The results of yesterday’s New Hampshire primary signals yet another win for Democrats, and a loss as well. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, voters signalled their understanding of what Republicans have known all along; Howard Dean cannot defeat George W Bush.

So voters in both states made an astoundingly rational choice, they went with a candidate whom they thought could win. Iowa was the first real signal from Democrats that Republicans may have a real fight on their hands in the upcoming presidential election. Kerry’s clear victory in New Hampshire reinforces that message.

But Democrats should not be entirely happy with these results. Clear victories for Kerry also serve as victories for the DNC establishment, and thats not all entirely to the good.
>> Read more

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment - The Bill of Rights

The So-called “Wall of Separation”

On Wednesday, June 26, 2002, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit shocked the nation with a 2-1 decision banning the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that it improperly endorses religion. Since that time, this decision has become the rallying cry for athiests across the country and made Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the case, a subject of both jeers and cheers.

During his many interviews, Mr. Newdow has consistently used the cliche, ?wall of separation,? first coined by Thomas Jefferson, as his reason for pushing for the ban, as well as a revision of all currency and other materials in the United States which endorses religion of any kind. But does the First Amendment truly require the government to actively sterilize all its institutions and render them faith free?

Where did the whole ?wall of separation? debate begin in the first place, and why has this phrase become the mantra of athiests and secularists? I think it best to begin at the beginning.

The History Behind The Debate

We are not, as you might have thought, going to begin with Thomas Jefferson, the one who first used this expression in a letter to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut during the first year of his Presidency. Instead, it is necessary to start far earlier than that… about 165 years before. It was in the early 1600s that European settlers began –first as a trickle, then as a flood– to emigrate to the “new world.” Many of those who made the journey came seeking a very fundamental right; the freedom to worship as they saw fit.

In other words, the earliest settlers of what would one day become the United States of America came here to secure the freedom of worship. Christians were tired of state-sponsored religions, such as the Anglican Church in England, limiting their ability to worship in the manner of their choosing.

It was this philosophy, freedom of religion, which became one of the first and most enduring traditions of the early colonies and, later, the United States of America. It is this philosophy which continues to endure today.

It is a tradition that is so ingrained in our culture that, despite the loss of thousands of innocent American lives on 9/11 from an attack by radical Islamists, the citizens of this nation made every effort to prevent violence against American Muslims and the maligning of the religion of Islam. Our profound reverence for the freedom of religion and worship has endured in the hearts of Americans for close to 400 years! It is our oldest societal institution.

Which is why in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia, the framers had no intention of giving the new federal government control over religious expression. Why would the framers of the Constitution, most of whom believed that religious freedom is a sacred, God-given right, create a government that had the ability to control when, where, and how they expressed their faith in God? On the face of it, this is an utterly ludicrous thing to believe; one which can only be held if you ignore all the facts of history, our culture, and the traditions of this nation.

So, again, where does the phrase, “wall of separation” enter into the picture, and in what context was this phrase used? It hails back to 1802 when the Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut wrote a letter to a their newly-elected President, Thomas Jefferson. The association knew Jefferson to be an Anti-Federalist and one who had championed the rights of Baptists in his home state of Virginia, and they wrote to express their concern over the First Amendment phrase on religious expression.

Association members were concerned that the First Amendment was the government’s way of claiming jurisdiction over religion in the US. The members of the association knew that the First Amendment clause on religion had two possible interprestations:
1) The federal government, by writing this clause, allows religious freedom to exist. The obvious implication is that, what has been allowed can also be dis-allowed.
2) The federal government declared an official “hands-off” policy, sort of a non-interference or restraining order clause, regarding the ability of Congress to promote or limit religious expression in the United States.

The members of the Baptist Association were worried that the very problem we are seeing today, that of a full-scale assault against religious freedom, might occur based on the way this clause is interpreted. So they wisely wrote to President Jefferson, knowing that he was sympathetic to their cause, and asked for clarification. Jefferson, understanding fully their concern, sought to assuage their fears regarding this clause.

Here is a bit of the dialogue between the Baptist Association and Thomas Jefferson, starting with an excerpt from the letter written by the Baptist Association:

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty. That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals. That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor… It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government and Religion should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

The argument from the Baptist Association was this: Freedom of religion is a natural right, given to us by God, and not subject to endorsement or regulation on the part of any person or government. The members were worried that the First Amendment was a way of gaining power over people by asserting its right to curtail the free expression of religion on the part of the populace.

Thomas Jefferson’s reply back to the Baptist Association was designed to calm their fears in relation to any desire on the part of the federal government to “make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Here is a bit of his reply:

I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make “no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state.?

As an Anti-Federalist, as well as a contemporary American, Jefferson agreed wholeheartedly with the members of the Baptist Association. Nor was this Jefferson’s final statement regarding this issue. Jefferson made many statements on the role of the First Amendment. Here are a few examples, as summarized by David Barton in his article, “The Separation of Church and State,” with links to a few of the original documents available online with the Library of Congress:

[N]o power (emphasis mine) over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
Kentucky Resolution, 1798

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.
Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. (emphasis mine)
Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808

In light of these statements, made both before and after Jefferson’s use of the phrase “wall of separation,” to what conclusion should we come regarding the federal government’s power to regulate religious freedoms? In answering this question, I want to highlight the especially-telling quote, taken from Jefferson’s letter to Samuel Miller, where he asserts that the power of the federal government is “interdicted,” that is, “prohibited and/or placed under a legal sanction” (Webster’s defined), by the First Amendment.

When you examine the First Amendment clause in light of this comment, you must conclude that the First Amendment was meant to insure that the federal government would remain passive on the issue of religious freedoms. In other words, it prevents the government from taking action against the free exercise of religion.

The federal government, then, has no ability to enforce a “religion free zone” on federal and state facilities, public areas, or on any institution which accepts government support. It is a total and permanent restraining order against the federal government, barring it from the creation of regulations that might interfere with the free expression of religion by any citizen of this country.

Just as a restraining order prevents one individual or group from taking action against another individual or group, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause prevents legislators from taking action against individuals or groups seeking to express their religious beliefs. In addition, this clause is extremely broad in scope; it does not specify certain places or times in which we can or cannot exercise this freedom.

The First Amendment is a broad, ongoing prohibition and barrs congress from promoting and/or interfering with religious expression. This is exactly what Jefferson meant when he coined the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” an assertion which is borne out by the additional statements made by Jefferson.

Back To The Future

How ironic, then, that the very phrase meant by Jefferson to permanently settle this issue has been reinterpreted by some secularists to mean its exact opposite. It is a reinterpretation whose meaning has been so effectively promulgated by the mainstream media that now, whenever the average person hears this phrase, they immediately identify its meaning as a mandate for the federal government to place limits on religious expression in order to protect others who do not hold to the same faith (or any faith at all, for that matter).

Now, while the thought of a more openly religious society might sound repugnant to some, it should be seen, at the very least, as the lesser of two evils. After all, if secularists succeed in changing the meaning of the First Amendment to marginalize religious freedoms, then assaults on the other equally important parts of this Amendment, the freedom of the press and of assembly, can’t be far behind. This is a threat that we must take seriously.

The Danger of Interpreting the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Take a good look, not just at the content of this amendment, but also at the way it is written. Notice that the entire amendment is one sentence. What does this tell you about the intent of the authors? Hopefully you will see the inescapable link made by the framers between the freedom of religion, press, and assembly. The First Amendment is one sentence for two main reasons:

1. It was meant to be all-encompassing and generic and to serve as a broad prohibition against federal interference with these freedoms and,
2. The amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from regulating any kind of expression, be it religious, personal, or corporate. In other words, the First Amendment was designed to guarantee that individuals could express their religious beliefs freely, assemble freely in support or protest, and express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely in the press.

So, when people such as Mr. Newdow work to remove the freedom of religious expression from public life, they are also threatening our freedom of assembly and the media. Make no mistake; if you reinterpret one part of the First Amendment, you reinterpret it all.

In the end, the First Amendment is all about, and only about, our right to express ourselves.

Take it from one who grew up on the water. If you punch one hole in a boat, at best, the boat will never sail properly again. At worst, the whole boat will sink. Should we really sink the whole boat just because we don’t like on of its parts?

That is exactly what Mr. Newdow and many others are seeking to do. In their thoughtless and short-sighted desire to save us — and themselves — from our “ignorant superstitions,” they would structurally damage the First Amendment and some of our nation’s most dearly held beliefs and traditions.

Do people realize this? I don’t think they do.

Imagine the storm of negative press if someone like Newdow said something like, “I believe that the government has a right to regulate the media.” But, in a sense, that is exactly what he is saying. If you chain a man’s ankle to a wall, the whole man is chained to that wall.

If you limit religious expression, you limit all forms of expression. Simple, but true.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I hate to say, I told you so, to doubters, but it’s beginning to look increasingly like the Internet will not translate to victory for Dean, or any other candidate for that matter, in this election. [url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com/comments2.php?id=P55_0_1_0]As I pointed out in a January 11 post on my site[/url], the Internet-as-secret-campaign-weapon theory is looking more each day like a myth on par with the dot com, you-can’t-lose-with-the-Internet myth of the late 90’s.

Certainly, its a great new way to raise campaign funds, especially for Democrats. In recent elections, Democratic candidates have become far too dependent on campaign donations from a small group of wealthy patrons, as opposed to Republicans, who typically gain their funds through a much larger group donating smaller amounts.

[url=http://www.opensecrets.org]The Center For Responsive Politics[/url], a non-profit and independent watchdog organization which keeps close track of donations for each election cycle, offered these findings from a [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp]recent study of the 2002 mid-term elections[/url]:

Is this a quote from President Clinton or President Bush:

“There’s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense…”

Okay, I lied a bit. Neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for the quote above. Can you guess who did issue this statement? If you can’t, let me give you another quote from the same person to see if you can come up with a name:

“Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He’s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He’s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn’ t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.”

Got it yet? Okay, how about one more quote:

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”

Some of you I’m sure have guessed that all of the statements above were from General Wesley Clark, retired, just two weeks before Congress passed a resolution giving President Bush authorization to take military action against Saddam if necessary.

These and a few other quotes can be found on [url=http://www.drudgereport.com]The Drudge Report[/url], , but, before I finish, let me just include two more quotes from General Clark. First this one:

“And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”

And then, one more from General Clark, issued after the fall of Baghdad:

“President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.”
Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003

Nuff said.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

First, an excerpt from [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/]Howard Kurt’s [/url]Media Notes, published by the Washington Post:

Dean has been quoted on more than one occasion critisizing President Bush for his willingness to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the country, but a book, “Howard Dean: A Citizen’s Guide to the Man Who Would Be President” paints the picture of a man who does not seem to practice what he preaches.

From [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/14/125158.shtml]Newsmax.com[/url]:

Okay, the obvious first question related to Howard Dean and his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee is [b][i]what will Dean say next?[/i][/b] Thats an easy question and comes quite naturally when you are reading or listening to mainstream media report on his latest gaff.

The other question, which is not quite so obvious, is [b][i]how will Dean supporters rationalize their candidate’s latest attemp to shoot from the lips?[/i][/b] I love visiting his [url=http://www.blogforamerica.com]blog[/url] to see the Deaniacs apply their metaphysics to each new off-the-wall comment. Its more fun than might think. Go on, give it a try.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

If you want to test which way the wind is blowing, wet your finger and stick it up in the air. If you want to test the morale of a campaign, log into their campaign blog and, if they are foolish enough to let visitors post comments, read their comments.

The tone of the posts I’ve read talking about Wesley Clark range from slightly nervous comments to shrill diatribes. Are Dean supporters getting nervous? Where is that unbridled optimism they displayed only a few weeks ago? The fact is, they know that Dean’s numbers have flattened while the poll numbers of others, especially Clark’s national numbers, have gained momentum.

Here are some of the comments:

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]Don’t worry about Welsey Clark.[/url] - Sorry, but just the statement says they ARE worried about Wesley Clark

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]Oklahoma is running[/url] neck and neck with Clark.

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]Dean is just slightly ahead of Clark![/url]

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]Regroup TRIPPI ET AL!!! Oklahoma is winnable. No excuse that you don’t have a creative ad up by the weekend. Same in AZ. Clark’s support there is media bought and soft. Tuesday, after IA, get the Governor to swing through AZ, NM and OK. Precede him with new creative and inspiring ads. Let the IA people do their jobs. Do not let Clark back door us out there, or in DE either. You have the money. Use it![/url]

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]I just hope Clark doesn’t by some chance win because it would be the end of the movement and the Democratic Party. The press is doing the country a HUGE disservice by being quiet about Clark’s massive problems. If Clark wins, a Bush victory is assured. Then all of our taxes will get audited and it will probably be illegal to be a Democrat anyway.[/url]

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003100.comments.html]I’ve heard that Clark has been quoted as recently saying that he would have been a Republican if Rove had only returned his phone call. [/url]

Okay, just one more…

[url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003106.comments.html]Let’s stay positive and focused on our message. Clark and Edwards are doing it and they’re gaining ground. We’ve got to stay positive to stay ahead.[/url]

Hmmm… Positive is not a style that I would normally associate with the Dean campaign.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Politics & Punditry On The Internet

Can the blogosphere really alter the tides of political campaigns? After Howard Dean’s meteoric rise from the bottom of the Democratic presidential hopeful pack to its undisputed front-runner, the blogging community supporting his campaign was given a significant amount of credit for Dean’s success.

Alexis Rice of Johns Hopkins states in his White Paper, [url=http://www.campaignsonline.org/reports/blog.pdf]The Use of Blogs in The 2004 Presidential Election [/url]that “Blogs have already become a power tool in the Democratic presidential nomination battle.” Rice goes on to say that “the leading candidate in the blogging revolution is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who, through a network of websites and blogs, created a dedicated Internet following that helped him lead all Democratic candidates in fundraising over the past two quarters.”

No doubt, campaign blogging is effective for:

1) Reaching out to potential voters
2) Enlisting others in supporting outreach efforts
3) Raising additional campaign funds

Having said this, its my humble opinion that we are we giving way too much credit to the blogging phenomenon. Yes, blogging continues to expand its sphere of influence, especially with the media; but there are as many problems with this new phenomenon as there are advantages. These limitations will quickly become apparent once the Democratic primary is concluded and the official 2004 election campaign begins.

Why do I say this? Let me ask a couple of questions first. Are Dean’s blogging efforts the only reason he raised more money than any of his Democratic rivals? Are they even the primary (no pun intended) reason? We really don’t know for sure, rather, this is all just conjecture. Perhaps Dean has raised more money than his rivals because he’s managed to craft the right message for voters within his party.

In Rice’s White Paper, he mentions that “The use of blogs has brought supporters together to form a new online community and reinvented campaign fundraising, shifting it from a few big donors to countless small donors.” I have two problems with this statement.

First of all, this is only true of Democrats. The Republican Party has, for many years, received most of its campaign donations from a host of small donors while Democrats have long been overly reliant on very large donations from a few wealthy individuals. This is why campaign finance reform hurt the DNC far more than the GOP. So, if Rice’s statement is true, it means only that Democratic candidates can finally do what Republican candidates have been doing for quite a long time.

Secondly, online political communities were already in existence well before blogging began its rise in popularity. As a matter of fact, these communities have been legion for several years now. The difference today, however, is that campaign sites are working harder to connect to those communities and harness their zeal to serve the needs of a campaign.

Furthermore, while it is true, as pointed out by Rice, that campaign blogs create an interactive and, often-times, unfiltered forum, this is not necessarily a good thing. If you visit Dean’s campaign blog, [url=http://www.blogforamerica.com]BlogForAmerica.com[/url], you will find that amongst the massive number of comments to each blog entry are plenty of examples of why you should not allow just any old person to post their comments.

Imagine for a second, if you will, a moderate voter who wants an “unfiltered” view of the Dean campaign who, upon visiting the site, reads [url=http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003080.comments.html]a recent post[/url] such as this:

With the expansion of the Blogosphere, I think it more important than ever that those who participate in this new medium understand our rights and responsibilities. While I enjoy reading blogs from college students who give us their daily updates on their life journey (I really don’t), there are a growing number of bloggers, like myself, who are here to challenge others and to be challenged with new ideas, thoughts, commentary, and debate. Hopefully, these rules, called [b][i]The Intellectual Bill of Rights[/i][/b], will prove as valuable for you as they have for me. Here they are:

Former Senator Bob Kerrey expressed optimism about the war in Iraq and said that things were “going well.” A bit of sunny optimism from a Democrat regarding the war in Iraq, who would’ve thunk it.

Here’s the full quote from the New York Sun:

SEN. BOB KERREY (D-NE): “I think [Iraq is] going well. It breaks my heart whenever anybody dies, but we liberated 25 million people who were living under a dictator. It puts us on the side of democracy in the Arab world. Twenty years from now, we’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasnÂ’t worth the effort. This is not just another democracy. This is a democracy in an Arab world …” (”Kerrey On Iraq And The Democrats,” The New York Sun, 12/29/03)

Good quote, yes? I apologize for not providing a link back to the original article, but, unfortunately, you must pay to view.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Many conservatives, including myself, have long subscribed to the belief that the mainstream and highly liberal media has been a silent but effective ally for Democrats. In recent years, however, the liberal media seems to have been doing as much harm to the Democratic Party as good.

Personally, I think the negative cycle started in 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton. The media feeding frenzy began during the campaign with allegations, which later proved true, of a long-standing extra-marital relationship between Gennifer Flowers and Clinton. Clinton denied the claim and dodged the issue as much as possible, but Americans, who have long loved a good scandal, rewarded the media’s focus on this issue with increased viewership.

Lets face it, Bill Clinton’s election as President was a godsend to mainstream media in this country. Blame Clinton’s troubles on the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” if you will, but, one way or another, the liberal media loved his outrageous behavior. Why? Because Americans tuned in en masse to read of his latest troubles. Who knows, perhaps the massive growth of Internet sites was partly due to the seemingly insatiable appetite of readers for more political dirt.

For the mainstream media, President Clinton was both ammunition as well as an icon. On the one hand, he was always getting into some kind of trouble, while; on the other hand, he reflected the liberal values that fellow liberals in the media sought to promote. So, as a result, these media liberals developed the interesting habit of patting the President on the back with one hand while slapping him in the face with the other.

Personally, I knew that, if George Bush won the 2000 election, the liberal media was going to hit hard times. President Bush was not going to produce the kind of scandals that plagued his predecessor. When that happens, the only thing left to do, then, is to make it up! And that is exactly what they have done.

Here’s the problem with that strategy… Because the Internet is such a powerful communications tool, ultra-liberal voices in the Democratic Party have gained an undue influence over the party as a whole. Most liberals in the media, as well as DNC analysts will openly admit they do not know how large the “Angry Left” of their base actually is. What they do know, however, is that their candidate, Howard Dean, is the front-runner of the party and may just be a train wreck waiting to happen should he win the nomination.

Howard Dean, the hero of the radical left, proudly proclaims that he will roll back ALL of the President’s tax cuts, raise new taxes that did not exist before, knowingly promotes rumors that the President knew of 9/11 in advance, accuses fellow Democrats of promoting war, and, in general, comes up with one outrageous quote after another.

And therein lies the heart of dilemma for liberals in the mainstream media. This kind of stuff SELLS and it boldly attacks the enemy – conservatives in general and Republicans in particular – in ways that are gratifying to those frustrated by over a decade of electoral losses, but now the mainstream’s media’s fascination with Dean seems destined to end in a train wreck for their party in 2004.

The problem is made even worse by the fact that the Internet has given voice to angry liberals through such sites as Moveon.org, which, this weekend, aired two potential television ads on its site comparing President Bush to Hitler. This is a site is funded by and claims to speak for Democrats in general, yet its radical message is very likely to push moderate Democrats out of the party altogether.

Which brings me back to my original point, that the liberal media has, in a sense, become almost a Frankenstein’s monster to the Democratic Party. They are fellow believers in the liberal worldview for sure, and interested in increasing their political power and influence, but, at the same time, they have, over the years, developed a strangely co-dependent relationship that is almost clinical in its intensity.

I can’t tell you how this will play out before November of 2004, but I do think it will be interesting to watch. I guess we’ll just have to stay tuned.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Yes my friends, the “Angry Left” has now officially become the “Insane Left.” In an ad which began running on the Moveon.org website just recently, [url=http://www.rnc.org/moveonvideo.htm]Bush is openly compared to Hitler.[/url] Its and ad which, in my opinion, makes the NAACP ad from the 2000 election, which ran in texas, look mild. If you don’t remember the ad, it was one which showed viewers what it must have looked like when James Byrd Jr., who was brutally murdered by three white supremists, was dragged from the back of his murderer’s pickup truck. As you’ll remember Mr. Byrd was chained to the back of a pickup by the men and dragged to his death. It was a shocking crime that gained national attention. Ultimately, all three men were sentenced to death for the crime, but Bush was critisized for not backing hate-crime legislation in the state after the incident and the NAACP was trying to say, basically, that Bush’s unwillingness to back such legislation made him culpable in such incidents.

But I don’t think that ad holds a candle to the new Moveon.org ad. Truly, Moveon.org, by running this ad, will only help the President win reelection next year. This kind of ad is great for driving away moderate voters, and loyal Bush/Cheney supporters are far more likely to get out and vote for their candidates when the opposition tries to use such hateful material in attempts to tear down their candidate. Lets hope that Moveon.org continues to show such material in the future.

Thanks to [url=http://polipundit.com]PoliPundit.com[/url] for this tip.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

For most parents in the US today, the reality of men and women who ruthlessly prey on little children is well understood. As a matter of fact, I pity any parent that does not have a clear understanding of this fact. More to the point, I pity the [b]children[/b] of parents who don’t understand this. It is a parent’s worse nightmare that their child should ever be taken by one of these predators and so, to help protect against that possibility, most of us who are parents watch our children like hawks, no matter where we are; even in our own homes.

As for me, a Dad with two daughters, one four years old and the other nine months old, I watch my precious girls more intently than a Secret Service agent assigned to guard the President. And my wife is even better at it than I am. She now has our four-year-old trained so that all she has to do is put three little words into the form of a question (where are you?) and our oldest will come running and will say loudly, “here I am Mommy!”

Even more impressive is the fact that Moms everywhere seem to have formed this unofficial child safety pact that I never knew a thing about until just recently. That was the day my wife, Julie, was in a children’s clothing store in our local mall and lost sight of our oldest for about ten seconds. Julie called out, no response. Then, with the slightest edge of panic in her voice, she called out again for our daughter. Immediately, every woman in the store stopped what they were doing and began looking for our daughter. Suddenly, all those moms of various ages, races, and creeds were as unified and focused as any military force preparing to do battle.

It took only about 15 or 20 seconds before a woman from the back of the store called out that she had located our daughter. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, then went back to whatever it is they were doing just seconds before, almost as if nothing had happened.

In a sense, nothing had happened. A fellow mom needed help locating her child, and the other moms responded as instantly as if it were their own child. Once the child was successfully located, they all went back to what they were doing. This extraordinary community of women acted naturally, responding in a coordinated fashion to help protect a child. When my wife told me about this incident I was, to say the least, impressed. More than that, it underscored to me one of the wonderful differences between men and women.

Do you think a bunch of guys would have reacted in the same manner if it had been a shop mostly filled with men? I think not! What you’d probably see is that the men who heard my wife’s slightly panicked call for our daughter would just continue doing what they were doing. A few fathers might slow down a bit and glance quickly around them before resuming. Maybe one or two out of a dozen might have begun to look around actively. But, unless it were their child, I don’t think the majority of men would have acted in the same coordinated way as those women did on that day.

Women, I believe, are the nuturers of society. Whether its social, biological, or both, they feel compelled to comfort and protect in a way that men do not. I’m not saying that men can’t do it, but I don’t think its a skill that comes as naturally to us. As I said earlier, I watch my kids like I were in the Secret Service, but lets say my nine-month-old takes a spill while trying to pull herself up to a standing position.

When I see this happen, my first reaction is to look and SEE if she is okay. If she is okay, then I don’t do a thing about it, except perhaps smile to reassure her that everything is okay. After all, I don’t want to weaken her by overreacting to a simple fall. I want her to sit up and try again. In my mind, she needs to learn that falls are very normal and nothing extraordinary unless, of course, you are truly injured. If she is to grow up in this difficult and, at times, unforgiving world, she must learn to pick herself up and get on about her business.

My wife on the other hand, is much more likely to gasp, or startle, or go over to comfort our kids. Friends of ours tell similar stories about the way they react to their own children. Its a style difference that, in my opinion, shows how men and women work together to both protect and teach their children.

Is one style better than another? I don’t think so. I think, rather, that the styles are complementary. On 9/11, the vast majority of those who died in the line of duty, trying desperately to save the lives of civilians who were in mortal danger, were men. They threw themselves into the fray to do their duty for their fellow citizens, putting their lives on the line as unhesitatingly as any soldier on the front lines of battle.

As a matter of fact, I’m in awe of the bravery exhibited by our uniformed men and women who protect us in the war on Terror. At the same time, the incident at the children’s clothing store served as a reminder to me that not all of society’s heroes wear a uniform. Our society is also full of what I like to call “plain-clothed” heroes. These plain-clothed heroes serve as the nuturers and cultivators of our society, and they bear the most important title of all, the title of [b]Mother[/b].

Its a fact that I’ll not soon forget.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with a sign post? I’m serious about this. Have you? Let me tell you, it’s like talking to a wall!

And this is exactly what it’s like to debate most Bush-hating liberals… The only difference being the fact that sign posts and walls don’t try to drown you out by chanting mindless mantras such as, “no blood for oil,” or “Bush’s war!”

I’m SO used to hearing the same arguments from these folks that, these days, I just carry around a mini-cassette recorder with me so that I can just pull out a taped response so that I don’t have to bother going through everything yet again. Okay, so I’m not being quite truthful here… Its actually an MP3 player and I cycle through my pre-recorded responses.
>> Read more