put, Iraq would fall completely to the terrorists, and the area would become more unstable than ever. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN.

Rep. Murtha says many of those troops are demoralized and poorly equipped and, after more than two years of war, are impeding Iraq's progress toward stability and self-governance. (source) It is plain to see, having been one of those troops on the ground that Rep. Murtha doesn't know what he is talking about. The only reason this war is becoming anything that even faintly resembles a quagmire, is because Rep. Murtha and his fellow Congressmen (Mostly Democrats) are trying to run this war from the rotunda in Washington. Please for the love of all that is good, Congressmen, will you please SHUT UP, and let the Generals run the war, and you go do what you do best, Make more unnecessary laws.

Zaphriel - Zaphriel's Blog

Zaph, first its good to have you riding high in the saddle again, partner! :0) Welcome back.. now.. on with the show!

I would not call the request for America to get out of Iraq an 'idiocy'. Actually, I think Rep Murtha spoke for a whole lot of the nation in his remarks of this week. Rep. Murtha is not only a Vietnam Vet (which would seem to sort of say he's only 'waxing nostalgic' ) but also of Korea as well. In short, he's a man who's seen a lot of war in his time, a lot of the inner machinations of the "War Machine" and a whole lot of the politics that is driving it both as a military man AND as a politician.

Let us say that he has a view of the 'inside' of this War- more then most of us may have-- yes, even those serving in the military. He's privy to a lot of information that not only the military but the general public may not have the whole picture of just yet.

First, I would like to draw up the language of your topic: "We are at a juncture right now, Iraq is on the verge of democracy, so why in the world would we stop now."
Now, "WE" seems to say that it is our duty as Americans to support, defend, liberate, conglomerate, dictate to Iraq what it will and will not become. This just seems to smack of audacity and Western thinking. Iraq belongs to Iraq, not America. What they do for themselves and on their own behalf is far more important than what WE do for them and on their behalf. It's as if we are saying these are an incapable people -- if we don't lead them by the hand and say "Now do this.. yes.. very good. Now do that...no no, do it the Western way.. yes.. very good." That somehow these people could and would never stand and do it for themselves!

Our objective first, was to go into Iraq and rid it of WMD. *cough* okay.. well that was easy, they weren't there to begin with evidently. Second, remove Saddam from power and topple his regime. Check and done. Third, help the Nation of Iraq to establish its own free government and ruling offices. Check and done. So ultimately I think there are many Americans that are now sitting back and saying..."What more then is it that we are giving our sons and daughter to?" These people have a government installed, they have a Constitution, Saddam is gone and there are no threats of WMD. Now, would someone remind us why we are STILL THERE???

Further, in your article you suggest that should America pull out of Iraq they would instantly fall to terrorists and become unstable. By this argument, the case is made for FOREVER remaining in Iraq because this is not an indictment of their capability but of their inherent national ability, their own national heart and spirit. The Nation of Iraq will stand or fall of its own accord based upon the desire of the people to maintain what has been accomplished there thus far. Just how long is it that Big Brother America is to hold this nation's hand and do for them what they should be doing for themselves?

Nothing is gained by the Iraqi people in the way of national Sovereignty if we continue to do everything for them. It is often said that what we do not WORK FOR, we do not appreciate. Then let them work for it. Yes, yes...I can already hear people saying "But they are! Under our guidance and military power (etc., ad nauseum)." Folks, if that is true then babies should never learn to walk unless momma or daddy constantly holds their hand and do not allow them the occasional bump or bruise of learning in the process!

As far as I can see it we are still in Iraq for one reason primarily. The reason is not to protect Iraq from falling but to protect our own interests there.
If the notion is that we must occupy a nation that is in danger of terrorist activity then by all means America should be invading every single country around the world! Yet, we are not.

While you are a military man, you do not speak for all of the military. What Rep. Murtha has said I have heard with my own ears from more then one military man that has been stationed in that cesspool of a war. You do not feel demoralized and for that I am truly glad... but believe you me, for every one of you that is not, there are some that are. Murtha spoke to the reality that we do not like to face in this nation at this time-- abroad in the world and especially in Iraq and Afghanistan there are numerous demoralized military personnel that just want to be home. They want to be protecting and defending their own wives, husbands, children from the onslaught of financial ruin and simple day to day trials and tribulations. They want to sing "I'll be home for Christmas" and not cry their eyes out with longing for their OWN HOMELAND.

I heard what Rep. Murtha said, from a different place then Zaphriel did. I heard the voice of a man that served in more then one war, saw the violence, bloodshed and chaos. I heard the voice of a man that knows what is lubing the political war machine right now. I saw the face of a father, a grandfather longing to have their children home safe and sound once again.

Consider this much: When we gained our Independence... who helped us? It wasn't the nation of Iraq.. It wasn't France, Germany, England, Korea, China.. NO. We stood alone based on the heart of the Independence Freedom fighters and the belief that if we wanted it bad enough we could secure it. We could defend it. We could forge it.

It's time that Iraq learned these same lessons. If they want freedom then let them stand for it, fight for it, die for it, secure it, defend it, forge it. Nations will rise and fall and the world shall never be secure from it. We cannot make it so by the loss of yet more and more lives in a War that just may never end. Let them stand and show the world that they are proud, free, brave and true in the nation of Iraq--because if they are not that yet-- they may never be. Only time will show.

So THANK YOU Rep. Murtha for speaking what you did, on behalf of those of us that feel our military has done all that it set out to do and its time to come home at long last.

Nariel - Ancient Eyes for Current Times

I absolutely agree with Zaph. What is demoralizing as a troop is to hear lawmakers back home talking about pulling out of a war when the job isn't finished. Our troops are out there for a reason, and that is to bring liberation and freedom to an oppressed people. Don't tell me we are puppets in an war for oil, because even if that were true, it isn't the reason the troops are doing what they are. The troops are out there risking their life, and putting their all into this war because of a heartfelt belief in freedom.

We are making great progress in this war, despite what the talking heads will try to spin you. To be asked to drop the ball, and cut and run when we have made so many victories is not only idiotic, and disastrous, it is spit in the face of our soldiers, and a cowardly insult to the Iraqi people.

In a short period of time since we defeated Saddam's murderous thug government, the Iraqi people have participated and tasted democracy. To leave them surrounded by such a dangerous environment of suicide bombers daily would be a huge mistake.

Think how long it took us to obtain freedom from England. Think about how long it took our democracy to develop, its still developing. It seems to me that the kool aid keeps getting stronger and stronger for the democrats. They try to rewrite history, and say that Bush lied to get us in this war, when they all voted for the same actions. I'm tired of these democrats comparing this war to Viet Nam, and trying to garner political advantage of mourning parents. The Cindy Sheehan crowd is completely in the fringe element of this country, and the left are being viewed as anti-patriotic slimeballs.

The proposition to pull troops out immediately was completely idiotic, and I'm glad the GOP called the Dem's bluff on it. This isn't something we should be playing political games with.

Jay - Stop the ACLU


Two statements a generation apart:

We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war.

And this:

The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.

The first is from an interview by the North Vietnamese General Giap to Stanley Karnow in his epic on the war: Vietnam: A History. The second is from Aman al-Zawahiri to Zarqawi in Iraq. It is clear that Al-Qaeda has learned the lessons of Vietnam. It is a continuing horror to me that the Left in this nation has not learned the lessons, but instead wish to repeat history by abandoning an ally we have sworn to defend.

It is not my purpose to rehash the reasons we are there, or whether our being in Iraq is "legal" or not. We ARE there. We are fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq. To pull out now, or even a year from now if the Iraqis still need us would be utter disaster for this nation.

We have lost perspective on war, perhaps because its been 60 years since we fought a global, total war. Yet, make no mistake. We are in a total war, requiring victory. The Islamo-Fascists who confront us are every bit as evil as the Nazis or the Communists before them. And, based on their own statements over the past decade, they are hell-bent on the destruction of the United States and its allies.

The real lessons of Vietnam must be learned. One who clearly learned those lessons was Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX). Last Friday night, he was the last speaker in the raucous debate on the House floor. Here are his final words:

However, sadly - some here want to embolden the enemy by saying we just cut and run. That's just irresponsible and unconscionable.

"I have to ask - What would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out -- allowing dangerous people like the head of al-Qaida, Zarqawi, to run the country? What would that mean for the region? The world?

"Al Qaida rules with death, fear, terror and blood. Al Qaida takes innocent people hostage - then beheads them - and then brags about it on the internet.

"Al Qaida has no respect for human life. They prey on innocent people to do their dirty work - because they know we don't target schools and hospitals and mosques - yet those are the exact places that they're using for safe cover.

"Al Qaida will kidnap loved ones - especially very young children - of people trying to build democracy - like local leaders - to scare them out of helping out the new country. They're taking kids hostage - because parents want a new life and a better future for their children. Why is that such a crime?

"What part of Al Qaida do you want operating here in America?

"Al Qaida is a world-wide organization and world-wide threat. I don't want any part of this. Americans don't want, need or deserve al Qaida. Our troops are over in Iraq fighting not just for our freedom and protection - but freedom for the world.

"We must fight the bad guys over there - not over here. WE must support our troops to the hilt so they don't go to bed at night - covered in talcum-powder thin white sand wondering - "Does America really support me."

"In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress - and America - started saying bad things about what was going on over there. Let me tell you what it did for troop morale. It's a real downer. I just pray our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that I will fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need - for as long as they need - to win the global war on terrorism.

"Withdrawal is not an option!

"I hope and pray every Member of Congress stands up and says to our troops 'THANK YOU' and 'AMERICA SUPPORTS YOU.' To them I say, God bless you and I salute you.

The approach the terrorists have chosen is the same as General Giap a generation ago. Hang on, cause death and destruction, and Americans will pull out. So far, the Left in this nation is following the same game plan in calling for a pull out. This time the stakes are far higher. Pulling out of Vietnam caused millions of deaths, but those deaths were across the Pacific, so the Left could conveniently ignore them. This time, should we bow to the fear and intimidation of terrorists, the deaths will be here, in our business centers, our malls, our schools, and our churches. The main front for World War IV has moved from Ground Zero in New York City to Iraq. Should the Left, and Al-Qaeda, win this debate, the front will return to this nation. We cannot afford to allow that to happen.

Mark - Liberty Just In Case

Why Conservatives Have Such Contempt for the Liberal Media

We respectfully ask that you read the entire post before commenting the first time, but for your convenience we have put a jump to the comments section right here, so that you can easily find them.


Our guest blogger this week is Craig, from Red Satellites. Now, doesn't his job description make you want to ask a thousand questions? If he told you the answers, he'd have to kill you.

Thank you BoP and Zaphriel for allowing me a guest shot on your show. And Mark at Liberty Just In Case for linking us.

I live by the 3 R's: Repub-litarian, Red Sox, & Rand.
Raised a cracker,
Georgia grad,
Live in moonbat LA.
Program manager for a black Space Satellite system.
Fiercely competitive and loyal. In summary: 49 year old, married with a 2 year old.

And now, on with the show:

Once again, it's time to BITCHSLAP the Main Stream Media. Forever full of themselves, they dispense socialism, secularism, and moral relativism each day- all day. When they speak, or for that matter, clear their bilious throats- we, the American public, must immediately lower our eyes,genuflect, and pay homage to their vast and superior intellect and as a token of appreciation- finish with a Broadway flourish- by kissing their ring.

So, having to put up with their pretentious pseudo-perspicacious blather, I feel duty bound to present what WE- the Conservative voice- face every time we pick up a newspaper or logon to a computer.

To prove my point, I recently went online to look at the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and CNN- and perused the headlines of each.

Hmmm....what do we have:
Front Page of LA Times.com
(under AP News)

Democrat Urges Rove to Quit Over CIA Leak
Beta Sweeps Ashore in Nicaragua, Weakens
Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Assault
Rice, Admirers Remember Parks' Defiant Act
Militant-Linked Group Claims India Blasts

Front Page of Boston Globe.com
(under world news)

AFGHAN: 2 U.S. soldiers charged with assault
NICARAGUA: Hurricane Beta ravages areas


Front Page of Washington Post.com
(under more headlines)

Marathon Has Record Number of Runners
Malaria Vaccine Aided by Gates Donation
Two U.S. Soldiers Charged With Assault
Gunmen Kill Iraq Vice President's Brother
Kurds Reclaim Prized Territory
Hurricane Beta Hits Nicaraqua's East Coast
Money Woes Undercut Hopes for Great Lakes
More Reconstruction Work Urged for Louisianans

And finally, from the all-time liberal rag of the century (for any century, actually)

Front Page of CNN.com
(under more news)

Hurricane Beta belts Nicaragua
Police look for answers in New Delhi blasts
Brother of Iraq vice president killed
U.S. soldiers charged with assaulting Afghan detainees
Rice, others pay tribute to Rosa Parks
Holy car! 1975 Escort fetches $690,000
Saw II frightens box office on Halloween weekend
Hundreds arrested during Halloween bash
Four fraternity members sentenced in hazing death

OKAY CLASS, let's review!
Those are 4 headline pages of 4 online newspapers. And lo' and behold: there are only 2 headlines that made all four rags.
Hmmmm....let's see the first: Hurricane Beta....okay, considering the fact we've had our share of hurricanes this season and the havoc it wrecked...reporting on this, sounds reasonable to me. Agree?
Now for the second: Two U.S. soldiers charged with assault.
Two soldiers charged with assault in AFGHANISTAN is worthy of headlines in 4 MAJOR American newspapers? Are you kidding me?
Now, let me reveal a story so horrific, so evil that it literally knocks the wind out of you.
(From the NY Post)

SAVAGES BEHEAD 3 SCHOOLGIRLS

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Unidentified assailants beheaded three high-school girls and seriously wounded a fourth yesterday in a rural section of Indonesia about 1,000 miles northeast of Jakarta.

The girls, students at a private Christian school , were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation en route to class, police said. The heads were found miles from the bodies.
Did it occur to anyone at the EDITOR'S desk of those 4 newspapers, that maybe, just maybe- this story TRUMPS 2 U.S. Soldiers assaulting someone? Or for that matter (over at CNN), wouldn't it be more important than: "Saw II frightens box office on Halloween weekend"?
To the Liberal Media, of course not!
The tragic story of the schoolgirls is about Muslims psychopaths beheading Christian children. (The murders were in Indonesia: it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out who the suspects are.) But the liberals PANDER to the Muslims and their atrocities- so reporting this, is out of the question.
The liberal media hates the military, hates the US approach to the Global War on Terror, and will do anything to promote their warped agenda. The disconnect between the Media and conservatives is why we are polarized today. They won't let go.
And the GAP grows with every passing day.

Craig H. of Red Satellites

Thank you very much Craig for your contribution to Balance of Power this week! It's great to see so many guest authors and bloggers becoming involved here and certainly gives a well-rounded perspective on today's current issues.

Now... on with the Show!

I found it interesting that from the onset of the article, the word "Media" was polarized between the "conservative" and "liberal". To me, the media is the media. Sometimes its hard-hitting news that is worthy of print, other times it is stuff that really serves only the point of chucklesome reading in the "Throne Room" as the potty is often called around my folks' house! ;0) But I don't know that I completely buy into the notion that there is a wholly "conservative media" or wholly "liberal media". There is media that is filtered through "conservatives" and "liberals", which of course does not necessarily make it either conservative or liberal per se, but makes it a sort of "for your eyes only" for whatever perspective one might be.

While this particular author seems to show an outright contempt for socialism, secularism and moral relativism to others this IS their viewpoint therefore in a media that exists in a country that is diverse as our own, it has the inherent duty to show all the sides of the contemporary issues, irregardless of if there are a few persons that it might infuriate, irritate and otherwise knicker-knot along the way. It's not so different really, then the moments of nausea that I experience when the local news does their broadcast that is decidedly Christian, Conservative and neither "hard hitting" OR "news" to myself.

I have a choice--as an adult viewer of the local news as to if I will sit and watch it--with an eye to informing myself better –or- changing the channel to say oh..."The Simpsons" or "King of the Hill". I don't sit back and rant and rave and gnash my teeth over it (okay, sometimes I do! *grin*) I simply watch the news as it is reported--take what it is, filter it through my own perceptions, keep what is useful and "File 13" the rest.

I for one am glad that the mainstream media does NOT spend an overtly long amount of time on stories that are wholly conservative nor wholly liberal by my standards, though I do feel that there is a great lot of news that is "withheld" for whatever be the reason and find online sites such as "What Really Happened" rather interesting, thought provoking and informative as well. That's the beauty of a Media that is *NOT* wholly Church OR State controlled. If you don't believe me, ask anyone that had to sit through TASS back during Soviet Union time. A media that is not free to report a little of this and a little of that is not media of the people it is merely propaganda dribbled out in the guises of "news".

I completely agree that the savage beheading of three, school girls IS news. Without a doubt! Would I have liked to know about something like that, without a doubt! However, at the same time, there is only ONE headline that will fit on a Newspaper on any given day. For that day, the newspapers evidently felt that the story regarding U.S. Soldiers assaulting persons in Afghanistan was precedent to its readership. If I had to consider the two stories as an Editor of a National Newspaper or Source, I would have to admit that though both stories are very big, I would have gone the way that they did as well. Why? Newspapers are not funded to state the news that a few particular readers want to read on the Headlines. They are funded by subscriptions and sales. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the American public has become so anesthetized to violence that is brutal (ala horror flicks, action films and violent video games) that it is relegated to a lower news status, I feel. A headline that says "American Soldiers Accused of Assault" feeds the public desire at this time to know what is going on behind the scenes and of course given the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal in the recent past--whether this author feels that it is "news worthy" or not--the Public wants to KNOW THIS STUFF.

Now, since I'm NOT an Editor and do not give one whit about how much the rags earn in a day I can tell you...that of the two stories, *I* would have wanted to know the story behind these brutal acts in Jakarta before reading yet more of the fodder on the military and its inner machinations. But, that's just me. I only spend maybe a buck a month on newspapers.

So while I can totally sympathize with what this Author says in his BoP article--I can also understand that in the high dollar world of Mass Media, what sells--what is contemporary and of interest to the masses--is what is going to be on the Headline of Page One.

Nice thing is-- my knickers aren't knotted up in a bunch over it and I am intelligent and can find the news that I personally seek where I may find it. The LA Times isn't crying because I don't buy it and I'm not crying cause I don't have it.

Nariel of Ancient Eyes for Current Times



Hugh Hewitt, in his seminal book, Blog, said this:

Why a discussion of the Protestant Reformation in a book on blogging? The short answer: because the sixteenth and twenty-first centuries share a dramatic element in common-the birth of a revolution in communication technology.

The invention of the printing press spelled the end for the old keepers of knowledge in the sixteenth century. The invention of the new media of blogging spells the end for the old media in the same way. And the MSM, or Mainstream Media, is just now beginning to realize the shift. The fall of Trent Lott, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan of CNN, and in large part John Kerry occurred because bloggers went around, over and under the established keepers of knowledge at the established jounalistic institutions. The days of The New York Times setting the agenda for the current news cycle are over. As are the days of proclaiming themselves "objective journalists."

Brent Bozell at the Media Research Council has chronicled liberal bias for decades now, with volumes of evidence. Bernard Goldberg's two marvelous books, Bias and Arrogance, are required reading on the ongoing liberal bias within the MSM. And, for those on the left open enough to bother, Ann Coulter's book Slander chronicled in detail,with footnotes, the staggering liberal bias that continues to provide fodder for conservative bloggers like Craig and myself.

Yet, like the Catholic Church's reaction to Martin Luther, the MSM is beginning to fight back against the blogosphere. As I wrote on Gun-Totin' Liberal recently, the Online Freedom of Information Act, with would have protected bloggers on the left and the right, appears to have been defeated in the Republican controlled House. If you haven't written or called your Representative about this bill, you need to. The Reformation of the sixteenth century took time, and had massive casualties on both sides. It's vital that we learn from history, and make sure our freedom to write what we want remains protected from those who wish to stifle it.

Mark White of Liberty Just In Case