By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts its boots on.

- Mark Twain

When Ronald Reagan left this earth, countless numbers of American citizens trekked to the Reagan Library in California to pay their respects to “The Great Communicator”—waiting in line for hours, both in Simi Valley and Washington , D.C. Yet, when President Reagan left office, based on a Gallop poll, he was not considered a popular president. Herein lies a contradiction—if he was not well-liked, why then was there such an overwhelming public display of grief at the report of his death?

History is the great equalizer. It eventually confirms or refutes recorded media, and serves as a reminder, not only to report the truth, but to scrutinize everything reported more closely. It is not always necessary to wait 10 or 20 years to separate the wheat from the chaff of news coverage, specifically, Ronald Reagan ’s mass appeal before and after he died. The Left, who prefer to think of themselves as intellectuals, maligned Reagan as lacking in intelligence, or as William F. Buckley noted, “[ Reagan ] confounds liberal critics, who assessed him many years ago as a bumpkin with oratorical gifts…” They have never followed up with an explanation of how the dumb guys on the right beat the smarter guys on the left.”

The 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls are the subject of interminable swill, over-blown praise, negations, and evasion of fact, all masqueraded as truth and spelled out in erratic detail by the media. In an article written this last spring by Scott Helman of The Boston Globe, yet another “exhaustive internal campaign document” mysteriously surfaced, this time from Mitt Romney’s camp. The lead in the Globe article suggested one item causing concern: “His hair looks too perfect.” This bit of fluff undoubtedly surfaced as a comparison to another Republican candidate with movie star looks: Ronald Reagan. It is identical to the slam during Reagan ’s 1984 campaign, but should be considered a dunk when added to Romney’s undeniable appeal. This particular conundrum on Romney ’s hair (by his own team) was blown out of proportion by the same communications industry that financially thrives on youth and beauty. So what’s their problem?  Strategists for the Republican lineup are tripping over each other in an effort to become President Reagan's heir apparent.

This past weekend, John Hindenraker of Powerlineblog, asked “What’s With Mitt?” where he postulates on the possible reasons Mitt has not fully caught on in national polling:

“But Romney has a serious problem as a candidate: he is not very good on a stage. This is not because he can't speak well or make cogent points; he can and does. But he lacks the key ability to draw people in, to engage them in an emotional way when he is speaking remotely, as from a stage or on television. This isn't easy to do; it is an acquired skill common to (some) actors and politicians. People often say that they find Romney "slick" or "plastic." To the extent that this suggests insincerity, it is unfair. But I think that people who say this are responding to Romney's failure to connect with them when he speaks. In a formal setting, he projects a surface that keeps the viewer at arm's length, rather than drawing him in. When I watch Romney, I often get the feeling that the real Mitt is off somewhere else, crunching numbers.”

We find it curious that the terms “slick” or “plastic” are so quickly equated a person’s physical attractiveness. Could this be an ingrained insecurity, or a long-held silly belief that good-looking people are usually stupid? Or is Hindenraker suggesting that people do not connect with someone who is better-looking than they are? Or is his comment simply a reflection of the 90-second debate soundbites?

Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can speak contemporaneously with skill and confidence — a confidence that can only manifest itself from thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Hindenraker admits that “one on one or in a small group he ( Romney ) is very impressive.” Yet he makes these comments when it is clear there has not been a national opportunity covered by the media where Americans can experience this candidate in that way.

Hugh Hewitt , responding to Hindenraker’s article, noted that: “ Romney has in fact built the leads in the early states that he needs, and will spend the next three months defending them. He's doing exactly what he set out to do.”

That is not a suggestion that Romney …”lacks the skills necessary to be an excellent candidate” but is rather an endorsement that he is right on point and plan, and in the end will succeed.

As for the other Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani is being touted with hammer force as “the man to beat,” based solely on his now legendary appeal as a leader in time of crisis. John McCain is, of course, “the” war hero. If both the liberal and conservative media objectively examined a candidate’s qualifications to run this country—a journalistic imperative—it would obviate the obscene costs of running a campaign by whittling away the dead wood early. Not surprisingly, we are now watching both Giuliani, McCain, (and even Newt Gingrich), jump through hoops about their private lives. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, appears to be the only Republican candidate whose private life, marriage and family are untainted by scandal.

Reagan (in 1984) and Romney (in 2007) have also been minimized for not being wartime leaders. Here’s a news flash for the MSM: there are no declared candidates in either party that are wartime leaders. John McCain was held captive in a Vietnamese POW camp for 5 ½ years and survived. This is a commendable testament to his perseverance, but does not confer upon him the status of a “battlefield commander.” With the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, no president in recent history meets that requirement.

The Presidency of the United States requires leadership that is the product of a depth and breadth of experience. Last time we looked, neither Hillary Clinton, nor her opponent, Barak Hussein Obama , has ever served in the military. The liberal media continues to skip over the details that do not serve their agenda.

The MSM is having a field day with the notion that Mitt Romney is the Republicans’ John Kerry on the matter of flip-flops. On closer examination of a highly controversial topic, i.e., Romney ’s evolving position on abortion, in 2002 Romney pledged not to change Massachusetts'  abortion laws, despite his personal agenda which has always been pro-life.

Changing one’s mind is a sign of growth, versus intractability in the face of criticism. This is an important point because it reflects Romney’s ability to govern without allowing his religion to interfere with his oath of office. Religion has always been the “other” elephant in the room created by the media. John F. Kennedy mitigated that argument long ago. If Mitt Romney’s faith were truly a material problem and not a fictitious idea spun by the media, then both Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch have a lot of nerve pretending their Mormonism doesn’t interfere with their duties.

In 2004, Steve LeBlanc of The Herald News reported on the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the State of Massachusetts . LeBlanc stated: “… Romney has made his stand clear: He opposes gay marriage, his opposition being rooted in a strong sense of tradition about the institution of marriage, which he [ Romney ] described as ‘the foundation of a harmonious family life’ and ‘the basic building block of society.” And this is a bad thing? Rather than attempt to explain the majority view, the liberal media prefers to ignore the clear “physiology” of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

An important point to remember in the coming months: There is no one-size-fits-all candidate in either party. It doesn’t matter if we are moderates or conservatives. In the end, it will come down to trusting in the candidate’s intelligence, integrity and ability to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

In the final political analysis, it won’t be about hair, plastic appearance, or any other “single” issue. It is time, however, for the media to measure a man by his actions, abilities and qualifications to transcend the political road kill created by their unfair and untruthful reportage.

by Lance Thompson

The captains of corporate America are easy and frequent targets of every comic, cartoonist, and every self-proclaimed "friend of the working man." Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have built their careers (and opulent residences) by attacking CEOs and COBs. Business executives are always characterized as wealthy, out of touch, and driven only by profit motives. No advocacy group speaks for them when they are vilified, stereotyped, or depicted in fiction and non-fiction media as heartless, unscrupulous monsters.

But when politicians blame each other for the state of the economy, the rate of unemployment, the productivity of the American worker, the rise and fall of regional industries, they all know that the most powerful politician has only an ancillary effect on those things. The movers, shakers and decision makers of the American economy are those who run the nation’s businesses and corporations. The unstoppable engine of the American economy is tended by men and women who are treated with the greatest disdain.

One recent corporate misstep that garnered international attention was the discovery that some Mattel toys (Polly Pocket and Doggy Daycare play sets and some Barbie accessories) might contain dangerous amounts of lead-based paint. Mattel recalled the potentially tainted toys, but not before the widely-reported story had cast doubt upon Mattel’s quality control and the company’s concern for its customers. The suspect toys, manufactured in China, also cast doubt upon the quality and safety of all products made in China.

Mattel’s part of the story had run its course by Friday, 21 September. Concern about lead-based paint had extended to other companies’ toys and other Chinese-made products. The heat on Mattel was reduced.

All the more admirable, then, was the company’s announcement on Friday that after a thorough internal investigation, it was clear that the fault lay not with Chinese manufacturers, but with Mattel’s own original design. According to the AP story, this announcement was made by Mattel’s executive vice president of worldwide operations Thomas A. Debrowski during a meeting with Li Changjiang, product safety chief of Mattel’s Chinese supplier.

"Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who received the toys," Debrowski was quoted in the article.

The easiest course for Mattel, having weathered the negative publicity of the recall, would have been to keep the admission quiet, stay out of the headlines, leave the cloud of suspicion on the Chinese, and try to restore Mattel’s own image. This is the sort of response we would expect from business executives as depicted in fiction, or from politicians we have known in real life. Apologies are never direct, or even explicit. The phrase of choice for most public figures is, "Mistakes were made." No personal or corporate or political responsibility–just a vague admission that matters didn’t turn out as well as everyone had hoped.

Mattel did none of these things. They announced their discovery that the fault was with their own design, accepted that responsibility, and apologized directly. Mr. Debrowski’s statement was forthright, honest and principled. Mattel took the heat for the lead paint and the recall in the first place, then went back for more. The admission was not calculated, market-tested nor focus-grouped. It was simply the right thing to do.

This is not to say that all corporate executives in America’s businesses always behave in a principled manner. But in this instance, one corporation and at least one of its officers adhered to the highest principles and values, and set an example for people in all walks of life to follow.

Barbie would be proud.

-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho with his wife, daughter, numerous Barbies and several Hot Wheels cars.

by

Lance Thompson

On 7 June 1981, eight Israeli F-16s bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor with a daring, long-distance raid that crippled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program. There were loud protests throughout the "world community" about this violent penetration of Iraqi territory. But secretly, the world breathed a sigh of relief a dictator’s access to nuclear weapons was pushed into the hazy future, and the Middle East conflict was spared the introduction of doomsday firepower.

Now we learn from the London Sunday Times that the Israelis have done it again. On the night of 6 September 2007, Syrian air defenses suddenly went dark. Israeli F-15s of the 69^th Fighter Squadron approaching from the Mediterranean crossed the Syrian coast and streaked to an industrial complex that Syria says is engaged in agricultural research, but Israel believes is used to extract uranium from phosphates.

Israeli commandos in the area identified the target with laser designators from the aircraft, which delivered a precision strike that left the facility in flames. It was a perfectly executed operation, from disabling the enemy’s defenses to destroying the target and recovering all friendly forces involved.

Observers believe the target was a stockpile of components for nuclear weapons, supplied by North Korea. The raid occurred three days after a North Korean ship arrived in Syria with a cargo listed as "cement," but suspected of being weapons components. It is not clear that Syria was the final destination of these materials, but that’s as far as they got.

Once again, as the world argues about what to do about rogue nations, aggressive dictators, and the seething conflicts in the Middle East, Israel has taken direct action to eliminate an imminent threat. Israel is certain to be condemned by all and sundry for this, but once again a daring and courageous act has temporarily reduced the possibility of a devastating escalation of the conflict.

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is well-known, and acknowledged by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.. Syria would also like to be a player at the nuclear table. Syria is also the most likely hiding place for the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had months to distribute to safe havens before the Iraq war. North Korea may have been using Syria in the same way a vast, anonymous self-storage unit where dangerous devices can be locked away until needed.

Israel doesn’t have the luxury of distance that we enjoy. The hundred or so Scud missiles possessed by Syria are capable of striking targets anywhere in Israel. The Israelis know the Syrians are capable of arming those missiles with chemical weapons the Syrians already possess. The Israelis know that those same missiles could be armed with nuclear weapons if the Syrians obtained them. Thus, Israel had no choice but to eliminate the threat.

The United States is not within range of Syrian Scuds. But our military forces in the Middle East are subject to that threat. Ground forces, air bases, carrier task groups are all inviting targets for a nuclear-tipped missile.

Again, Syria may not be the final destination for the nuclear material. It could be Iran, whose leaders have already expressed solidarity with North Korea. If Iran obtains such weapons, Ahmadinejad is likely to provide them to his South American pal, Hugo Chavez, who maintains close ties to Iran and has openly expressed a desire to become a nuclear power.* One loose nuclear cannon in South America won’t be the last. Fidel Castro’s successor will want his fair share. We almost went to war once when nuclear-capable missiles were furnished to communist Cuba. Are we willing to defend ourselves as resolutely if that happens today?

We also know that our most dangerous enemies are not necessarily state sponsors of terror, but terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda hasn’t used nuclear weapons because they haven’t had access yet. But Islamic extremists, whether Al Qaeda franchises or not, are actively seeking a means of delivering another devastating blow to our country. We have exposed and interdicted several such plots recently, including planned attacks in Europe at Frankfurt Airport and American military bases.

These threats argue for conducting foreign policy as dictated by the security needs of this country, in the Israeli model. Identify threats to Americans, eliminate them, and accept the condemnation of states that either share the goals of the enemy or don’t have the courage to defend themselves. Israel will be no less popular after this raid in Syria than it already is. But Israel will be measurably safer.

We spend a great deal of time worrying about our image in the world. But we should spend more time worrying about our safety. While we negotiate, placate and beg forgiveness and understanding for taking on the world’s most ruthless enemy, that same enemy is arming and preparing to strike again. We can’t afford to manacle military action to our popularity polls.

The Iranian regime has clearly stated that it has the right to possess nuclear weapons, and is actively engaged in obtaining them. The Iranians have been supplying insurgents and arming terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq. There is no clearer threat to American interests than that which Iran represents.

If we strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Americans will be no less popular than we are now in the world. But we will be measurably safer.

* Rowan Scarborough, "Venezuela Seeks Nuclear Technology," Washington Times, 17 October, 2005,

By Danielle D'Amore

California 's Grand Poobahs have done it again. While attempting to purchase a storage ottoman over the Internet, I noticed the remark "Shipping to CA is not available...." One call to Customer Service confirmed my suspicion: The ottoman apparently contains fill material which, due to state regulations, cannot ship to California . Being a native, I can't say I was surprised. By now I'm used to California 's insidious political and ideological overreach. But contraband fill material? What's it filled with, Sudafed^®?

If this regulation was passed in a noble effort to safeguard the general public (aren't they all), what deleterious effect does the material cause? Could it release some biological or chemical substance that would spark a pandemic? If so, shouldn't someone alert the Centers for Disease Control? No other state in the Union seems to be aware of this potential killer, but should their citizens die in ignorance? Is it fair that only Californians will be spared annihilation due to their prescient leaders?

This doomsday scenario begs a question: If the rest of the nation should pass on, how badly do I want to stay? It is the humble character and generous spirit of America 's "flyover states" that swells my heart with pride. It is in them that I have vested my hope in the future of our country. If they should all be taken out by a killer ottoman, well, mark my words: The fall of Western Civilization won't be far behind.

Then again, maybe the perils lie elsewhere. What if the fill material is so incendiary that just the sun's glare off my cat's eyes will set it ablaze? I'm sure by now, if there were a spate of flaming ottomans, Al Gore would have rallied against the carnage and chalked it up as another consequence of global warming.

Convinced that a 2‑foot ottoman would not cause immediate bodily harm, stubbed toes notwithstanding, I found myself driven to possess it. That a handful of politicians would keep it from my reach made me want it all the more. (I learned in Psych 101 that this is called "reactance." I also learned that Bush lied, the CIA funded the Contras through crack sales, and [Free] Mumia was framed. Yup, in Psych class. Like I said, I'm used to California 's ideological overreach.)

It became obvious that, unless the ottoman could animate its legs and walk across the border incognito, I would need a third-party intermediary. Eureka ! Faster than you can say "1‑Click Ordering," the ottoman was dispatched to a sympathetic friend in Arizona . (My sincere thanks and gratitude to that fine state for righting a number of my state's wrongs. Arizona has nurtured California companies that fled its restrictive taxes and regulations, California "expats" who wish to afford their own homes, and now will play an unwitting role in helping a little footstool complete its trek to the West Coast.)

Details are being finalized, but the ottoman may soon be smuggled across the border. The Sacramento solons should be happy I'm not vindictive. Otherwise, I'd stock it with banned fruit before sneaking it in.

Danielle D'Amore is no longer shocked by California's freakshow. Nowadays she just sits back and eats popcorn.

By Lance Thompson