With the overthrow of Jose Maria Aznar's "Popular Party" in the Spanish elections yesterday, al-Qaeda has learned some very important things. By setting off a few bombs with the probable assistance of the Basque separatist group Eta and killing a "mere" two hundred people or so, they have learned that that can cow an entire nation into appeasing them to avoid further attacks. Like any bully or blackmailer, they'll be back when they want more concessions from the socialist Spanish government. Next time, all they have to do is threaten an attack to get their way. In a cave somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are exchanging high-fives.

Al Qaeda has learned that they have the ability to control elections in supposedly democratic countries with violence.  Does anyone really think that having proven this ability, they won't use it? One thing the Spanish appeasers have done is guarantee a wave of terrorist violence just before the November elections.

Not only have we lost a valuable ally in the War on Terror, we have lost an entire Western nation to the socialists, who lost power in 1996 due to widespread corruption. Middle East expert Mansoor Ijaz said, "This particular election result in Spain is probably the single most important event that has taken place since the attacks on Sept. 11 because it demonstrates that terrorism, in fact, can pay." He added, "And now one of the governments that supported the United States has fallen." 

It's a black day for democracy, freedom, and the fight against worldwide terrorism.

Once again, terrorists have committed mass murder on an unsuspecting people. Once again, the news is flooded with images of horror done to innocents in the name of a political agenda. This time, the murderers have struck in Madrid, Spain, on crowded railroads in the middle of the day, killing 200 people and wounding perhaps 1500. 

DAMN them.

I don't care about the politics or aims of the group that did this thing. The black hats ride together. As far as I'm concerned, all terrorists need to be exterminated like the cockroaches they are. Anyone who deliberately targets innocent men, women and children just to get attention or cause fear for some political reason has no humanity, and has forfeited all claim to human rights.  I felt the same way in the days after 9/11... all two and a half years of them, so far.

The topic of discussion seems to be what political group is behind this atrocity. If it's al-Qaeda or a group linked to them, as it certainly seems to be, then the "talking heads" think that tomorrow's election may go ill for Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. The thinking here is that if Spain was attacked because they joined the Coalition to liberate Iraq, the voters will vote him out of office. If it's "just" a Basque separatist group (members of which recieve training in Iran and Lebanon, by the way -- remember the comment about the black hats), then his party may win re-election. The big question seems to be "Are the Spanish people are going to throw Aznar out of office because of his support for the US and UK in Iraq?" I certainly hope they don't think that appeasing the terrorists will make them go away, because it won't. If the terrorists -- whoever they are -- find that they can force the people of Spain to meet their demands with a few lousy bombs, they'll be back again.. and again... and again.

Wait a second... am I missing something here? Everyone's concerned that al-Qaeda may be behind the attack on Spain because they're angry that Spain was our ally in Iraq? I thought that the Liberals and other anti-liberation groups have been insisting for a year that al-Qaeda may have been in Afghanistan, but had nothing to do with Iraq. Why are they suddenly concerned that al-Qaeda committed an act of terrorism in Spain because of its involvement in Iraq, without mentioning Afghanistan? According to Liberal doctrine, Osama bin Laden hated Saddam and wanted him removed for ideological reasons.

This is no surprise, of course. We've known all along that Iraq is the main front of the war on terror, haven't we? Several months ago, in fact, al-Qaeda shifted its focus from defeating the evils of democracy in Afghanistan to defeating the evils of democracy in Iraq. If we can defeat al-Qaeda and establish a real democracy in Iraq, we will have dealt a mortal blow to terrorism, and the terrorists know it. The signing of Iraq's interim constitution last week -- with its incredibly progressive bill of rights -- was a serious win for our side, though the "mainstream" media reported it with a barely-stifled yawn.

According to Norwegian investigators, a message on an al-Qaeda web site last year said, "We must make maximum use of the proximity to the elections in Spain in March next year. Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq." Al-Qaeda has been looking for ways to get the US and our allies to withdraw from Iraq since the minute we went in.

I'm sure that the Left will come up with some tortured logic to explain how al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq before poor, innocent Saddam was removed from power, but has since decided to punish the whole world for doing so. (Liberals insist al-Qaeda and Saddam had no contact, despite all the evidence that they had a working relationship for over a decade.) I'm not about to buy such a twisted explanation any more than I'd be willing to buy this attack being Muslim retaliation for El Cid's reconquest of Spain from them in the 11th century. And in either case, does it matter why terrorists murder innocents? It is inexcusable, indefensible, and intolerable that they do so.

The War on Terror goes on, and this proves it. It's a threat to the entire world, not just the US, and this proves it. This war is one we can't afford to stop fighting, proactively, wherever terror groups find support. This proves it.

Presidential hopeful John Kerry has more guts than most people gave him credit for, after all.  It takes unbelievable audacity to attack President Bush for "stonewalling" the 9/11 terrorist attack investigation, when Kerry was personally warned by an FAA agent about the possibility of a terrorist hijacking at Boston's Logan International Airport only months before... and did nothing.

In a letter to Senator John Kerry on 7 May 2001, retired FAA Special Agent Brian Sullivan wrote that the FAA needed to change its focus from hijackings for hostages (the usual purpose until 9/11) to encompass the possibility of terrorists taking over airliners for other, more deadly purposes.  "While the FAA has focused on screening for handguns, new threats have emerged, such as chemical and biological weapons," Sullivan wrote.  "Do you really think a screener could detect a bottle of liquid explosive, a small battery and a detonator in your carry-on baggage?"  Sullivan continued, "And with the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers? The answers to these questions are obvious."

The night before, a local tv station had broadcast a report concerning security vulnerabilities at Logan Airport featuring Sullivan and another former FAA Special Agent named Steve Elson.  The two had waltzed in and out through airport security multiple times with a variety of weapons and gadgets.  Many times, their bags weren't even opened, even when "suspicious items" were inside.  Agent Sullivan sent Kerry a video of the report following his letter.  In a chilling prophecy, he encouraged the Senator to "[t]hink what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day."  In the last week of July, Kerry's office finally sent Sullivan a reply saying that the video had been forwarded to the Department of Transportation.  Less than two months later, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were hijacked after taking off from the same Logan International Airport and flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC, killing thousands.

Was this the famous "alarm" John Kerry claims to have "sounded... on terrorism years before 9/11" in his television commercials -- sending a video to the DoT mere months beforehand?  Anyone with money for postage could have done as much.  Isn't it possible that a Senator with a direct warning from a former FAA agent could -- and should -- have done much more?  While it's true that few people would immediately leap into action on a warning alone, most people lack the hypocritical arrogance to criticise others for not doing so when they hadn't themselves.

Kerry has recently attacked President Bush for daring to spend time campaigning for his own re-election instead of answering questions before the 9/11 commission.  "If the President of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can spend more than one hour before the commission," Kerry said.  Why is more than an hour necessary?  It comes as no surprise that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (as it's formally known) would be used as yet another political attack on President Bush before too long.  Senator Kerry apparently needs to be reminded that he's able to find plenty of time to do everything except the job he's still drawing a hefty paycheck to do, having missed 64% of the Senate roll calls last year.  Some might consider that "being AWOL", and call for a minute-by-minute account of his activities while taking money from the public he supposedly serves.  Perhaps the Senator can furnish dental records to go along with that.

When will Kerry take his seat before the Commission to answer for his deliberate disregard of vital information concerning the lack of airport security in his very own Senatorial district, at the very airport from which half of the 9/11 attacks were launched?

Every Presidential candidate needs a running mate to help define his or her campaign, and John Kerry is no exception.  Now that the big primaries are over, the media needs something positive to report about their favored candidate (not that the media would ever take sides).  Expect the next media flurry -- the next one not attacking President Bush, that is -- to be about the burning question of who John Kerry will pick for a running mate. 

Some people are hoping (or fearing) that Kerry will choose Hillary Clinton as his Vice President.  Others think he will ask former Presidential hopeful Senator John Edwards to run with him.  A running mate is normally chosen for one of two things: the positives he or she can bring to a campaign (like energising the base, bringing in funding or helping to win a state or region), or the negatives that he or she doesn't bring.  This is especially true of Democrats, who tend to think of people more as representatives of a racial or economic group than as individual voters.

The huge amount of negative baggage carried by Hillary Clinton completely cancels out any positives she might bring.  Also, Kerry doesn't need to take out "insurance" in New York; there's very little chance the state will go Republican this year.  As for John Edwards, he held his own home state against Kerry, but his presence would be no guarantee that South Carolina or any other Southern state will suddenly vote Democratic.  Another reason to discount Clinton and Edwards is that no President wants a VP who's vastly more charismatic or personally powerful than he or she is.  Keeping all the above in mind, here's my list of probable VP picks for John Kerry.

Representative Dick Gephardt still has a huge amount of pull with the unions, and could (with a little hard-sell campaigning) bring in his home state of Missouri.  He might also have an effect in neighboring states.  Gephardt is more of a centrist than Kerry (for that matter, Ted Kennedy is more of a centrist than John Kerry!) and does not have a record of flip-flopping on every issue.  In my opinion, Gephardt's daughter's inability to stop pushing her gay activist agenda even when stumping for her father in a middle-of-the-road state cost him the primary in Iowa.  In a national campaign, however, it may actually come as something of an asset (if they confine her to more "Liberal" states like New York, California, Massachusetts and Vermont).  On the other hand, those who see Kerry as "Old-Time Washington Establishment" wouldn't find anything different to like about Gephardt.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has many of the positives and few of the negatives of Gephardt. Though he doesn't have quite the amount of support from the unions, he's also younger and more charismatic (though not so much so as to overwhelm Kerry, the way Edwards would).

Senator Bill Nelson could ensure his home state of Florida, a very tightly-contested state.  With the President's own brother campaigning for him there, the Democrats will need every advantage they can get.  Senator Bob Graham is more well-known by far, but much of that notoriety comes from his "quirkiness"... or, if you're not a fan, his obsessive-compulsive madness.

Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante actually made a fairly strong showing in California's 2003 recall election, though he ultimately lost to Arnold Scharzenegger.  He brought in 52 percent of the Hispanic vote and 32.3 percent overall.  Though many people think that Kerry would choose New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson for his influence with Hispanic voters, ensuring California may be considered far more important to the Kerry campaign.  California is considered to be "in play" for the first time in years, and a California VP would help to counteract Arnold's strong support for President Bush there.  However, his former membership in the Hispanic racist/separatist organisation MEChA would weight heavily against him. 

Representative Jane Harman would also help secure California's whopping 55 electoral votes (though not as much as Bustamante), and would have some appeal to women around the country.  At first glance, she doesn't appear to have any serious baggage to weigh her down aside from her pro-abortion, pro-gay "marriage" stances.  If Kerry wants to secure California and gain support with women, Harman might be a good choice.

A good choice for Kerry, that is.  Any of these people would do very little to mitigate the disaster that a Kerry Presidency would be for America.

If this is how far the Democrats have sunk already, with eight months still to go before the election, 2004 is going to be a very dirty Presidential campaign year indeed.

In answer to the vicious attacks constantly being levied at him by the Democrats, President Bush released a series of quiet, thoughtful tv commercials this week.  The ads were designed to remind the viewer that America has been faced with some serious hardships and challenges in the last few years, and that America -- led by President Bush -- has risen to meet them.  As part of a series of photographs that flash by in a montage, there is a brief shot of the American flag flying over the World Trade Center wreckage of 9/11, and an even briefer shot of one of the thousands of flag-draped stretchers that were carried out of the buildings' remains.  Since 9/11 was one of the challenges Bush helped the country survive, the defining moment of his Presidency and our generation, and arguably the greatest disaster this country has ever faced, it's entirely right and proper for him to allude to his leadership in its aftermath.  9/11 redefined this country, and redefined George W. Bush as well.  But the Liberals, as we know, see the worst terrorist attack in history as a hiccup, a fluke, a one-time thing rather than part of an ongoing campaign against us.  They refuse to see that it was an act of war, and that war against terrorists and their supporters was the only appropriate response.  While the rest of us were saying "Remember 9/11", they were -- and still are -- telling us, "remember 9/10".

The media (reduced to being the pets of the Liberals these days) immediately attacked the ads with everything they had, and in the sickest way imaginable.  Within hours of the ads' release, "news" stories began circulating such as "Victims' Families Press Bush to Pull 9/11 Ads" and "9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads" which ran quotes from people mostly identified only as relatives of 9/11 victims.  But the stories somehow neglected to identify nearly every person quoted as someone who has either contributed to John Kerry's campaign, works for John Kerry's campaign, or is a member of an organisation that's either "anti-war"... or just anti-Bush.

"It makes me sick," said Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks and leads a victims families group called Peaceful Tomorrows. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That truly is what Ground Zero represents to me."

Ms. Kelly, it turns out, protested the liberation of Iraq in NYC alongside actress and activist Susan Sarandon.  Her group also visited Iraq before the war to stage a protest against the US.  The news story forgot to mention that.  But wait!  There's more!  This Peaceful Tomorrows group (which also opposed the war in Afghanistan), is "a project of the Tides Center" according to their own web site.  The Tides Center, in turn, is funded by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz Endowment -- both chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.  Got all that? 

David Potorti, quoted as saying, "It's an insult to use the place where my brother died in an ad," is also a member of Peaceful Tomorrows.  So is Bob McIlvane, who said, "To argue that using footage of the wreckage of the towers to further someone's political career is 'tasteful' really needs to be rejected outright, and I condemn it."  Yet he is allowing the media to use his son's death to further the political career of John Kerry, whose wife's foundations contribute money to his organisation.  The media neglected to report any of this in their "outrage" stories.

Two members of the International Association of Fire Fighters Union are mentioned as being angry about the ads, Jeff Zack and Harold Schaitberger .  The IAFF gave their endorsement to Senator Kerry.  Schaitberger, in September 2003, gave the endorsement speech.  In fact, Harold Schaitberger is "co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign", according to the Firefighters for Kerry website.  The news media must have just forgotten to mention that.

Are you feeling sick yet?

Tom Ryan, who said, "As a firefighter who spent months at Ground Zero, it's deeply offensive to see the Bush campaign use these images to capitalize on the greatest American tragedy of our time," is an active campaigner for gay "marriage" as an officer of FireFLAG.  President Bush recently called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Coincidence?  I wonder. I think I hear the scraping sound of an ax grinding.

Kristen Breitweiser, who also attacked President Bush for "using 9/11 as political propaganda," was not identified as the woman who decided "to wage a battle against the United States government" in the "ad" story.  However, that is the way she was introduced in an interview with Phil Donahue in 2002.  In both interviews, she attacked President Bush for not panicking a schoolroom full of children by personally overreacting while preparations were made for his departure.  That meme -- "how dare he react with such calm?" -- seems to be resurfacing again as a Democratic talking point. 

But that's what makes a President a leader, not rushing around in a hysterical panic.

Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics?

You tell me.

Forget the forecasts of the naysayers, who eagerly interpreted every questioning voice and dissenting opinion as the death-knell of Mid-East democracy.  Iraqi leaders of so many beliefs and backgrounds, from every corner of the country, have agreed to compromise on an interim constitution. 

"It's a historic document," said Faisal Istrabadi, one of the lead drafters and a senior aide to council member Adnan Pachachi. "Every single article, and each subparagraph, had the consensus of all 25 people in the room... In the best tradition of democracies -- granted, we are an aspiring democracy -- we all compromised."

And what a constitution!  Re-creating Iraq as a Federalist nation with a high degree of autonomy granted to the various sections of the country, the constitution provides for a single President and two deputy Presidents, and on many decisions the three must be unanimous.  A Prime Minister will run the country's day-to-day affairs, and the directly-elected Iraqi Parliament (which will choose the Presidents) must include at least 25% women.  (Minority/female quotas, while counter-productive in America now because of reverse discrimination, were originally briefly helpful.)  The Bill of Rights included in the constitution protects free speech, religious expression, freedom of assembly and due process of law.  Though Islam will be the official state religion, it will only be considered "a source" for purposes of legislation, not the source.  No laws may be passed that violate the tenets of Islam... but on the other hand, no laws may be passed that violate the Bill of Rights, either.

In one of those bizarre and hilarious twists of fate that only historians normally get to see, Iraqis -- for one brief, shining moment, at least -- actually have more rights and fairer taxes than citizens of the United States of America, which brought these freedoms to Iraq.

Like citizens of Russia and Hong Kong, Iraqis now enjoy the benefits of a flat tax system, thanks to an order issued by L. Paul Bremer in September 2003.  Though businesses were supposedly taxed at a rate of 45% under Saddam Hussein, the fact that most businesses were State-owned made it rather pointless... it was just another way for Saddam to line his pockets.  Individual income taxes were rarely collected, but most Iraqis were paid such ridiculously low wages that it amounted to the same thing.  American Conservatives have been lobbying for a simple flat tax  -- which would drastically cut down on cheating and nearly eliminate loopholes -- for years with no success.

Because the Iraqis have no laws creating limits on their freedom of speech, they actually enjoy its benefits more than we Americans are able to do these days.  Since the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" bill was somehow upheld by the Supreme Court against all logic, our First Amendment right of free speech has been severely curtailed, although you may not have noticed.  The Court ruled that "corruption or the appearance of corruption" is sufficient justification to "regulate" our freedom of speech. By banning all political ads within 60 days of an election, McCain-Feingold ensures that the only politics most people will hear about from September on will be whatever interviews the "news" media decides to broadcast.  And with members of the "mainstream" media openly admitting to a Liberal bias, how well do you think they'll balance pro-Bush guests and anti-Bush guests?

Except for the official languages being Arabic and Kurdish, and an official state religion being declared, it sounds as though Iraq would be a great place for a Conservative American to visit once the security situation is well in hand.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an al-Qaeda operative whose presence in Iraq was so highly doubted by the French (and therefore by America's Liberals), but he seems to be there after all.  In a recently-intercepted letter to al-Qaeda leaders, he complained that, "[t]here is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening."

With Iraq's shiny new constitution and the terrorists fearing for their own future, it seems likely that those who opposed the liberation of Iraq here in America will be just as badly defeated as those who opposed it in the deserts of Iraq.

The situation in Haiti is just another example of the "band-aid diplomacy" practiced by former President Clinton that will have to be cleaned up by President Bush.  Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti in 1990, but was almost immediately overthrown in a 1991 military coup.  In 1994, Clinton sent 20,000 US troops from the 82nd Airborne to put down the rebellion and restore Aristide to power.  As they were about to land, the new leaders of Haiti signed an agreement to step down, and Clinton called it a done deal.  The problems that led to the coup, however, were never addressed, nor were the problems afterwards.  They were just covered up by a Clinton band-aid and left to fester, only to break out again after Clinton's watch was over.  Aristide allowed his puppet, Rene Preval, to take power in name only in 1995, but "won" re-election in 2000.  After that, perhaps feeling that the US would always protect him, he became a tyrant... and nothing was done about it.  Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said in February 2003, "When Haiti elected its first democratic president in 1990, we had a great hope for economic and political stability and respect for basic rights.  But even Aristide has failed to bring in a new era of peace and prosperity.  Instead, we have seen escalating political violence. Illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, killings, crackdowns on political opponents, and restraints on free speech and free assembly are all too common.  In the last six months, we have seen new waves of violence, targeting journalists, students, human-rights activists, and the government's political opponents.  Those who commit these harsh acts of brutality and intolerance often operate with impunity, and in some cases, they appear to be acting with government support."  Of course, Kennedy and so many others were equally critical of Saddam Hussein until President Bush actually did something about the situation in Iraq, after which they changed their tune.  We'll have to see whether leading Democrats begin to criticise Bush for not acting to "preserve democracy" in Haiti. 

How many other problems did Bush inherit with his Presidency?  The first thing he had to deal with was the recession, which began in May of 2000 when the unstable tech stock "bubble" burst.  By the time of the election that November, the stock market was already dropping, and firms were beginning layoffs.  So-called "dot-coms" which had dominated the market throughout the 1990s were disappearing like a magician's trick.  Now, thanks to President Bush pushing his tax cuts through Congress, the economy is strong again.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at a healthy, sustainable rate of 4.1% in the fourth quarter of 2003, and looks to keep on growing at a rate of 4.5% this quarter.  All economic indicators bear this out.  It's simple math: when you don't tax companies (and the people who own them) down to the ground, they have the money to expand and hire employees.

Don't let anyone fool you about the job situation, either.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment is at 5.6%, meaning (of course) that 94.4% of Americans are employed.  Sure, it's not quite the 2000 high mark of 95.8% employment from early 2000, at the height of the bubble era, but it's far better than the Great Depression-style 25% unemployment rate "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" picture of doom the Democrats are painting.  In fact, it turns out that 700,000 jobs have been created since President Bush took office, over and above the millions of jobs the Democrats constantly insist that he "lost" (the figure changes from day to day) but were not.  The discrepancy comes from the data they deliberately ignore from entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the self-employed. 

Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.
But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

President Bush has spent his entire first term in office dealing with the economy, al-Qaeda, corporate scandals, Iraq and North Korea -- all problems from the 1990s, each covered up with a band-aid and left behind by his predecessor.  Faulty or poor intelligence -- due to a reduction of CIA covert action during the 1990s -- kept us from preventing 9/11.  If the CIA had been fully funded, supported and used by Bill Clinton, we might have known that Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein were both breaking their agreements with us.  We might have known that Libya and Iran were close to having nuclear weapons.  We might have known that Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan was running a nuclear clearinghouse, in fact.  We might have known that Saddam Hussein was making billions by skimming off the oil-for food program (as reported in The New York Times), and buying support around the world (especially from France, Russia and China) with oil vouchers.  We might have known exactly what Saddam did with the weapons of mass destruction the UN told us he had -- whether he destroyed, buried or moved them, and where. 

Haiti is just the latest in a long series of problems facing the last Administration that were given a coat of paint and a promise, to be redeemed by the present one.  I wonder how many more little time-bombs from the '90s are ticking away around the world, waiting to explode?

Like most of the reviewers who are leveling attacks at Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion of the Christ", I have not bothered to see the movie before writing my review.  Like Andy Rooney said, why should I have to pay "for a few laughs", right?  My opinions are just as valid as his, and he hasn't seen it either.  If not having seen it doesn't stop other critics from offering well-deserved criticism of the movie, however, then it shouldn't stop me either.  

Most other critics are attacking the movie for its subtle anti-semitic overtones, but no one seems concerned with the blatant anti-Roman attitude the movie takes throughout.  This is an outrage!  This movie openly portrays Romans as warmongering, imperialistic occupiers of Judea.  Yes, I realise that the Romans did, in fact, have an empire which was occupying Judea at the time of the events shown in the movie.  However, that's no excuse to show only one side of their important story.  Where are the scenes of happy, laughing, playful Romans peacefully cavorting in parks or something?  No, the only Romans shown in the movie (at least, this is what I believe, not having actually seen it myself) are brutal soldiers.  One of them even insults a Jew by calling him... a Jew!  It's a completely unfair, totally unbalanced and anti-Roman portrayal of the Romans.

Another thing about the movie that upsets me (or will, when I get around to seeing it) is the use of Gore.  Everyone who knows anything about the movie (especially those who refused to see it for just this reason) says that it features an excessive use of Gore.  Frankly, I feel that any use of Gore is excessive, but what I really want to know is why he was even in this movie at all?  He's not even Jewish!  Was Al Gore just in the movie to yell angrily about how Judas betrayed Jesus?  It doesn't make any sense.  It's curious that the same critics who say there was too much violence and Gore in this movie had nothing but praise for violent movies like Gladiator and Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart, which also had too much Gore in it.  Perhaps they didn't complain because he at least looks Scottish.

The third problem I will have with the movie is its recurring references to Christian religious dogma.  Everyone in the movie seems to be spouting quotes from the Bible, except the Romans, who mostly speak Roman.  It's bad enough when people shove their religion in your face by wearing crosses under their shirts and all, but to have the main character walk down a public street with a cross bigger than his whole body is just unreasonable!

Last but not least, I'm unhappy with the way they made everyone look vaguely Jewish except the Romans, who looked vaguely Italian.  They even made Jesus and his followers look Jewish, while everyone knows they were Christians.  No wonder the Jews are angry!

Now that President Bush has been forced by recent events to make a statement in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, you can see the Liberal spin already beginning.  Nearly every newspaper, magazine and news program is renaming what Bush has asked for to a "ban on gay marriage".  They treat gay "marriage" as though it were something already in existence that the man wants to take away, like the right to gun ownership or the free exercise of religion (both of which do exist, and neither of which seem to be defended by the media from the ongoing Liberal assault).  It's a definition of marriage the President seeks -- a definition that has never been needed before now.  Until the last few years, a "gay marriage" was one in which husband and wife were wildly happy.

Why should only the traditional form of marriage be officially recognised as valid?  It's a question I've addressed before, in my article "Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage" published at Useless-Knowledge.com last summer, but I'll reorganise and reiterate some of my arguments here. 

Every successful human society, stretching all the way back to prehistory, has been based on marriage and genetic ties, expressed as family relationships.  It's the foundation of human society and civilisation.  Marriage has always been the way for society to recognise and formalise those family ties and the continuity of the genetic relationships.  Even childless couples, especially those who adopt, still maintain the basic form and framework of the most fundamental of relationships to pass on to the next generation by example.  The idea that we should simply... throw away tens of thousands of years of a proven, successful base for human interaction because some gay people and advocates -- by no means all! -- demand that society's bedrock be shifted to fit their world view better is ridiculous.  It would have the same long-term effect on society that removing one's backbone would have on a human being.  The person might look more or less the same on the outside, for while... until he tries to stand.

And what's their reasoning behind wanting to change the ancient, well-understood definition of marriage in this specific way, these advocates of gay "marriage"?  What justification do they offer for doing so that can't be applied to other forms of marriage, and why not?  Why only two people?  Why only adults?  Why only those unrelated by blood?  What gives them the right to force society to move the line to include one type of non-traditional relationship, but not others?  It's incredibly arrogant, not to mention hypocritical.

The most common attack by proponents of gay "marriage" is, "How will two gay people getting married impact Bobby and Susie's recent marriage"?  That's an incredibly short-sighted and narrowly-focused question.  The truth is, it probably won't -- they're already married.  It will, however, have an impact on any future relationships their children will have.  Their grandchildren may think of "marriage" the way we currently think of friendships, replacing a formerly defining characteristic of one's life with something far more ephemeral and tenuous (the answer to high divorce rates is not to trivialise marriage further).  Their great-grandchildren -- if such archaic designations are still used by then -- may not even recognise the word "marriage" except as something in history books.  Without marriage, there is no family relationship anymore -- it becomes unnecessary.  And of course, the reduction of traditional values and family relationships is precisely what Liberals generally seem to want.  For decades, they've fought to replace Mom's apple pie with the Mommy State.

As Bob Dole said in 1996, in response to Hillary Clinton's book advocating intrusive governmental meddling in child-rearing, it doesn't take a village to raise a child.  It takes a family.  And marriage, the cornerstone of the family, is currently under assault.  We have made a Constitutional amendment setting forth our rights to free speech and free assembly, which were once under assault.  We have made amendments defining everyone's right to vote, when such were needed.  If we need to protect the institution of marriage from assault with a Constitutional amendment defining it too, then so be it.