DVD Review: Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars

Sherlock Holmes is, without a doubt, one of the most famous detectives in all of literature. Part of the sleuth's success was due to a group of street kids known as the Baker Street Irregulars. They were often Holmes' eyes and ears during an investigation. The new BBC production Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars centers on these six kids and their relationship with Holmes.

As the film opens, the Irregulars' leader, Jack (Benjamin Smith), disappears while eluding an unknown assailant. The evidence suggests that he might have drowned in the Thames. His sister, Sadie (Mia Fernandez), doesn't want to believe he's gone. Eventually, she convinces Sherlock Holmes (Jonathan Pryce) to take on the case. He agrees but only on the condition that the Irregulars help him solve the murder of a Scotland Yard inspector. No sooner does Holmes begin to sift through the clues that another policeman is murdered. Soon the evidence points to Holmes as the culprit and he is placed under house arrest. It's then up to the Irregulars to gather the evidence necessary to clear Holmes' name, rescue Sadie and Jack, and at the same time foil the sinister plot of Holmes' one-time acquaintance (and possible love interest) Irene Adler (Anna Chancellor).

The filmmakers have done a terrific job of capturing the essence of Sherlock Holmes and yet focus on the Irregulars who up to now have only been considered minor supporting characters in the novels. The film focuses on the relationships between the kids and Holmes. In a sense, they are the only family they have. Holmes, for better or worse, is a father figure (and on balance a fairly respectable one) and in the end demonstrates that he wants to take care of the children after he is gone. After Jack and Sadie disappear, it's up to Finch (Aaron Johnson) to take matters into his own hands and pull the Irregulars together to clear Holmes' name. It's clear from the interaction between Finch and Holmes that theirs is much more than simply a business relationship. Finch sees Holmes as a mentor and proves that he has learned much from the master as the story unfolds.

The casting of this movie was perfect. Jonathan Pryce does a marvelous job as Holmes. He shows that Holmes is brilliant and at the same time very human. This is perhaps the first time that we see Holmes vulnerable to the charms of a woman. It's clear that Irene Adler gets under his skin and that it's difficult for him to send someone to jail that he clearly cared for. Anna Chancellor is marvelous as Irene Adler. She is both incredibly charming and yet evil at the same time. There is no doubt that her character is fully capable of cold-blooded murder and would not hesitate to kill anyone who would stand in her way. Michael Maloney was the perfect choice to play the inept Inspector Stirling. Stirling's detective skills are dubious at best and he clearly depends on Holmes to save his career on more than one occasion. Bill Paterson's Dr. Watson is perfectly understated and a great sidekick for the brilliant Holmes.

The film will certainly provide ample material for discussion between parents and children since the Irregulars are far from heroic characters. They will lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their goals. But they also show a great loyalty to each other and to their boss. When one of them is in trouble, the others don't hesitate to come to their rescue.

Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars is a great family-friendly introduction to the world's greatest detective. Although the heroes of the film are flawed there are still elements of their character to be admired. Hopefully this won't be the last last we see of the Baker Street Irregulars.

This article orginially appeared at Blogcritics.

DVD Review - Patrick Henry: Quest For Freedom

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, address at St. John's Church, Richmond, VA, March 23, 1775

It's one of the most famous speeches ever given. But the average person probably knows little about the speech itself or the man who gave it: Patrick Henry.

American Animation Studios founders John Derrick and Doug Zanger set out to make the History's Heroes DVD series to tell stories just like this one. The series will tell stories of American heroes that most schoolchildren would otherwise miss. Patrick Henry is just one of those heroes.

The movie features Boomer, a wise-cracking bald eagle that not only helps to tell the story but inserts commentary during key events to help the targe audience (kids age 8-12) understand what's happening and what's being said. The humorous moments are few and far between. However, the character is used effectively to interpret Henry's trademark oratory.

The video tells only a little about Henry's life and abruptly ends after his famous speech. But it does a gret job of helping the audience understand why Henry's speech was so important. War with Great Britain was an almost certainty in 1775 but Virginia was reluctant to join the colonists' quest for freedom. As a result of Henry's stirring oratory, Virginia threw its support behind the move for independence.

The filmmakers have done a pretty good job of telling at least part of Henry's story. There are, however, glaring omissions, such as the fact that he served five terms as Governor of Virginia during the Revolution. He was also was of the key proponents of the Bill of Rights.

The film also suffers technically as the animation is not as smooth or sophisticated as most young viewers have become accustomed to through a steady diet of feature films from Pixar and Dreamworks. The characters sound too "Southern": more like the Beverly Hillbillies than real Virginians. Despite these flaws the film is still enjoyable and serves its primary purpose: to teach young viewers about history through entertainment.

The filmmakers should be applauded for this admirable first effort in the History's Heroes series. Educators will no doubt find the films useful whether in the classroom or in a homeschool setting. Hopefully the production quality will continue to improve with further releases so that History's Heroes can become an essential part of history classes everywhere.

This article originally appeared at Blogcritics.

Huckabee's Moment?

Mike Huckabee's second place finish in the Iowa straw poll has given him a boost in both the polls and the media. But can Huckabee build on this momentum to move himself into the GOP's top tier? National Review's Jim Geraghty thinks there is a chance he could:

Suppose you’re an undecided Republican voter, with mixed feelings about the big-name Republican presidential candidates. You respect John McCain, but he doesn’t look like a viable option — which is just as well since he bugged you with his crusade for speech-limiting campaign finance reform, and lost you with the immigration deal with Ted Kennedy.

Mitt Romney’s wowed you in the debates, but you can’t forget that while you agree with all his positions, he had strikingly different ones not too long ago. And you would prefer a nominee who has won more than just one political race in his life.

You love Rudy Giuliani’s crime-fighting record and 9/11 leadership, but the thought of a non-pro-life Republican nominee gives you pause, and the messy home life troubles you a bit.

You were very excited about Fred Thompson, and nearly fainted with anticipation when you saw his smackdown of Michael Moore. But lately you feel like you’re playing a character in Waiting for Godot, and you’re wondering if he got lost somewhere on the way to the announcement.

Those still shopping for a candidate could do a lot worse than former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who with the second-place finish in Ames is not merely now a “top tier” candidate, as Newt Gingrich recently declared, but arguably belongs in the middle of that first tier.

Huckabee has several things going for him. He's a successful former governor (Arkansas). He's striking the right tone in his responses to quetions on foreign policy. He has solid conservative issues that will give him appeal beyond the Republican base. He's also got a great sense of humor that has served him well in the debates.

His biggest negative has been that up until now he's been in the second tier among GOP candidates. But with the increased media attention after his strong showing in Iowa more voters may begin paying attention to him. That could dramatically change the face of a race that was already starting to narrow down to two or three candidates.

300 vs. 756

This has been quite the week for baseball milestones. First, Tom Glavine won his 300th career game against the Cubs on Sunday night. Then last night, Barry Bonds finally broke Hank Aaron's career home run record by hitting number 756. Ironically, the two achievements and the athletes themselves could not be more totally different.

First, there's Barry Bonds. The whole sports media complex spent weeks waiting for him hit the magic home run. ESPN was starting to become the San Francisco Giants television network as they were showing practically every one of their games in the hopes of being able to televise the magic moment. Countless articles have been written (and will continue to be written) about whether Bonds' achievement is legitimate given the rumors of steroid use by the new home run king. There will be many debates in the coming years and nothing less than Bonds' place in baseball history (and ultimately a place in the Hall of Fame) will be at stake. Sure, he may get in but the whispers about performance-enhancing drugs will dog him for the rest of his days. Although he will hit at least a few more home runs before the end of the season (likely his last), Alex Rodriguez has already hit 500 home runs at age 32, earlier than anyone else in baseball history. Assuming he stays healthy, he could break the record in a few years. Plus, he's a much more likeable guy than Bonds and will likely be more accepted as home run king if (and when) he breaks the record.

On the other end of the spectrum is Tom Glavine, who when he went 7-17 in his first full year with the Atlanta Braves in 1988 (for the record, he was 2-4 as a late-season call-up in 1987), few writers would have ever imagined that he would have reached the pinnacle of success for a starting pitcher. 300 wins had only been achieved 22 times before in baseball history and only four other left-handers had accomplished the feat. On Sunday night, Glavine accomplished what was once thought impossible. Ironically, he may be the last pitcher to achieve that feat for years to come. But most impressive is his work ethic. He's become a better pitcher in the past few years than he was at the beginning of his career. He continues to work at being a better pitcher and all without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs. True, he hasn't received the attention that Bonds has this week. Glavine will enter the Hall of Fame with no hints of cheating, no whispers of drug use. In the end, he will be remembered as not just a member of the elite 300 win club, but one of the classiest guys ever to play the game.

Glavine credited much of his success to his family who encouraged him to work hard and pursue his dream of being a major league pitcher. If I had to pick a player for my child to look up to as a role model, I'd take Tom Glavine over Barry Bonds any day.

Money Talks

During this presidential election cycle, political reporters everywhere have been devoting a lot of time analyzing the quarterly fundraising figures of each party's presidential candidates. The theory is that the candidate who has the most money is likely to hold an edge in the upcoming elections. While it's been widely reported that Democratic presidential candidates our doing a better job of fundraising than their Republican counterparts, there is another aspect of fundraising that is being overlooked.

If you had to venture a guess, which national party has raised more money: Democrats or Republicans? If you guessed the Republican National Committee, you would be correct. (Hat tip: Rich Galen)

National parties are required to report their fundraising figures on a monthly basis while presidential candidates report quarterly. According to the Federal Election Commission, Republicans raised just about $6.6 million in the month of June while Democrats raised just under $4.2 million in the same period. So Republicans had a good month in June.

But when you look at the total raised so far in this election cycle, the results are even more dramatic: Republicans have raised almost $45 million so far while Democrats have only raised about $28 million. Republicans have more cash on hand: close to $16 million as opposed to just under $5 million for Democrats. So clearly, the RNC has a substantial financial advantage over the DNC.

How do you explain this discrepancy? The Democrats' edge in presidential fundraising seems to be driven by two factors. First, after being out of the White House for almost eight years, Democrats are very motivated to win the Presidential election. Second, the Democratic nominee is likely to be one of three candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Most of the money seems to be flowing to these three so it's a safe bet one of them will win the nomination.

On the flip side, the Republicans are motivated to recapture the Congress. Democratic inepititude in passing meaningful legislation has helped fueled the Republican cause. The presidential nomination picture is more unsettled that the Democratic picture and that's having a negative effect on fundraising. Rudy Giuliani remains the frontrunner despite plenty of reasons that Republicans have for not supporting him. Mitt Romney has the social conservative credentials but can't seem to make much headway. John McCain's campaign has imploded as he's gone from frontrunner to also-ran. Meanwhile, many Republicans wait for Fred Thompson to officially get in the race.

Democrats have an advantage in presidential fundraising that may or may not last depending on how the nomination process progresses. But they'll have to work overtime to level the playing field at the national party level. If they can't then they may win the White House but lose the Congress.

Indoctrination In The Classroom

Stanley Kurtz has an intriguing and yet frightening article on National Review Online about how the Saudis are using federal education programs to influence curriculum used in public schools about the Middle East:

Unless we counteract the influence of Saudi money on the education of the young, we’re going to find it very difficult to win the war on terror. I only wish I was referring to Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan. Unfortunately, I’m talking about K-12 education in the United States. Believe it or not, the Saudis have figured out how to make an end-run around America’s K-12 curriculum safeguards, thereby gaining control over much of what children in the United States learn about the Middle East. While we’ve had only limited success paring back education for Islamist fundamentalism abroad, the Saudis have taken a surprising degree of control over America’s Middle-East studies curriculum at home.

How did they do it? Very carefully...and very cleverly. It turns out that the system of federal subsidies to university programs of Middle East Studies (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) has been serving as a kind of Trojan horse for Saudi influence over American K-12 education. Federally subsidized Middle East Studies centers are required to pursue public outreach. That entails designing lesson plans and seminars on the Middle East for America’s K-12 teachers. These university-distributed teaching aids slip into the K-12 curriculum without being subject to the normal public vetting processes. Meanwhile, the federal government, which both subsidizes and lends its stamp of approval to these special K-12 course materials on the Middle East, has effectively abandoned oversight of the program that purveys them (Title VI).

Enter the Saudis. By lavishly funding several organizations that design Saudi-friendly English-language K-12 curricula, all that remains is to convince the “outreach coordinators” at prestigious, federally subsidized universities to purvey these materials to America’s teachers. And wouldn’t you know it, outreach coordinators or teacher-trainers at a number of university Middle East Studies centers have themselves been trained by the very same Saudi-funded foundations that design K-12 course materials. These Saudi-friendly folks happily build their outreach efforts around Saudi-financed K-12 curricula.

In one sense it's easy to see how the Saudis can be so successful in their attempts to indoctrinate American schoolchildren. But at the same time it is frightening to consider that the same tactics that are used in Middle East countries than either sponsor or encourage terrorism could be used in American schools. Hopefully, Congress will take the steps necessary to fix this situation. Given the fact that Democrats are more concerned conducting endless investigations than dealing with our country's more serious problems it's unlikely that any deal can be struck. Our kids, and ultimately our nation's security, will suffer.

The Real Home Run King

Any day now, Barry Bonds will break the career home run record when he hits number 756 (he's sitting on 753 as I am writing this post). But for many people, myself included, the real home run king will be the man who currently holds the record: Henry Aaron. In a terrific piece, Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci explains why.

An Indispensible Book

love to read and am always on the lookout for something new and exciting to explore. The other day I picked up a book from my library that I was excited to get to read. In fact, I wish it had been around when I was a boy. It's a safe bet that if I had this book when I was younger I would have been involved in much greater adventures (and no doubt my fair share of trouble) than I did. It's The Dangerous Book For Boys by Conn Iggulden and Hal Iggulden.

Even though I only have girls, I found the book thoroughly entertaining. Less a narrative and more a handbook of things that boys should know, it's a highly engaging and occasionally irreverant look at the things that fascinate boys. As I was reading the book I thought about the fact that (1) girls are much different to parent than boys (they don't have nearly the same interests) and (2) it's never too late as a guy to get involved in the stuff of adventure.

This is a book that covers everything from baseball, rugby, and soccer to poetry, grammar, and how to treat girls. Famous (and not so famous) battles are explored. Skills such as tanning skins, hunting and cooking rabbits, and tying proper knots are all documented. They also include profiles of courageous individuals and the things that we can learn from them. The section on Douglas Bader alone makes the book worthwhile.

The best thing about the book is it offers endless possibilities of activities for fathers to enjoy with their sons. Things such as building treehouses, making proper paper airplanes, or carving your own bow and arrow are the types of activies that will become wonderful memories that father and son can cherish for years to come. This is not a book to read through but rather one that you pull off the shelf anytime you need to know how to wrap a package in brown paper and string or find a coin trick to teach to your son. It's a book that a father and son could spend years working through and never get tired of trying out its projects.

Even if your a dad and you don't have any sons, go get this book. There's plenty as a guy that you need to know that you weren't taught in school. Then buy a book for your friends that do have sons. Make sure you have a copy to give to your future son-in-law. It's a book you'll want to come back to over and over again.

Should Churches Be Allowed to Use School Buildings?

It's a commonplace occurrence among newer churches. They don't have a building of their own so they rent space that is not in use on Sunday. Often, they will rent public school buildings since they would otherwise sit empty. But a case that is likely headed to the Supreme Court may decide whether such usage is constitutional under the First Amendment (Hat tip: Christianity Today):

The three judges on the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel who heard a Bronx congregation's challenge to the policy each issued a separate opinion. One judge of Bronx House hold of Faith v. Board of Education ruled in favor of the church; another decided in favor of the Board of Education's anti-church policy; a third found the case was not yet ready for review. As a result, the church may continue to use the school building pending further appeal.

The case likely prompted such division because of the question, more theological than legal, at its center: What is worship? The legal significance of the question hangs on a 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the court held that schools allowing use of their campus after hours by secular groups could not then exclude religious groups from conducting religious instruction or discussion on school grounds.

But in the 2001 case, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the federal high court appeared to draw a distinction between religiously oriented lessons and outright worship, leaving it to federal judges across the country to grapple with whether schools were permitted to ban on-campus worship services. Ruling that such blocks are legally permissible a judge on the Second Circuit panel nominated by President Clinton, Guido Calabresi, declared worship to be a form of speech incomparable to all others. By separating out all worship, Judge Calabresi, concluded that the Board of Education's policy against it does not discriminate against a particular viewpoint — which would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment — but instead justified the Board's content-based distinction.

A second judge, John Walker Jr., who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, rejected that distinction and accused Judge Calabresi of relying "more on judicial legerdemain than judicial reasoning." "The fact is," Judge Walker wrote, "that none of us who are judges are competent to offer a legal definition of worship." Judge Walker said that the Board of Education could not prohibit congregations from gaining access to public schools for worship without violating their First Amendment rights.

Although vehemently opposed to Judge Calabresi's outcome, Judge Walker seems hesitant of his own conclusion, writing his approach is "admittedly imperfect in this uncertain legal terrain." The dispute could, Judge Walker wrote, "benefit from a more conclusive resolution" by the Supreme Court.

New York City's policy prohibits churches from using public school buildings for worship services. Bronx Household of Faith had filed suit in order to continue to meet in the school. The central question is whether the church's use of the school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause states the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". At first blush, the language appears fairly plain. Permitting a church to meet in a school does not equate to establishment of religion since there is no specific requirement for citizens to participate in worship at that church or become a member of the church. But given the convoluted rulings that have come down from the Supreme Court recently particularly in these types of cases, it's entirely possible that the Court will uphold the city ordinance.

Although the ruling from the 2nd Circuit fails to resolve the issue, Judge Walker is correct in that more guidance is needed from the Court in order to decide the issue at hand. It will be interesting to see whether the Court decides to hear the case and use it to provide some clarity for Establishment Clause cases. Given the rulings handed down at the end of the current term, it's more likely that they will hand down a ruling in favor of the church without addressing the fundamental flaws of the relevant precedent cases.

David Eckstein: Getting More From Less Talent

David Eckstein, shortstop for the St. Louis Cardinals, is not the most talented guy in the major leagues. He does, however, get more from the talent he has been given than any other player in baseball. This is due to both his work ethic and his faith as Marvin Olasky explains:

Eckstein, the MVP of last year's World Series and also the shortest athlete on the field, at a generously measured 5-foot-7, is not without talent: He can hit a curveball, which Michael Jordan, a foot taller, could not. But his work ethic and faith sustain him. When I asked him about his success before a game last month, he responded, "Just keep working, working, working, and don't worry. If you start worrying in this game, everything becomes even harder. Work is your friend. Worry is your enemy."

Question: How does he keep from worrying in a sport where a player can hit the ball perfectly and still make an out? Eckstein explained, "I'm not as big as the other guys, so I've always known that I had to work real hard. But even with all that, I couldn't do anything without God. It's all Him. Let Him take control. If I go 0-for-4, I just keep working hard and praying. I'm not anxious because I know it will turn out all right My faith in Jesus is everything to me. You have to understand that He's working in His way. I've got to do everything possible to be prepared, and then to let Him take over."

Be sure to read the whole article. It's a great profile of a truly classy guy.

Independence Day

For many folks, the Fourth of July has come to mean fireworks, a day off from work, and the backyard barbecue. But as we continue to fight the long war against those who seek to destroy us, it's worthwhile to reflect upon the words that brought these great United States into being 231 years ago: The Declaration of Independence.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid
world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and
we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

NBC, Al Gore, and the Fairness Doctrine

Fox News' John Gibson made a great point during his commentary today at the end of his show The Big Story about NBC's plans to televise 75 hours of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts starting this weekend:

What is NBC doing airing dozens of hours of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts this coming weekend? And why are the Fairness Doctrine proponents of the Democrat Party not objecting to this outright gift of unequal time to just one side of a controversial issue?

NBC is reportedly airing hours of the concerts — hours upon hours — on and through various NBC platforms. Al Gore is the chairman of the Live Earth project. NBC is a company which is owned by a corporation which must declare its political contributions.

Does anybody think the Live Earth concerts are not a political statement by Gore's supporters that will end up benefiting Al Gore? Does anybody think Al Gore isn't running for president? I know he's said he's not, and every time I get a Democrat analyst sitting next to me, he or she says he's not. But it sure looks like he's running to me.

Look at the field. Hillary's got the big "mo" and the big Bill. Barack has the big pile of cash. There is a chance they will bash each other to a pulp.

Meanwhile, Gore sits on the sidelines. Remember he's a saint to the left. Remember he won in 2000. You do remember that, don't you? If you have forgotten, just ask a Democrat.

You do recall he was the original Bush hater. Didn't like Bush, didn't like the war. He's been calling for us to come home before we even touched home base in Baghdad.

Plus this whole deal about the planet melting. Gore is the left's guy, and he plays to his base.

So what's NBC doing giving Gore so many hours of airtime on NBC owned and operated television operations? Does this constitute a political contribution of free airtime? Do the people who want the return of the Fairness Doctrine think NBC should be forced to give equal time to me and let me argue against Al Gore?

I don’t think so.

That's My Word.

It's ironic to me that the same liberals who have made so much noise about resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine are silent about the real issues that providing such an abundance of coverage on this one issue presents. Plus there's the fact that even though Al Gore says he's not a candidate for President, he's certainly acting like one.

NBC, which already earned a well-deserved black eye for being willing to pay money for high-profile interviews (think Paris Hilton) apparently doesn't see a problem with overt issue and candidate advocacy. I suppose it's not a problem for them as long as it's a liberal Democrat that they are putting all over their networks. Then again, I learned a long time ago that NBC, like the rest of the "mainstream" media is much more biased than many, especially liberals, are willing to admit.

Scooter Libby's Commuted Sentence

President Bush stepped in just as former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was about to head to jail and commuted his sentence:

President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Democrats, predictably, were quick to criticize the President's decision:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mi.) released a statement saying that "until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking administration official leaking classified information. The President's action today makes it clear that he condones such activity. This decision is inconsistent with the rule of law and sends a horrible signal to the American people and our intelligence operatives who place their lives at risk everyday."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added that "the President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

In the end, it appears that the President made the right call. Regardless of what he decided to do about Libby, he was going to be criticized. If he did nothing, conservatives would be on his back for not pardoning someone who was caught in the middle of a dubious criminal investigation. If he pardoned Libby outright, he would have heard much more whining from liberals. In the end, he showed respect for the rule of law by allowing Libby's fine and probation to stand. In President Bush's mind, Libby did commit perjury even if the underlying case (the Valerie Plame leak case) had very little merit. Libby still deserved to be punished and now that punishment seems to be just about right.

Resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) recently remarked that it was time bring back the Fairness Doctrine, the old regulation that used to require broadcasts to provide equal airtime for opposing political viewpoints. As an editorial from the Examiner points out today, this idea is utterly ridiculous. (Hat tip: Power Line)

The Fiarness Doctrine was a product of a different broadcasting era. Talk radio, cable news, blogs, and the internet had not even been invented yet. The only sources of broadcast news besides commercial radio stations were the three major broadcast networks. National Public Radio had not been created until 1970. Any balanced presentation of political viewpoints needed to be guaranteed by government regulation.

But the proliferation of media outlets, particularly on cable and the Internet has made the Fairness Doctrine obsolete. No longer does a citizen have to rely on very limited sources of information.

The real motive behind the move to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Because liberals (i.e. Democrats) have been unable to successfully compete with the likes of conservative talk radio stars such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity they want to rely on government regulation.

And as the Examiner points out, if Democrats succeed in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio they won't stop there. Then they'll target television and the Internet, also. Given their dislike for Fox News, how long would it be before they figure out a way to put them out of business through government regulation?

The bottom line is this: when Democrats can't compete whether it's in talk radio or the arena of ideas, they always go back to government regulation as a way to impose their will on the American people. It's unlikely that this time they will be able to succeed.

Supreme Court Rules on Faith-Based Initiatives

The Supreme Court today ruled in the case of Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation which challenged the constitutionality of President Bush's Office of Faith Based Initiatives. The Court dismissed the suit stating that the plantiffs in the case, Freedom From Religion Foundation, didn't have the proper standing to bring the suit.

The ruling is interesting because it doesn't necessarily address whether the President's faith-based initiatives are constitutional. Rather, the argument focused on a narrow issue in Establishment Clause litigation: under what circumstances can an individual or group bring suit against the federal government to halt funding of government program that seems to run afoul of the First Amendment.

Generally speaking, an individual taxpayer cannot bring suit against the government for any reason. However, there is a specific exception that was created by the Supreme Court in its 1968 ruling Flast vs. Cohen. That case requires that the program in question is the direct result of congressional funding.

The Court, in deciding the case, determined that because the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is funded by the Executive Branch than directly by Congress there was no cause of action under Faust.

While the result will be applauded by conservatives, the Court has again opted to punt on dealing with the more serious issue of whether the Faust exception is constitutional at all. In the end, while the Court may have settled this case they have left the door open for more of this type of litigation to come from separatist groups. One can only hope that the Court can find the way to provide clearer guidance on these and other difficult constitutional questions.

There's No Such Thing as an "Ex-Marine"

My uncle, who served in the U. S. Marine Corps, often tells me that there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine". My dad, who was an Air Force man, always told me the same thing. This story proves there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine".

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

Interview: Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade

Brian Kilmeade is a busy guy these days. He's a co-host of Fox and Friends on the Fox News Channel, co-hosts Brian and the Judge with Andrew Napolitano on Fox News Radio and writes books in his spare time. His second book, It's How You Play The Game, has just been published by Regan Books. I caught up with him in Washington, D. C. while he was on the first leg of his book tour.

You’re co-hosting a television show and radio show on a daily basis and writing books on the side. How do you find time to do all of that?

I think that I am just as busy as everybody else, but I have the advantage of being more structured. I really have no control of my schedule until noon. I get up at 2:30. I’m out the door at 2:50. From that time until noon, I really have no say in my schedule. Then I do a quick video blog at 12:15, which is on Fox News.com. I pick three or four sports stories and comment on them a day, and then I am really free to do what I want. When I am not writing a book or my book tour is done, I can pick up my kids from school, I can run track, I can go watch them play, attend practice with them, have a catch, or bring them to the doctor. So the only thing I sacrifice is sleep and that’s about it.

Tell us about It’s How You Play the Game. How did the idea for this book come about?

With my first book, The Games Do Count, I wanted to start with people like myself but were more accomplished, but really had the same sports experience as me. That is you gave everything, but you didn’t become Joe Montana, you did not become Cal Ripken, so did you waste your time? That’s why the games do count because they do count even if not in the wins and loss columns, because they do count to you. Then I found out from talking to the President, and talking to John Kerry, and the 73 other people I interviewed that they were passionate about what they did in sports, but no they don’t really have the trophy shelf to reflect an accomplishment. This happened, that happened, that’s why I am glad I played, this is why I still watch today. I thought, wow, this is pretty unbelievable. Then I started getting letters, hand-written letters, from people that would tell me about their coaches. They would say, “I was reading your book, and I was reminded to call my soccer coach, call my football coach, to thank my dad for being my coach. Then I started signing books and going on book tours. I got almost nothing for an advance. I am not Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly, so I don’t have this huge name, but I am at a great place, on a great show. The minute the book started selling on its own, then they toured me, and I had a chance to talk to people. No one talked about wins or championships, or even great moments. They talked about how proud they were that they tried and the glory in the effort. Then I got handwritten letters to go along with the e-mail. So I sat down Judith Regan who is a genius, and she said “Brian, ethics and values would have sold your book, not sports”, and I said, “I agree.” I said that I wanted get history involved, and I wanted to be able to write about George Patton, Abraham Lincoln, John Wayne, and Gene Kelly because I know in researching that they played and played hard and that they just happened to die, so I couldn’t interview them. I also wanted to find a way to humanize superstars, and let people know that we are just like them, like you and I are just like Joe Montana, Steve Young, Mugsy Bogues, Shawn Elliott and Jerry West. And the way to do that is to tell them how they developed. I didn’t care how they got good. I cared about how they learned character, values, and ethics.

So I just said how did you learn how to play, how did you learn how to act, how did you learn how to coach. From Terry Bradshaw on down, no one brought me to the Super Bowl, and I was not that interested. Terry Bradshaw would say, “Brian, the first thing that I did well was 5th Grade throwing the ball into a rug.” Cal Ripken said to me, “I learned leadership because my dad, after playing with him all day and saw him running every clinic, at the end of the day would look me in the eye and say Cal, I am leaving, you are the man of the house now. He looked at us and gave us the responsibility.”

I thought if I could share those stories with people, they will think that they are like Joe Montana. I am like Cal Ripken, and I can relate to these stories and maybe I shouldn’t quit, maybe I should follow through. Maybe the fact that I am on the base [promoting the book] does not make me a loser, it makes me like Rush Limbaugh, and it makes me like Senator Bob Dole. I wanted to get people-relevance to their own view in coaching and playing career.

It’s interesting that through all of these stories, nobody talked about winning as being the real key to their success.

Gene Kelly said it best through his son. “My Dad always told me that you have to do everything you can to win, but you can’t be caught up in just winning. It is so much more than just winning. What you have an obligation to do is to do everything you can to win, within the rules, but you cannot grade yourself on the outcome. If you did then that means that there are 9,000,000 losers every day. You are not a loser if the game did not come out your way. What are you going to learn from it?”

I also want to tell you, if you get The Games You Count or It’s How You Play the Game, you are not going to get a bunch of great stories that put a smile on your face. You are going to get some people that will tell you stories that make you cringe because they show arrogance, they showed a lack of gumption, but they learn from that. They regret it, and they gave themselves another chance, and they said, “I will not repeat that behavior.”

After The Games Do Count, I wanted to get away [from sports]. I love history and I picked up “Patton” and said I am going to read it. I get to page 45, and there are letters from George Patton writing home to his dad lamenting the fact that he can’t break the line at West Point as a linebacker, and how am I ever going to get in the game against Navy to fulfill my dreams? Wait a second. George Patton was frustrated at self-doubt, and he felt that he had no control over his future or wasn’t tough enough to play? A lot of people want to write themselves off or their kids off because they don’t seem to be amounting to anything. Well, George Patton and Abraham Lincoln were not amounting to much for a long time. I thought if I could put history in there, and also the fact that I have these letters, I said to myself there might be an adequate sequel to The Games Do Count that would get me just as passionate to do it.

One of things I noticed in some of the stories you tell is that the Dads made a real difference in a lot these folks lives. Did you find that a common thread through some of these stories and learn from it as a Dad, too?

I have learned that (1) I will not be the type of Dad that says my 9 year old doesn’t want to baseball so he won’t. I will push them to do stuff, and then give them a chance, after a season, to make their choice. Kids at 9 years old aren’t equipped to make that decision. I want a kid, active and taking part, and showing his dedication, showing up on time and going through it. If I had a kid that loved music and just wanted to do plays, I would bring him every day and do something after school that requires you to work outside. However, I will say this, I have learned that the wrong thing to do is to live through your kids. I think you should give your kid every opportunity to be successful, and also if you can possibly get your kids motivated to the point that they want to practice whatever they do outside of the sport, I think if you have a future Hall of Fame, business person, social worker, whatever it is, so that they can show that type of self-motivation early, that’s tremendous, and that is what I was trying to instill. That’s what I do to my 10 year old. I want them to say that I have got to get better, and it is going to be alone in my backyard. Instead of hanging out with friends at night, I am going out in the backyard and throw a ball against the pitch back or against the wall because if you have those traits, there is no doubt in my mind that you are going to be OK in college and any career.

(2) I think fun is important. A lot times you can have fun giving it your all, sweating and showing emotion, but that’s fun. Walking around not caring doesn’t really help anybody. I am talking about youth sports.

I’ll give you an example: Joe Montana – his story was great – he was playing against his dad, and he used to play one on one basketball against his dad. “I lot of times I would beat him, but my dad would throw me to the ground, step on my foot, trip me from behind, and when I complained, he asked me to call a ref, or go inside. I was just determined to not to let him get to me. I was determined to beat him. And I also learned that day, that time, that no one is going to save me. Deal with it. The ref’s bad, the crowds are bad, the conditions are bad, the coach did not put me in. Find a way.” Joe Montana found a way, all of the time at the 49ers, but I wasn’t interested in the pro career. I wanted to find out how he found out that he had to find a way.

Just imagine how different his career would have been had it not been for finding that way.

Mickey Mantle said something that is not in my book, but I met Mickey Mantle’s sons, and they said that he said,” I look at one of my sons, and he was Mickey, Jr., and if had my dad as a dad, he would have been a Major League star.” But Mickey, the next generation, was caught up in drinking, not in being a dad like his dad, who was a coal miner, passed away young, who was determined that he saw something in Mickey and he was determined to fulfill the challenge. Mickey said, “I let me sons down because I was not as determined for them to fulfill their talent.” I think as a parent, you have an obligation to allow your kid to find out, I hope, find out what they are good at, what they like, and pursue it hard. I think even if you go through school and don’t do it, as long as you learn what you did wrong, you will have a second chance. That is what this book says. It is not about leading these majestic lives that you want to emulate, but it is about famous people who have had the same struggles you had, and managed to persevere.

Book Review: Ten Tortured Words

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
- First Amendment of the United States Constitution

The words seem so straightforward and simple. Yet no other part of the Constitution of the United States is so misunderstood and misconstrued as the First Amendment, particularly the first ten words which deal with freedom of religion. Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield delves into the history of the amendment that has caused more uproar and more court battles than any other in his outstanding new book Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America...and What's Happened Since.

Mansfield, who has spent many years working on behalf of religious liberty all over the world, starts with a careful examination of the Founders original intent in crafing the First Amendment. He takes the reader back inside the debates within the Constitutional Convention and the amendment is being debated. By relying on the transcripts from the Convention, he shares the Founders thoughts in their own words. As the original intent behind the amendment is revealed it is easy to see how these ten words have been so twisted over time.

But the story doesn't just end there. In fact, the drafting of the amendment is really only the beginning of the story. Mansfield moves on to a detailed examination of the man whose words in a private letter have become the basis for almost all battles over religious liberty in the United States for the past sixty years: Thomas Jefferson.

On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The Danbury Baptists had written to Jefferson regarding concerns they had about the government's role in religion. Jefferson's reply included a phrase that has since become familiar to many Americans: "a wall of separation between church and state". Although Jefferson's intent was to simply emphasize that the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular religion (similar to the Church of England in Britain), many courts have taken the phrase to mean that the government should not have any role in religion and vice versa.

It was the Supreme Court, in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) that would first use the "wall of separation" phrase. What's most interesting about this decision is not so much the case itself (although the case is quoted in the appendices and reveals the convoluted logic the Court used to arrive at its decision) but the personalities behind the case, particularly Justice Hugo Black who authored the decision.

Perhaps most surprising is the chapter on the ACLU and their involvement in First Amendment litigation. Many readers will no doubt be shocked to learn how the ACLU has turned this type of litigation into a profit-making endeavor by taking advantage of loopholes in current civil rights statutes.

Ten Tortured Words brings history alive through its engaging narrative. Mansfield avoids the trap of getting bogged down in legalese in discussing the court cases and instead focuses as much attention on the personalities involved in the battles. As a result, it is a highly entertaining and informative book.

Learning from Failure

Last Friday, I went to take an exam for a class I had been working on through my job. I had been putting quite a bit of time and effort into it in the week leading up tot he exam but really hadn't adequately prepared. It came as no surprise to me that I didn't pass. Although the grade report after the exam siad "non-pass" I knew the reality of the situation. I had failed.

A couple of things stood out to me about this experience. First, I was a little offended by the "non-pass" grade. The report should have said that I failed. After all, I hadn't answered neough of the questions correctly. Why is there a pathological fear in our society of telling someone they have failed? Most of it, I think, has to do with the inflated importance we put on an individual's self-esteem. By avoiding the use of the word failure we think we are helping the individual to not think less of themselves.

The key in dealing with the disappointments that come at us in life is in our attitude. We can either choose to be beaten down by failure or we can choose to succeed in spite of past shortcomings. Thomas Edison said it best when he said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." In other words, he didn't allow lack of success to deter him from his goals. He learned from his failures and kept on working until he achieved success in whatever he was working on.

As Dads, we need to be setting the example for our kids in how we cope with failures and disappointments. Yes, my kids got to see their dad not succeed at something he had worked at. But what they will also see is that I'm not going to give up and work even harder to make sure the next time I face this same problem that I succeed.

Winston Churchill once said that "Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts." If my children can see courage in me through my failures then the pain of the failures will have all be worthwhile.

D-Day Prayer

Today marks the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, June 6, 1944, which marked the turning point of World War II. On that day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on the radio and prayed for the troops. It's worth looking back on this prayer as it is one that is as relevant today as it was sixty-three years ago:

My Fellow Americans:
Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is
won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944