Easter Cluster Bomb Hunt

In spite of the weather being more befitting the Christmas season than springtime, the annual White House Easter Egg Roll went on as scheduled.

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of kids dressed for winter weather scrambled for eggs — Easter eggs, that is — at a White House ceremony dating back to the 19th century

The annual White House Easter Egg Roll, started by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, typically has been a rite of spring in Washington. But on Monday, it was afflicted by winter's parting bite — cold air and even colder grounds. Undaunted by any of this, the young guests sprang into action under the watchful eyes of their families, hostess Laura Bush and several Bush administration Cabinet secretaries.

"In Washington, we know spring has arrived when the White House lawn is filled with children for the Easter Egg Roll, one of the happiest traditions here at the White House," the first lady said.

Did you think this White House event for children, "one of the happiest traditions," could take place without someone exploiting it?

Last year, the event was targeted as by gay activists.

This year, the bombing of children was on the political agenda.

Across from the White House, meanwhile, a handful of activists at Lafayette Park hunted for brightly colored tennis balls in an alternative "Easter cluster bomb hunt," intended to dramatize the fact that many areas of the globe, such as South Lebanon, are not safe for children because of persistent fighting and unexploded munitions.

"What we're really trying to get across is that all children should be able to have fun like this and not be worried about getting blown up," said Brian Hennessey, from the Vineeta Foundation, one of the organizers.

Do a handful of activists even warrant a mention in this report on the Egg Roll?

Over 18,000 tickets were distributed for the White House event. I'm sure that the vast majority of the children and parents in attendance didn't catch a glimpse of the "Easter cluster bomb hunt."

That's a good thing.

Why politicize such a happy event?

Anti-American Rallies in Iraq

Large "Anti-American" rallies was held in Iraq, marking four years since the fall of Baghdad.

I don't think Jane Fonda or Sean Penn were there. I don't think CODEPINK was involved in organizing the rallies, but I could be wrong.

BAGHDAD -- Thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall.

The rally was called for by powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government.

A day earlier, the renegade cleric issued a statement ordering his militiamen to redouble their battle to oust American forces and argued that Iraq's army and police should join him in defeating "your archenemy."

On Monday, thousands of demonstrators marched from Kufa to neighboring Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route.

Some at the rally waved small Iraqi flags; others hoisted up a giant flag 10 yards long.

Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."

...Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.

In a statement distributed in Najaf on Sunday, al-Sadr called on Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with America.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said.

He urged his followers not to attack fellow Iraqis but to turn all their efforts on American forces.

"God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them — not against the sons of Iraq," it said.

Al-Sadr needs to have an It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey-type experience.

He needs to think abou what life in Iraq would be like for Shiites if the U.S. had never removed Saddam Hussein.

Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.

In a statement distributed in Najaf on Sunday, al-Sadr called on Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with America.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said.

He urged his followers not to attack fellow Iraqis but to turn all their efforts on American forces.

"God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them — not against the sons of Iraq," it said.

Kind of ironic that the "archenemy" Americans freed the Shiites from Saddam's tyrany, isn't it?


It was four years ago that Iraqis were hitting the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes.

Paul Wood writes, April 9, 2004:

It was hard to maintain journalistic objectivity in those circumstances. It was impossible not to get swept up in the overwhelming joy of a newly free people.

Saddam's 25 year death grip over Iraq had been broken; the suffocating sense of fear had been lifted.

In conversations later that evening, there were the first hints of the troubles the Americans are now facing in Iraq.

In remarkably similar terms one man, a Sunni, and another, a Shia, both thanked the US for getting rid of Saddam, but warned the Americans not to stay too long.

But in the crowd that afternoon, there was another roar of celebration as Saddam's head was broken clean off.

It was wrapped in chains and dragged towards me. I scrambled to get the BBC's expensive satellite phone antennae out of the way. Saddam's head missed it by an inch.

Iraq has turned out to be more complicated than the Americans ever thought. But the final glimpse I had of Saddam's statue was a simple, clear and unambiguous image of the new freedoms Iraqis were enjoying.

Saddam's head was scraping and bouncing across the tarmac of Saddoun Street, dragged in chains by four of five men.

A small boy was bending double to strike it with his shoe every step of the way. Then they all disappeared from sight.

Now, four years later, Iraqis are giving our flag the shoe treatment.

A question for those Iraqis: Who is responsible for ending Saddam Hussein's reign of terror?

Credibility and Iran's Propaganda War

Iran has fired shots back at the United Kingdom in its propaganda war over the treatment of the 15 British sailors and marines while they were held in captivity.

Iran airs new video on UK sailors

Iran state television has broadcast video showing the recently freed British navy crew playing games, chatting, laughing and watching television during their captivity.

Tehran said the footage shown on Sunday refuted claims made by the soldiers two days earlier that they had been mistreated.

The crew said they had been blindfolded, isolated in cold stone cells, tricked into fearing execution, and coerced into falsely saying they had entered Iranian waters.

The video clips, which were briefly aired on Iran's state-run Arabic satellite channel Al-Alam, showed several of the sailors and marines dressed in track suits playing chess and table tennis, laughing and chatting.

Other short clips showed them watching football on television and eating at a long dining table that had vases filled with flowers on it.

The newscaster said the video proved "the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain".

Yes, the video proves that the Brits are lying.

Right.

...Lieutenant Felix Carman, one of the crew members captured on March 23, said they were rarely allowed to socialise and when they were, it was for the benefit of the Iranian media.

"We were kept in isolation until the last few nights, when we were allowed to get together for a few hours, in the full glare of the Iranian media," Carman said at a news conference on Friday.

"But that was very much a setup, very much a stunt for Iranian propaganda."

In the video broadcast on Sunday, Carman could be seen wearing a business suit and smiling at the camera.

It's too bad the Iranians didn't capture any video images of Faye Turney being measured for her coffin.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The only woman among 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran said in an interview published on Monday she had been asked how she felt about dying for her country and feared she was being measured for a coffin.

Faye Turney told Britain's top-selling Sun tabloid in her first interview since the 15 were released by Iran on Thursday after 13 days in detention that she was threatened with years in prison as a spy unless she did what her captors wanted.

Turney said one morning she heard wood being sawn and nails hammered near her cell and a woman measured her with a tape. "I was convinced they were making my coffin," she told The Sun.

The 25-year-old sailor, a mother with a 3-year-old daughter, said she was kept in isolation for five days and was asked by an Iranian official how she felt about dying for her country. When captured, she feared she could be raped, The Sun said.

What was that? Iran's "coffin measurement" game?

I think it's interesting that Iran felt the need to fire back in response to the comments the former hostages have been making.

Iranian officials obviously weren't comfortable with the discrepancies in the stories of what really happened.

It also could be that they don't want anything at all to distract from Iran's national nuclear day.

Election 2008: Chickenhawks and Doves

chicken hawk
n.

Informal A person who favors military force or action to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military.

One of the Left's favorite comebacks to slam supporters of the War on Terror, and specifically the war in Iraq, is to cry, "Chickenhawk!"

It's a silly moniker.

Never having served in the military shouldn't prohibit one from having an opinion on foreign policy involving military force.

It's particularly stupid for the Left to rely on the chickenhawk defense since so many of the Democrats have never been in the military.

Accordingly, all those Dems would not be entitled to wield the powers of the presidency. They'd have to forfeit the responsibilities of commander-in-chief.

The Associated Press points out that most of the 2008 presidential candidates lack military service.

WASHINGTON -- The 2008 presidential campaign is long on war rhetoric and short on warriors.

Despite the high-profile roles of the battle against terrorism and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the presidential campaign, few of the candidates can claim military experience on their resumes.

Of the top tier of 2008 candidates, only Republican John McCain has been to war and served in uniform.

Yet, while the demand for a president with a military background might be expected to run high in the post-Sept. 11 era, few see that as a determining factor in the 2008 race.

...Polls indicate that while having a military background can be helpful to presidential candidates, a majority of adults don't see it as essential. Many people say candidates who've served as a governor, member of Congress or business executive are better prepared for the Oval Office than a general or admiral.

More broadly, an AP-Ipsos poll last month indicates leadership traits or experience are far less important to voters than character attributes such as honesty.

The 2008 lineup of candidates also makes clear that a new generation of political leaders has stepped forward, some too young to have been eligible for the Vietnam-era draft. Beyond that, fatigue with the Iraq war may have dulled the appetite for a warrior in the White House.

That doesn't make sense -- "fatigue with the Iraq war may have dulled the appetite for a warrior in the White House."

Fatigue with Iraq wasn't a factor when Bill Clinton was elected.

Fatigue with Iraq didn't play into Bush's 2000 election defeat of Al Gore, a military journalist for five months in Vietnam.

Moreover, I thought Bush wasn't a warrior. Didn't CBS try to concoct evidence to prove that. How can Bush be seen as warrior when the lib media have spent years saying that his military service is irrelevant or nonexistent?

It's clear that people don't think it's necessary for one to have seen combat or have been in a war zone to become president.

Here's a rundown of the 2008 candidates and their military service, or their reasons for not serving:

Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft.

Among the other candidates in the Democratic race, Sen. Chris Dodd, 62, of Connecticut, served in the Army Reserve from 1969 to 1975. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico received student and medical classifications that probably spared him from service in Vietnam, including one for a deviated septum. Richardson had a draft lottery number of 131 in 1970, a year when men with numbers as high as 195 were called.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 64, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 60, also had medical conditions that kept them from serving in Vietnam.

Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.

Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 60, received a draft deferment while serving as a Mormon missionary in France during the war. He was eligible for the draft later, but was not selected. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, 50, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 51, came of age after the draft ended in 1973. Neither has military experience.

Another Republican, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, received student deferments. He was available for service in 1969, but was reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety.

On the other hand, longshot GOP hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter 58, who describes himself as "the national security candidate," was an Army paratrooper and Ranger in the Vietnam War and has a personal connection to the Iraq war. His son, a Marine, has completed two tours of duty there.

Obama is too young to have served in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have volunteered to serve his country.

Edwards' draft number was never called. That didn't keep him from volunteering.

As a woman, Hillary Clinton didn't need to dodge the draft the way her husband did. She wasn't expected to serve, but she could have volunteered.

Other candidates had medical excuses or got deferments.

The AP notes:

President George W. Bush's National Guard duty helped keep him out of Vietnam, yet he defeated three veterans of that conflict — McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries, Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and Democrat John Kerry in 2004.

Bush didn't go to Vietnam, but he did serve. That's more than what many candidates of his era did. I think that's worth noting.

This chickenhawk thing bugs me.

Libs will say that the chickenhawk label isn't applicable to Obama because he didn't support the war in Iraq. He's not being hypocritical. Some libs give Edwards and Clinton a pass because they've apologized or distanced themselves from the war. They'd be classified as recovering hypocrites, I suppose.

For a moment, let's say that's valid. They aren't chickenhawks because they are pushing a cut and run strategy. They aren't supporting military action in Iraq so there's no disingenuousness there.

Now let's say that one of them (God forbid) did become president and sent troops into battle.

Such a president would by definition be a chickenhawk.

If a president hasn't served in the military, does it follow that he or she cannot fulfill the duties of commander-in-chief and make the difficult decision to send troops into harm's way?

That's what libs suggest, at least when it comes to President Bush and Republicans.

Would a President Obama or Edwards or Hillary Clinton vow to not call the U.S. military into service simply because they never served?

Would they fail to defend liberty and protect the nation because they have no personal military background?

If that's the case, then a prerequisite for running for president would have to be a record of military service.

The bottom line: This chickenhawk crap that the Left has been flinging at President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others in the administration for years is ridiculous.

Spinning the Pope's Easter Message

Read the complete text of the Pope's Easter message.

It's not very long.

If you rely on the lib media's accounts, you'd think his Easter message focused mainly on the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You might get that impression from looking at the captions accompanying photos from lib media outlets, too.

The caption from a Reuters photo, for example, cherry picks a specific agenda out of the Pope's address.

Pope Benedict XVI delivers the Easter 'Urbi et Orbi' (to the city and the world) benediction in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican April 8, 2007. Pope Benedict, in his Easter message, made an impassioned call for world peace on Sunday that lamented the 'continual slaughter' in Iraq and the growing unrest in Afghanistan. (Osservatore Romano/Reuters)

Look at the headline for this Associated Press article.



Yes, the Pope cites the "slaughter" in Iraq, but he mentions the country once. The same goes for Afghanistan. Why stress those two places?

The headlines and the captions could have just as easily focused on the Pope mourning conditions in Darfur, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Somalia, or Zimbabwe, or East Timor, or Sri Lanka, or Lebanon.

Although the AP does acknowledge that the Pope cited several regions around the world plagued by violence and bloodshed, there's no question that Iraq and Afghanistan are given greater emphasis.

VATICAN CITY -- On Christianity's most joyous day, Pope Benedict XVI lamented the "continual slaughter" in Iraq and unrest in Afghanistan as he denounced violence in the name of religion.

In his message for Easter, Benedict said suffering worldwide puts faith to the test.

"How many wounds, how much suffering there is in the world," the pontiff told tens of thousands of pilgrims, tourists and Romans gathered Sunday at St. Peter's Square where he had just finished celebrating Mass.

Benedict, delivering his traditional "Urbi et Orbi" Easter address from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, denounced terrorism and kidnappings, and "the thousand faces of violence which some people attempt to justify in the name of religion," as well as human rights violations.

"Afghanistan is marked by growing unrest and instability," Benedict said. "In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, unfortunately, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."

..."Suffering, evil, injustice, death, especially when it strikes the innocent such as children who are victims of war and terrorism, of sickness and hunger, does not all of this put our faith to the test?"

In contrast to his sorrowful address were the bright red, pink, yellow and orange splashes of color from flowers which adorned the steps of the basilica and surrounded the outdoor altar where he celebrated Mass under hazy sunshine.

The Pope delivered a "sorrowful address"?

Really?

Although he pointed out the horrible suffering in the world, the Pope's message was about hope, not sorrow.

He said that Christ is alive and among us. He gives us hope for a better future.

That doesn't sound sorrowful to me.

The Pope's Easter message is one of peace and joy, as promised in Christ's Resurrection.

United to him and ready to offer our lives for our brothers (cf. 1 John 3:16), let us become apostles of peace, messengers of a joy that do not fear pain, the joy of the Resurrection. May Mary, Mother of the Risen Christ, obtain for us this Easter gift. Happy Easter to you all.

Happy Easter

Easter Sunday
The Resurrection of the Lord

Gospel
Jn 20:1-9

On the first day of the week,
Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning,
while it was still dark,
and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
So she ran and went to Simon Peter
and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them,
“They have taken the Lord from the tomb,
and we don’t know where they put him.”
So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.
They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter
and arrived at the tomb first;
he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in.
When Simon Peter arrived after him,
he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there,
and the cloth that had covered his head,
not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.
Then the other disciple also went in,
the one who had arrived at the tomb first,
and he saw and believed.
For they did not yet understand the Scripture
that he had to rise from the dead.

Easter Vigil

After sundown on Saturday, Pope Benedict celebrated the Easter Vigil.

Catholics all over the world attend this beautiful first Mass of Easter, celebrating Jesus' Resurrection.

Whether in Rome or in Wisconsin, the Easter Vigil in the Holy Night of Easter is the same -- the universal Church.

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI baptized eight people during a candlelit Easter Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica early Sunday, opening the most important event of the Christian Church calendar.

Benedict started the Mass by blessing a large white candle and carrying it down the main aisle of the darkened basilica. Slowly, the twinkle of candlelight lit up the entire basilica as the faithful shared the lone flame.

The Church considers the period between Good Friday, which commemorates Jesus' crucifixion, and Easter Sunday, which marks his resurrection, as the most important of all vigils.

"In the resurrection of Jesus, love has been shown to be stronger than death, stronger than evil," Benedict said during his homily.

He baptized six adults and two children — part of the joyful renewal Christians associate with Easter.

"Baptism is more than a bath, a purification. It is more than becoming part of a community," Benedict said. "It is a new birth. A new beginning in life."

Applause rang out in the basilica after the eight were blessed with holy water. One of the baptized children, a little boy, wiped the water from his eyes as he sucked on a lollipop.

Benedict, who turns 80 later this month, appeared to tire by the end of Mass, which lasted more than two hours and capped a busy Holy Week. On Good Friday, Benedict presided over long back-to-back public ceremonies — an afternoon service and a late-night Way of the Cross procession at the Colosseum to mark Jesus' suffering and death.

I wouldn't read too much into Pope Benedict appearing tired by the end of the Easter Vigil.

I attended the Easter Vigil Mass at my home parish, as I usually do. This year, it was over two and a half hours long. You don't have to be almost 80 to tire by the end of such a lengthy service.

Although long, it's very beautiful, very moving.

Just like at St. Peter's Basilica, the Easter Vigil begins in the dark, symbolizing the darkness of the world without Jesus. The priest lights the Paschal candle and that flame is passed from person to person, candle to candle, until the church is glowing with light -- hope.

Out of darkness, light.

In addition to the fire, there is the water of baptism, in which sins are washed away, new members are baptized into the Church and the faithful renew their baptismal vows.

Then, catechumens are confirmed.

They receive the Holy Eucharist for the first time.

It's a moving celebration of initiation, rebirth, and life.

Out of the sadness and death of Good Friday, comes Easter joy.

This is my faith.

Gospel
Lk 24:1-12

At daybreak on the first day of the week
the women who had come from Galilee with Jesus
took the spices they had prepared
and went to the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb;
but when they entered,
they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
While they were puzzling over this, behold,
two men in dazzling garments appeared to them.
They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground.
They said to them,
“Why do you seek the living one among the dead?
He is not here, but he has been raised.
Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee,
that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners
and be crucified, and rise on the third day.”
And they remembered his words.
Then they returned from the tomb
and announced all these things to the eleven
and to all the others.
The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James;
the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,
but their story seemed like nonsense
and they did not believe them.
But Peter got up and ran to the tomb,
bent down, and saw the burial cloths alone;
then he went home amazed at what had happened.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus and Yahoo News

I was searching Yahoo News for photos of Christians throughout the world observing Holy Saturday.

I also did a search on Pope Benedict.

Then, I did the same for "Jesus."

Yahoo offers these suggestions to ALSO TRY:



A lot of people apparently are looking for the Chocolate Jesus during these Holy Days for Christians.

Earlier today, "Most Viewed Slideshows" included this:



There was something very odd about that.

I'm not surprised "'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' Documentary" ranked as a "most viewed slideshow." What did surprise me was that the photos were all from Holy Week 2007, images of the faithful.

What does that have to do with James Cameron's "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" documentary?

I don't see the connection.

Is it a not too subtle slam on Christians?

As Christians observe their highest Holy Days, attacks on the faith and the faithful are everywhere.

From The Baltimore Examiner:

This Sunday, hundreds of millions of Christians will celebrate their holiest day of the year. Easter is the day that Christians all over the world celebrate their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus was violently executed on a Roman cross on a day that has become known as “Good Friday,” and that he bodily rose from the dead on Easter Sunday

The Apostle Paul wrote, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” Recently, the Discovery Channel made a startling announcement, which if proven true, would undermine this central tenet of Christianity.

“New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family,” reported Jennifer Viegas, of Discovery News.

In a widely publicized television special, producer James Cameron, famed for the movie “Titanic,” asked viewers to believe that Jesus bones had been found, that he was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they had a son together named Judah.

...The producers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” knew that by “proving” Jesus body was still in his grave, their show would generate a great deal of controversy. Scholars from both inside and outside of Christianity have lined up to debunk the purported science that Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici unveiled on their show.

The “new” discovery of the tomb actually took place on March 28, 1980. A construction crew was preparing to build an apartment complex in Talpiot, Jerusalem, when they uncovered an ancient tomb. Archaeologists from the Israeli Antiquities Authority were called to the site and the tomb was excavated.

Inside the tomb were 10 ossuaries, small boxes made from stone that were used to hold collected bone fragments. The burial practice of the day called for the deceased to be wrapped in cloth — a “shroud” — and after a year, the tomb was re-entered and their bones placed in an ossuary.

Frequently, the ossuaries were labeled with the name of the deceased. The Aramaic inscription on one of the bone boxes found in the Talpiot tomb was “Jesus” and two others had a form of the name “Mary.” From these inscriptions, the filmmakers built the rest of their story. They employed DNA to “prove” that the Jesus and Mary in the tomb were not related — and concluded they were married. They employed questionable calculations to suggest that it was a statistical certainty that this Jesus and this Mary were the biblical figures. Their attempt to create proof from assumptions has been widely criticized.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land is not convinced that the name "Jesus" on the stone box was read correctly because ancient Semitic script is difficult to decipher. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site is quick to point out that the names on the boxes are the most common of all names among Jewish people of that time.

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary has demonstrated that the inscription that allegedly identifies the remains of Mary Magdalene is actually three Greek words that should be translated Mary the Master, a title with no connection to the biblical Mary. Biblical archaeologists and scholars from many fields have lined up to say that the cable channel, which bills itself as “the number-one nonfiction media company,” missed the mark this time.

This Easter, despite the Discovery Channel show, most Christians will continue to believe that if Jesus' tomb is ever discovered, it will be empty.

To be fair, this article calls into question the "Lost Tomb" findings.

It does conclude that despite what the almighty Discovery Channel show professed, Christians are going ahead with their Easter celebrations anyway.

I question why this old story of Cameron's documentary would be dug up and highlighted on Holy Saturday.

Also today, also from The Baltimore Examiner, is an article about the Shroud of Turin being fake.

The Baltimore Examiner has spent Holy Week publishing articles calling the foundations of Christianity into question, as have other publications.

Every year it's the same.

Holy Week is the time for all good mainstrean media outlets to assault Christianity.

The Brits: True Confessions

While in Iranian custody, the televised remarks of the British sailors and marines were strikingly different from the stories the released hostages told on Friday, safely back in the U.K.

In Iran:

Nathan Thomas Summer: Since we were arrested on March 23, 2007, everything has been OK and I am quite satisfied with the current conditions. Over the past days, Iranian forces have shown us a very friendly and good behavior and no ill treatment has been observed.

We trespassed without permission. (Summers added he knew that Iran had seized British military personnel who strayed into their waters three years ago.)
This happened back in 2004 and our government said that it wouldn't happen again. And, again, I deeply apologize for entering your waters.

Faye Turney: "My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate.

Chris Air: We’ve been treated very well and we thank you for that.

Felix Carman: I’d like to say to the Iranian people, I can understand why you are so angry about our intrusion into your waters.

Iranian president Mr. Nice Guy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad patted himself on the back for treating the Brits so wonderfully. He even conveyed his hope that Tony Blair wouldn't prosecute them for telling the truth.

What a thoughtful guy!

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
Read what some of the hostages had to say about their time in captivity.

Felix Carman: On arrival at a small Iranian naval base we were blindfolded, stripped of all our kit and led to a room where I declared myself as the officer in charge and was introduced to their local commander.

Two hours later, we were moved to a second location and throughout the night were subjected to random interrogation.

The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that.

The following morning, we were flown to Tehran and transported to a prison - where the atmosphere changed completely.

We were blindfolded, our hands were bound, we were forced up against the wall. Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.

Later, we were stripped and dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells approximately 8ft by 6ft, sleeping on piles of blankets.

All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options.

If we admitted we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison.

We all, at one time or another, made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of non-operational information.

Joe Tindell: We thought we were going to the British embassy but we got taken to a detention centre, all 15 of us.

We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote, 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'.

After that comment, someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut.

From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo and then stuffed into a cell and didn't see or speak to anyone for six days.

Chris Air: [Faye Turney] was separated from us as soon as we arrived in Teheran in the detention centre, and isolated in a cell well away from any of us.

She was told shortly afterwards that we'd all been returned home, and was under the impression for about four days that she was the only one there.

So clearly, she was subjected to quite a lot of stress that we, fortunately, didn't know about, and we weren't subjected to ourselves.

She coped admirably and retained a lot of dignity.

Clearly, the British sailors and marines were not treated well by the Iranians. Their captors weren't friendly and compassionate. The Brits' televised confessions and their praise for the Iranians were made under duress.

ROYAL MARINE BASE CHIVENOR, England -- British sailors and marines held captive in Tehran for nearly two weeks were blindfolded, bound and forced against a wall as guards cocked weapons, members of the freed crew said.

Their confessions to entering Iranian waters were coerced, and their smiles for state television were a propaganda stunt, they said in interviews Friday and at a news conference at barracks in southern England.

The 15 sailors and marines, who were freed Thursday and reunited with family, faced constant psychological pressure and the threat of up to seven years in prison if they did not say they strayed into Iranian waters, members of the crew said.

"At some points I did have fears that we would not survive," Operator Maintainer Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest sailor among the crew, told The Associated Press in an interview.

The hostages faced "constant psychological pressure" and were threatened.

Yes, those Iranians are such gracious hosts!

By the way, has the Great Satan U.S. made propaganda videos of detainees and broadcast the footage globally?

That would be NO.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's office refused to comment on the claims the sailors made about conditions in Iran, but the White House said the allegations of ill-treatment were disappointing.

What's the deal? Obviously, there was one.

Blair must have agreed to keep his comments to a minimum or stay mum altogether.

It seems a betrayal of sorts for Blair to fail to acknowledge the hostages' revelations.

At least the White House spoke out.

"If what they described is accurate, then that would not seem to be appropriate behavior and action," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. He said it would be "unfortunate and extremely disappointing" if the sailors had been "treated inappropriately in any way."

Johndroe's statement hinges on "if."

He's criticizing the Iranians without directly accusing them of wrong-doing.

Pretty wimpy.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the Britons' release on Wednesday, which suggested Iran's hard-line leadership had decided it had shown its strength, but did not want to push the standoff too far.

However, Iran never got the public apology it sought for the crew's purported entry into Iranian waters. Britain insists it never offered a deal and said the crew never entered Iranian territory.

Iran's official Al-Alam television broadcast parts of the news conference, but without sound — a newscaster said the Britons had "retreated from their confessions."

"They made statements completely different from what they had said in Iran and claimed that they were in Iraqi waters when detained," the TV newsreader said.

An unidentified in-house "political analyst," called the sailors' news conference "a show."

"British military officials dictated it," said the analyst, who spoke to TV by telephone and was identified only by his family name, Zaraei.

A conspiracy!

Has Rosie O'Donnell weighed in on this?

Does she buy the Iranians' story that British officials told the sailors what to say, that they were pressured into retreating from the confessions they made in Iran?

It wouldn't surprise me.

This relatively brief hostage situation reveals with absolute certitude that Ahmadinejad and his regime are dangerous thugs and willing to take the West to the brink.

It shows that there are Americans eager to believe that the U.S. cooked up the crisis to justify military action against Iran.

It shows that Tony Blair's backbone isn't as strong as it once seemed.

Maybe most disturbing of all-- The Iranians can hold the world hostage with impunity.

Not good.

Good Friday

Good Friday of the Lord’s Passion

Gospel
Jn 18:1—19:42

Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley
to where there was a garden,
into which he and his disciples entered.
Judas his betrayer also knew the place,
because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.
So Judas got a band of soldiers and guards
from the chief priests and the Pharisees
and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him,
went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?”
They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.”
He said to them, “I AM.”
Judas his betrayer was also with them.
When he said to them, “I AM, “
they turned away and fell to the ground.
So he again asked them,
“Whom are you looking for?”
They said, “Jesus the Nazorean.”
Jesus answered,
“I told you that I AM.
So if you are looking for me, let these men go.”
This was to fulfill what he had said,
“I have not lost any of those you gave me.”
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it,
struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear.
The slave’s name was Malchus.
Jesus said to Peter,
“Put your sword into its scabbard.
Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?”

So the band of soldiers, the tribune, and the Jewish guards seized Jesus,
bound him, and brought him to Annas first.
He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas,
who was high priest that year.
It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews
that it was better that one man should die rather than the people.

Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus.
Now the other disciple was known to the high priest,
and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
But Peter stood at the gate outside.
So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest,

went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.
Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter,
“You are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?”
He said, “I am not.”
Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire
that they had made, because it was cold,
and were warming themselves.
Peter was also standing there keeping warm.

The high priest questioned Jesus
about his disciples and about his doctrine.
Jesus answered him,
“I have spoken publicly to the world.
I have always taught in a synagogue
or in the temple area where all the Jews gather,
and in secret I have said nothing. Why ask me?
Ask those who heard me what I said to them.
They know what I said.”
When he had said this,
one of the temple guards standing there struck Jesus and said,
“Is this the way you answer the high priest?”
Jesus answered him,
“If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong;
but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”
Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm.
And they said to him,
“You are not one of his disciples, are you?”
He denied it and said,
“I am not.”
One of the slaves of the high priest,
a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said,
“Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?”
Again Peter denied it.
And immediately the cock crowed.

Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium.
It was morning.
And they themselves did not enter the praetorium,
in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover.
So Pilate came out to them and said,
“What charge do you bring against this man?”
They answered and said to him,
“If he were not a criminal,
we would not have handed him over to you.”
At this, Pilate said to them,
“Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.”
The Jews answered him,
“We do not have the right to execute anyone, “

in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled
that he said indicating the kind of death he would die.
So Pilate went back into the praetorium
and summoned Jesus and said to him,
“Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus answered,
“Do you say this on your own
or have others told you about me?”
Pilate answered,
“I am not a Jew, am I?
Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me.
What have you done?”
Jesus answered,
“My kingdom does not belong to this world.
If my kingdom did belong to this world,
my attendants would be fighting
to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.
But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”
So Pilate said to him,
“Then you are a king?”
Jesus answered,
“You say I am a king.
For this I was born and for this I came into the world,
to testify to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

When he had said this,
he again went out to the Jews and said to them,
“I find no guilt in him.
But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover.
Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
They cried out again,
“Not this one but Barabbas!”
Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged.
And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head,
and clothed him in a purple cloak,
and they came to him and said,
“Hail, King of the Jews!”
And they struck him repeatedly.
Once more Pilate went out and said to them,
“Look, I am bringing him out to you,
so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.”
So Jesus came out,
wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak.
And he said to them, “Behold, the man!”
When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out,
“Crucify him, crucify him!”

Pilate said to them,
“Take him yourselves and crucify him.
I find no guilt in him.”
The Jews answered,
“We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die,
because he made himself the Son of God.”
Now when Pilate heard this statement,
he became even more afraid,
and went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus,
“Where are you from?”
Jesus did not answer him.
So Pilate said to him,
“Do you not speak to me?
Do you not know that I have power to release you
and I have power to crucify you?”
Jesus answered him,
“You would have no power over me
if it had not been given to you from above.
For this reason the one who handed me over to you
has the greater sin.”
Consequently, Pilate tried to release him; but the Jews cried out,
“If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar.
Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus out
and seated him on the judge’s bench
in the place called Stone Pavement, in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon.
And he said to the Jews,
“Behold, your king!”
They cried out,
“Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!”
Pilate said to them,
“Shall I crucify your king?”
The chief priests answered,
“We have no king but Caesar.”
Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus, and, carrying the cross himself,
he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull,
in Hebrew, Golgotha.
There they crucified him, and with him two others,
one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.
Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross.
It read,
“Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription,
because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;
and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,

“Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’
but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews’.”
Pilate answered,
“What I have written, I have written.”

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus,
they took his clothes and divided them into four shares,
a share for each soldier.
They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless,
woven in one piece from the top down.
So they said to one another,
“Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be,"
in order that the passage of Scripture might be fulfilled that says:
They divided my garments among them,
and for my vesture they cast lots.
This is what the soldiers did.
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother
and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas,
and Mary of Magdala.
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved
he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
Then he said to the disciple,
“Behold, your mother.”
And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

After this, aware that everything was now finished,
in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled,
Jesus said, “I thirst.”
There was a vessel filled with common wine.
So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop
and put it up to his mouth.
When Jesus had taken the wine, he said,
“It is finished.”
And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

Here all kneel and pause for a short time.

Now since it was preparation day,
in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath,
for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one,
the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken
and that they be taken down.
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first
and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.
But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead,
they did not break his legs,
but one soldier thrust his lance into his side,
and immediately blood and water flowed out.
An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true;
he knows that he is speaking the truth,
so that you also may come to believe.
For this happened so that the Scripture passage might be fulfilled:
Not a bone of it will be broken.
And again another passage says:
They will look upon him whom they have pierced.

After this, Joseph of Arimathea,
secretly a disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews,
asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus.
And Pilate permitted it.
So he came and took his body.
Nicodemus, the one who had first come to him at night,
also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes
weighing about one hundred pounds.
They took the body of Jesus
and bound it with burial cloths along with the spices,
according to the Jewish burial custom.
Now in the place where he had been crucified there was a garden,
and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been buried.
So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day;
for the tomb was close by.

Gingrich In Search of Himself

The headline for the Associated Press article is "Gingrich seeks candidate with solutions."

Gee, do you think that the candidate Gingrich is looking for might be himself?

The odds are very good that Gingrich's search for the perfect candidate will inevitably lead straight to the man in the mirror.

Is there any other scenario?

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich wants somebody running for president — maybe himself — to embrace his solutions to the nation's problems.

He's not thinking about a presidential campaign now, Gingrich insists. Instead, the former House speaker is busy creating ideas, his stock and trade since leaving Congress.

"After Sept. 29, we'll look," Gingrich said in an interview. "I'm hopeful a number of these ideas are so obviously popular that people will just adopt them."

Gingrich is planning Internet-based workshops on Sept. 27 and 29, inviting officials from every level of elective office — more than half a million people — to learn about his proposed solutions.

He is seeking change on a tremendous scale, similar to the economic and social reforms of the Progressive Movement at the turn of the 20th century.

He wants the Contract With America on steroids.

I don't think anyone in the current field of Republican candidates will completely embrace Gingrich's agenda.

"Multiply [the 1994 Contract With America] times 50, and you'll have some idea of the depth and scale of what we want to accomplish," Gingrich said. "What we're trying to do is bring public service and public solutions into the 21st century information age, and so it's very parallel to the Progressive Movement."

...For the next six months, Gingrich will be offering ideas to Republicans and Democrats alike in hopes they will adopt his vision. His advice isn't limited to the current crop of White House hopefuls; Gingrich plans to debate Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, on global warming next week.

Along broad themes, he seeks to govern from the right, modernize government and bloated businesses, and defend the United States against foreign adversaries.

...Among his proposals is establishing patriotic education for children and immigrants, including making English the language of American government and keeping "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as part of an effort to "re-center" the U.S. on God.

...Other ideas: transforming Social Security into personal savings accounts, reducing lawsuits, simplifying the tax code, pushing Americans to excel at math and science, posting the cost and quality of health care at hospitals and other medical facilities, and investing in "scientific revolution," particularly in energy, space and the environment.

If a candidate embraces his ideas, Gingrich said, "then I won't run, because there won't be any reason for me to."

It's silly of Gingrich to dance around like this.

No candidate will adopt his plans in a manner that would satisfy Gingrich.

Why not come out and announce his candidacy now? Cut to the chase.

Toying with running is annoying. Gingrich should either get in the race or let it go.

Enough of the theatrics.

Milwaukee Police Chief Hegerty's Prediction

What's a police chief to do when she thinks she's doing a great job and the public has a different opinion?

Hold a news conference .

That's what Milwaukee Police Chief Nan Hegerty did yesterday.

The bottom line: She told citizens they are wrong to think crime in Milwaukee is out of control. She predicts that violent crime rates will drop in 2007.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Milwaukee Police Chief Nannette Hegerty on Thursday predicted a reduction in violent crime this year compared with 2006, when it was up 29% over 2005.

Hegerty said her department will soon unveil more details about a plan to saturate some of the city's most violent neighborhoods this summer with officers. In the meantime, she is working to get the word out on initiatives that have already increased arrests and taken more guns off the streets.

She spoke at a news conference meant to close what she said is a disconnect between the public perception and the work her officers are doing daily. Her presentation came a week after aldermen at a committee meeting suggested the public needed more information on crime-fighting strategies, and one alderman presented his own plan for controlling crime.

"The Milwaukee Police Department is in fact doing the work that the public wants us to do," Hegerty said. "This talk of plans or lack of plans is confusing to the public. The Milwaukee Police Department has a plan. The plan has been shared with the Common Council. The plan has been shared with the members of the Police Department and it is a plan that is working."

Hegerty has every right to defend her record. She should commend the police officers for their successes and there have been successes worth mentioning.

But--

It's ridiculous for Hegerty to suggest that the real problem is the public's misperception of crime in the city, that people don't have an accurate picture of the situation.

City residents see what's happening in their neighborhoods.

Previously safe areas are no longer safe.

Citizens of the city are directed to this web page, Compass, to track crime where they live.

Little dots mark the crimes. It's not pretty at all.

It presents a very troubling picture.

While the MPD is doing the work I think the public wants it do, that doesn't mean that the public is satisfied with the results. The department is stretched too thin and the problem is too huge to manage.

Hegerty is kidding herself.

Ask Milwaukee residents if they would like to see more officers on the streets. Ask if they think more needs to be done to control crime.

I can't imagine anyone saying that the city is a better, safer place today than it was a year ago or the year before that.

...Ald. Tony Zielinski, who represents Bay View, which recently suffered a spree of robberies, said it is important for the public to hear about crime but also to get the information on arrests like Hegerty supplied.

He said, however, that he, too, is uncertain about the possibility of a lower crime rate, considering a high number of felons who could potentially be released into the community when their prison terms are up in 2007.

"Statistically, that doesn't bode well for Milwaukee County because of the recidivism rate" among those released, he said. "That's something that needs to be factored into the equation."

Bay View is still reeling from that robbery spree.

It was something that the people in the area hadn't experienced before.

And Hegerty comes out to say that she thinks there will be a reduction in violent crime this year?

Talk about a disconnect!

Pelosi Train Wreck

Nancy Pelosi has screwed up royally.

Yesterday, when she flew to Damascus to cozy up to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, I said Pelosi disgraced herself and the Democrat Party.

Her trip most definitely has backfired. Instead of embarrassing President Bush, she became the embarrassment.

CNN reported:

Syrian cabinet minister Buthayna Sha'ban expressed his support for the visit and said, "Syria stands for freedom and for peace, and so does Nancy Pelosi."

The Syrian media also praised the visit as a potential breakthrough in icy U.S.-Syrian relations, with the Syria Times calling her a "brave lady on an invaluable mission."

What a load!

"Syria stands for freedom and for peace, and so does Nancy Pelosi."

The Syrians and terrorist appeasers like Jimmy Carter applaud Pelosi but she isn't getting rave reviews across the board from her fellow libs.

The liberal propaganda promulgator Washington Post slams Pelosi in the editorial, "Pratfall in Damascus."

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ow! That has to hurt.

..."We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

Yikes! When The Post criticizes Madame Pelosi in such a humiliating fashion, you know she's made a major boo-boo.

...Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Pelosi, the fool.

The first woman Speaker of the House is deemed a buffoon.

As stinging as the criticism from Left-wing media outlets is, the rebuke from Israel is most damning to Pelosi's credibiltiy as a leader.

From The Jerusalem Post:

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

Apparently, Pelosi was so set on mugging for the media as an agent of peace that she ignored the inconvenient reality.

The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.

The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.

With all due respect to the Speaker, she has exposed herself as incompetent and a fraud. At the very least, she has to be seen as easily confused and a bad listener.

Now, Pelosi has moved on to Saudi Arabia.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Saudi Arabia's unelected advisory council Thursday, the closest thing in the kingdom to a legislature, where she tried out her counterpart's chair — a privilege no Saudi woman can have because women cannot become legislators.

Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, said she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia's lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour, but she refrained from criticizing the kingdom over it.

"It's a nice view from here," Pelosi said as she sat in the chair, facing the ornate chamber with its deep blue and yellow chairs and gilded ironwork. "This chair is very comfortable."

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who was traveling with Pelosi, looked at the gavel in front of her and quipped: "It's a small gavel, Madame Speaker. You may want to wield it."

Pelosi later sidestepped a question on how she felt about the absence of female Saudi council members, saying: "I am very pleased that after 200-plus years in the U.S. we finally have a speaker. It took us a long time."

Pelosi cuts Saudi Arabia slack for failing to grant rights to women. She rationalizes that it takes a long time.

Too bad she has no patience when it comes to the fledgling Iraqi government.

...Pelosi was welcomed at the Shura council by its head, Sheik Saleh bin Humaid, who is also the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. He placed his right hand on his chest in a traditional Arab greeting, since conservative Islamic clerics don't shake hands with women, and she returned the greeting in a similar manner.

During her meetings, Pelosi did not wear the long black robe, or abaya, and headscarf that Saudi and non-Saudi women have to wear in the kingdom. Visiting female dignitaries are not expected to wear it.

Leader Pelosi doesn't even get a handshake!

Are we supposed to be impressed because she had the nerve to forgo the abaya and headscarf?

It's interesting.

When foreigners come to our country, we're expected to adapt to their customs. When Americans go abroad, we are expected to follow their customs. Go figure.

Cultural sensitivity should be a two-way street. It's not.

I never thought I'd say this, but I can't wait for Pelosi to come back to the U.S.

Mercifully, her Middle East tour ends on Friday.

The View Sponsors

In early March, when Ann Coulter used the word "faggot" in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Left blew a gasket. A few newspapers dropped her column and advertisers abandoned her website.

Verizon, Sallie Mae, and NetBank slammed Coulter's site and chose to distance themselves from all things Coulter.

To be fair and balanced, I think it's appropriate to highlight some of the sponsors of ranting Rosie O'Donnell's forum, The View.



In terms of being controversial and offensive, O'Donnell is certainly in Coulter's league.

Read a sampling of O'Donnell's views here and here and here.

Here are the bankrollers of O'Donnell's soapbox:

By Popular Demand... Rosie Sponsor List
All Detergent
BAM Power Cleaner
Best Foods Mayonnaise
Bush’s Baked Beans
Claritin-D
Clorox
Cottonelle Toilet Tissue
Crest Whitening Rinse
Disney
Dove Ice Cream
Excedrin
Head & Shoulders Shampoo
Honey Bunches of Oats
Humira
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter
Janome Sewing Machines
Loestrin 24
M&M’s
Marshall’s
Miracle-Gro
Pepto Bismol
Pier 1 Imports
Pillsbury Toaster Strudel
Reach One Ultimate Clean Toothbrush
Scrubbing Bubbles
Sears
Stainmaster Carpet
Stanley Steemer Editor’s Note: It’s working! A Stanley Steemer representative has contacted GOPUSA to say that they are currently in the process of removing their commercials from “The View”.T.J. Maxx
Tide Laundry Detergent
Vaseline Intensive Rescue Body Lotion
Woolite
Zyrtec (Pfizer)

I don't fault Pepto Bismol for supporting The View. It makes sense for that product to be advertised in connection with O'Donnell.

(h/t RJay)

South Park: Another Holy Week Assault

The annual Holy Week Catholic bashfest is in full swing.

The War on Christianity and Christians always seems to heighten at this most holy time of year.

Michelle Malkin points out another instance.



South Park doesn't just mock Catholics in the Fantastic Easter Special, it delivers a relentless assault.

Brendan Loy gives his take on the episode.

Personally, I thought the episode was freakin’ hilarious, but then again I am very rarely offended by anything, and I certainly am not so foolish as to give an unreserved endorsement — on a blog frequented by devout Catholics — to a cartoon that shows Jesus Christ Himself, newly resurrected after a blatantly over-the-top scene showing His gory death, throwing a ninja weapon at the Pope, who is graphically hemisected, killed, and promptly replaced by a new Pope… who happens to be a rabbit.

Loy concludes:

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, you gotta give the South Park boys credit for at least one thing: they definitely don’t hold anything back. :)

It doesn't sound hilarious to me.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

People Pony Up for Obama

Barack Obama knows how to raise money.

He's Clinton good at raising cash.

MASON CITY, Iowa -- If money talks in presidential politics, Sen. Barack Obama has 25 million reasons why skeptical Democrats should start to listen.

The $25 million in campaign contributions the Illinois Democrat reported collecting in the first three months of this year was just $1 million less than rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's record haul and was a remarkable feat for a novice in national politics.

"He was the newcomer, he was the outsider, and this shows he's a serious candidate," said Ron Parker, a Democratic strategist in Iowa, home of the nation's first nominating caucuses. "It shows he can do a lot more than draw big crowds."

...Obama backers also were cheering the fact that $23.5 million of the $25 million they raised is targeted at what's shaping up to be a competitive primary fight. Clinton has not disclosed how much of her money is targeted at the primary and how much must be held for general election use, should the New York senator be the nominee.

Obama told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his fundraising reflects the growing enthusiasm for his bid.

"It indicates that people are really engaged and enthusiastic, and the crowds we've been attracting, I think, are indicative of a broad base of support across the country," Obama said just before speaking to a raucous crowd of more than 2,500 at a community college.

Obama has no shame when it comes to asking for money.



At the end of February, he told an audience in Cleveland, "I want everyone here to pony up five dollars, ten dollars for this campaign. I don't care how poor you are, you've got five dollars."

THAT'S how you make $25 million in three months.

Romney the Hunter

Here we go.

The Dems and the lib media are jumping all over this one.

Mitt Romney misled the public!

BOSTON -- In boasting about his lifelong experience as a hunter, Mitt Romney may have shot himself in the foot.

The Republican presidential contender has told audiences on several occasions, most recently this week in gun-savvy — and early voting — New Hampshire, that he has been a longtime hunter. But it turns out he has been on only two hunting trips.

Critics said it was the latest example of a White House aspirant willing to say anything to reach the Oval Office.

"Whether he's pretending to be a hunter, misleading people about loaning his campaign millions of dollars or signing a no-new-tax pledge he once mocked to hide his tax-raising record, he'll say absolutely anything to distance himself from his real record," said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

...An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life.

"Governor Romney's support for the Second Amendment doesn't come from the fact he knows how to handle a firearm; it comes from his appreciation of the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it, including the right to keep and bear arms," campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.

He went on to cite the pro-gun measures Romney signed into law while serving as governor from 2003 to this past January.

Who cares how often Romney hunts?

He did, in fact, hunt as a teenager and as an adult. That's not exactly shooting himself in the foot.

Politicians do tend to take some license when they address a crowd.

The DNC didn't mind when Barack Obama claimed that he was conceived after events in Selma brought his parents together. Of course, Obama was playing loose with the facts, given that he was born four years prior to the Selma march.

How many times has lifelong Yankees fan Hillary Clinton stretched the truth? Too many to mention.

John Edwards shot himself in the foot twice when he hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work for his campaign and then defended the vulgar, anti-Catholic bloggers after their ugliness and extremism and bigotry were exposed.

This hunting thing with Romney is not a big deal. The DNC and their mouthpieces in the lib media need to get a grip.

This doesn't begin to compare with the insincerity of Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale."

Get over it, Dems.

Making Sense of McGee

The media and the public are trying to make sense of Michael McGee, Jr.'s stunning victory in Tuesday's recall election.

In today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Editorial Board weighs in and so does columnist Eugene Kane.

The rather condescending editorial, "A time for leadership," challenges McGee to take advantage of the "second chance" he's received from 6th District voters. The Board explains that while it supported McGee's recall, there's potential for progress in the district even with McGee retaining his post as alderman.

Cynics will say the voters got what they deserve. That's not only a cheap shot but probably inaccurate. The majority of the people who voted for McGee probably did so because they honestly felt that, despite his many personal foibles and outrageous behavior, he was not only listening to them but had their interests at heart. Especially when they felt he was challenging the establishment.

As former Ald. Fred Gordon told the Journal Sentinel's Greg Borowski, rather than hurt McGee, the recall process elevated his status in the district, particularly, we'd guess, among those who feel the most disenfranchised.

Indeed, even the candidate who finished a distant second to McGee, Una Van Duvall, whom we recommended, believed McGee "has a passion for the people." We agree, and we concede he has addressed some problems in the district. But he needs to do more.

...His district has vast potential, too - from new housing in Brewers Hill to the renaissance on King Drive to the promising new Bronzeville entertainment district.

All it needs now is leadership.

In other words, McGee isn't such a bad guy. The people can't be wrong. Now it's up to McGee to not let his constituents down.

I hope McGee makes the most of his second chance, but I doubt that will involve any changes on his part.

Why would he change? He's what the people want. That was made very clear in Tuesday's election.

Is it right for the JS Editorial Board to look the other way and gloss over McGee's "personal foibles and outrageous behavior"?

Don't standards of decency and integrity matter?

Is it acceptable for a leader to call police officers "faggots"? Is it OK for him to call the former Milwaukee D.A. a "dumb ass"? Is calling for the lynching of community leader Leon Todd just business as usual?

Apparently, none of that matters because the people have spoken and the Board doesn't want to second guess the people.

The McGee victory is also the subject of Eugene Kane's column.

It should come as no surprise that Kane plays up the racial divide in Milwaukee. There's always a racial divide in Kane's world.

He writes:

If anyone needed proof there are two sides to the city of Milwaukee, look no further than Mike McGee's election night victory.

...In the spirit of the college hoops playoffs, what McGee achieved can officially be described as a blowout.

That's impressive considering all the condemnation of McGee from various sectors, including what seemed like the entire mainstream media - including this newspaper - and most major broadcast stations in town.

...For months, the often troubled tableau of McGee's personal life was detailed in the newspaper along with assorted skirmishes and court battles with opponents. Given the amount of negative publicity, it seemed unlikely McGee could survive the onslaught of a field of opponents who popped up almost immediately to challenge his incumbency.

But again, there were two sides to consider. One side of the city wasn't prepared to let the other dictate what kind of person should lead them. In my opinion, McGee didn't win as much as his opponents lost this one.

So, if you read the Journal Sentinel's editorials or listened to the screaming heads on WTMJ-AM radio or WISN-AM, you probably expected McGee to go down in flames. But if you listened to the black press and radio stations such as WNOV-AM or WMCS-AM, it's been clear for some time that many central city residents were dead set against McGee being recalled from office simply because the powers-that-be in town were fed up with his act.

Kane doesn't think much of the central city residents.

He's saying that they voted for McGee out of spite. They were automatically against the recall because the "powers-that-be" were sick of McGee. Is "powers-that-be" code for white people? Conservatives?

I'm not really sure, but I'm sure it doesn't refer to people with Kane's racially segregated mindset.

...The people scratching their heads over McGee's victory tended to underestimate his political skills, particularly in terms of galvanizing his base.... Although he's widely perceived as a loose cannon, many central city voters prefer having a hell-raiser in City Hall to the current crop of somnambulant incumbents who never seem to get all that ex[c]ited about anything.

Kane doesn't mention how he galvanizes his base.

McGee does so precisely by playing up the very divide that fuels so many of Kane's columns.

McGee has to be divisive to galvanize.

Kane's argument that a "hell-raiser" is the sort of leader that appeals to central city voters could be seen as a bit of an insult to them. A leader in the habit of using gay and racial slurs and threatening violence isn't a good sort of "hell-raiser."

Kane does go on to suggest that McGee often is a poor role model, sending his constituents the wrong message.

I'd give Kane points for that if he didn't say in his next paragraph that McGee's bad behavior is what gives him "credibility other politicians don't have."

Although Kane urges McGee to be more mature in the future, it's a very soft request.

Kane ends his column wishing that McGee could stay out of the spotlight for a while and quietly work to serve his constituents. However, he doubts that will happen.

I don't think that will happen either. And why should it?

McGee received a mandate to be the "hell-raiser" that his constituents admire, not to transform himself.

Why pretend that McGee's success in the recall may cause him to grow up a bit and act responsibly?

That's not what the people of his district want.

If they wanted those characteristics in their alderman, they would not have given McGee 64% of the vote.