The Patron Saints Of Blogging

Bloggers come from all fields, interests, and backgrounds. Hugh Hewitt gives us a tip to check out a new blog called All These Things written by saints. As a matter of fact, written by St. Nicodemus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Theresa, St. Andrew, St. Beth, St. Didymus, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Lucy, St. Philomena, St. Justin Martyr, St. Vincent of Saragossa, and St. Thomas More.

St. Thomas More explains how the compilation of such venerable persons in one blog came to be:

We’re just twelve pilgrims on the same road, heading to the same land. Our journeys have been, and remain, quite different. While we’ve been walking for some time, we’re just beginning to write about it. And, as you might discern, we’ve not done it before. All first-time bloggers. All in need of more time.

The time we do have is spent pursuing different careers, caring for different children, reading different books, enjoying different hobbies, encountering different people, and thinking about different topics. Our goal is to discuss all these things.

You’ll hear from mothers, a politician, an accountant, a missionary, a scientist, a priest, a lawyer, a teacher, a investor, a theologian, a professor, a pastor, and a diplomat. Some are in, or from, foreign lands, and the rest are spread across the U.S. Some are Orthodox, others Roman Catholic, the rest Protestants–all, however, are faithful believers. As you’ll probably notice, what binds us transcends our differences.

What a great group of folks. I wish them well. Thanks Hugh for the tip. Check out this communion of saints, you’ll be glad you did.

Bush’s Assassination Not His Cup Of Tea

I’ve stated this before but I love movies if they are comedies, musicals, romance, or even action-packed thrillers. I don’t mind going to fiction films when it’s good fiction, such as Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Lord Of The Rings, or Pirates Of The Caribbean. And I don’t even mind poor fiction like The DaVinci Code as long as it’s entertaining.

I go to movies to enjoy myself, get away from reality, not to be scared, shocked, depressed, or threatened. It’s why I don’t go to military movies like Oscar-winning Apocalypse Now or Private Ryan, movies with an agenda of blatantly lying, piece of crap, like Farenheit 9-11, or critically acclaimed movies like Sophie’s Choice. I won’t go see any of the September 11th tragedy movies – I know who the enemy is.

What is thoroughly nauseous to even be considered as entertainment is the BBC’s newest documentary being worked on that involves President Bush’s assassination. Jules Crittendon, of the Boston Herald, has an excellent analysis of the extreme left wing loonies like Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Franken, and Barbara Streisand’s ultimate wet dream.

Raise your hand if you believe in freedom of speech and a lively public debate of important issues.

Now, raise your hand if you think a feature film depicting the assassination of President Bush sounds like a thought-provoking look at the important issues of the day. Educational entertainment. A good date flick, maybe, for that hot librarian, the one with the fading “Unelect Bush Again in ’O4” bumper sticker who goes for that deep-think Brit Masterpiece Theatre stuff.

The BBC thinks so. Perhaps enviously eyeing the millions and the acclaim that self-loathing American Michael Moore’s exercise in distortion brought him, BBC’s Channel Four and BBC Director Gabriel Range are producing a “shockingly real,” “documentary-style” film that shows Bush being assassined by a Syrian at a large anti-war demonstration in Chicago.

The film is clearly highly fanciful, as anti-war demonstrations have had a hard time mustering more than a few hundred angry marchers at a time ever since their efforts to keep Saddam Hussein in power failed.

Here’s what Range told the Times of London: “The film is based on meticulous research and interviews with FBI agents and people on the other side of the war on terror.”OK, we know that FBI agents have sometimes been on the other side of the war on crime, particularly in Boston. But the other side of the war on terror, if I’m not wrong, would be Al Qaeda.

Wait a minute. I think by the “other side” he means us. Those of us who believe Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the others who want to destroy us are evil.

“It is a serious and sensitive film. There is no way it would encourage anyone to assassinate Bush and usher in Cheney’s America,” Range said.

Of course not. Not at a time when Bush is routinely called a murderer, and seemingly normal educated suburbanite Volvo drivers sport “Impeach Bush” bumper stickers, apparently believing grounds for such action exists.

But that “Cheney’s America” remark is interesting. I’m starting to get an Oliver Stone feel off this one. So Bush gets assassinated, and we are to learn the depths of depravity and dictatorship Vice President Dick Cheney is capable of. What left-thinking “Impeach Bush” t-shirt-wearer would heed the clarion call to assassinate Bush when Range has soundly demonstrated what evil that act would inaugurate?

The Brits have very tough libel laws. Unlike America, where it is virtually impossible for a politician to sue for libel. Any British film that depicted Cheney engineering Bush’s assassination would land the limey fimmaker in court pretty quick. So I’m guessing a power-grab White House coup murder plot, if hinted at, is done so extremely obliquely.

And we are to understand this is actually a highly responsible call for Bush’s life to continue. Because it will demonstrate to all of those who would like to see him impeached or dead, how dangerous a course that is. Because that would usher in the true and unadulterated Rovian-Cheneyite nightmare. That is when the hood would be pulled off to reveal a true Gitmerica.

Read Crittendon’s entire article.

God bless America, thank God, the early colonists decided to have a tea party. The anti-American hatemongers not only have short memories, they are delusional as well.

Washington Post Misleading Liberals Again

Paul Mirengoff’s post reports that USA Today is tattle-telling on the Washington Post slanting the news that violent deaths in Iraq in August were less than a third of what they were in July of 2006.

..the Washington Post doesn’t want its readers to know this. Rather, the Post wants to focus only on statistics that paint a picture of unmitigated disaster. How else to explain this highly one-sided and glaringly incomplete story by Ann Scott Tyson?

Tyson uses the release of a Pentagon report on events of the past three months to tell her misleading tale. That report shows that this period was the most violent in two years. Tyson gloats that the report is “consistent with what news media have reported for months,” adding that the Pentagon now is acknowledging “trends that are widely believed to be driving the country toward full-scale civil war.”

These opening paragraphs are so slanted it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that, contrary to what Tyson suggests, the Pentagon has been completely candid about the upsurge in violence. It was that upsurge in Baghdad, of course, that caused the Pentagon, with some fanfare, to significantly increase the U.S. presence there. And it was the increased presence that, in all likelihood, led to the significant decrease in violence in August — the one that Tyson inexcusably conceals from her readers.

Moreover, while Tyson claims it’s “widely believed” that Iraq is “headed for full-scale civil war,” nothing in the body of her story supports that assertion. The Pentagon report says that “conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq,” which is what Gen. Abizaid told Congress recently. And, though, Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings provides Tyson with a few choice anti-administration quotes (“reality is catching up with Rumsfeld” and “there is no smoke screen to hide behind”), O’Hanlon apparently didn’t say that Iraq is headed for full-scale civil war. And he’s the only person outside the administration quoted in Tyson’s piece.

Except, that is, for the Re[i]ed boys, Senators Harry and Jack, who chime in at the end of the piece. Harry is content to make his usual reference to “failed Republican policies.” Jack, who unlike Harry is a good faith critic of administration policy and not just a partisan hack, states that “we will not abandon our brave troops, nor can we afford to abandon Iraq,” and he attacks the administration for not providing “the real resources, in terms of both military and civilian advisers, nor real dollars to reconstruct and help Iraq emerge from this period of instability.”

Does this mean that Reed favors a larger U.S. military presence in Iraq?

Read all of Paul’s insight at Power Line.