GOP urges Berger lie test

Eighteen House Republicans have urged the Justice Department to proceed with a polygraph test for Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser who agreed to take the test as part of a plea of guilty of stealing documents from the National Archives.

The Media and the Dysfunctions of the 21st Century: Address at the 7th Annual Herzliya Conference

As I said, we live in an unanticipated era.

Let’s start with the bad news.

First of all, as a historian of civil society, of the millennium-long struggle in the West to achieve this extraordinary marvel of the modern world, this experiment in human freedom, I want to say: European democratic civilization can fall before the Islamic challenge. Something similar happened before, in the 5th century, when a culturally superior Roman civilization fell to a primitive tribal Germanic culture. And if Europe continues on its current path, that will happen sooner rather than later.

Second, this is going to get worse before it gets better. Starting in October 2000, the most terrible form of apocalyptic movement, active cataclysmic – we are the agents in the vast destruction that precedes our millennial victory – entered the public sphere of world culture and rather than being beaten back, took hold and grew stronger. Once these movements, which in the past have killed 10s of millions, “take,” they are like forest fires. They cannot be stopped, at best they can be channeled. We are in for a long and unpleasant conflict that will demand a great deal from us.

Third, modern media play a critical role in Global Jihad’s success. Not just the use Jihadis make of modern technology to spread their message, but the role our modern MSM play in both disguising and encouraging the phenomenon. And the core of the problem, the ground upon which this dysfunctional relationship between Jihad and MSM first emerged, but also the most dramatic on which it plays out, is the MSM’s treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[snip]

My advice to the Israeli and Jewish people: Know who you are.

[snip]

My advice to the Israeli government: Open a mouth. Go on the offensive. Stop beating your breasts in agony over civilian lives that your enemies happily sacrifice into the maw of their death cults in front of an eager media that can turn the grotesque parade of dead children at Kafr Qana into a tale of Hizbullah resistance to Israeli aggression.

[snip]

My advice to Jews in the diaspora: Stop being embarrassed by the media-driven image that you get of Israel.

[snip]

My advice to Europeans: Get over the politics of resentment in which you so want to see George Bush forced to leave Iraq that you don’t even think about the impact that will have on arousing your own Muslim populations against you, including those who will come from triumphant Iraq to your continent.

[snip]

My advice to journalists, especially to the young ones. Be true to your profession – a noble one — not to your guild; to your standards and your readers – not your editors and your peer group. You move today in a drama akin to The Emperor’s New Clothes, where your guild plays the role of courtiers, insisting that the politically correct, post-colonial garment fits the situation magnificently.

Want to know what Iraq is really like? Michelle Malkin on a walking tour of Khadimiyah.

Hot Air film.

"The State of the Union is a Disaster"

The speech Bush should give tonight:

Don’t bother standing up or clapping, any of you. I already know who won the election, and I know how you feel.

I come before you tonight not to make amends, not to make it good, curry any favor or find any middle ground.

I am, more or less, a lame duck. You’ve had your 100 hours of party time. I know. I won’t get any legislation passed without some major bottom-kissing. Maybe something on illegal aliens. That health insurance thing I’ll be talking about later tonight is pretty much for show. I know it isn’t going anywhere. A proposal to raise middle-class taxes for a healthcare plan you don’t even want? What was I thinking?

None of that really matters. Not now. Those are peacetime issues we’ve been bickering about for a long time, and I don’t expect we’ll resolve them anytime soon.

So what is the best thing I can do tonight? I can tell you the truth. What none of you want to hear. What you’ve been stopping your ears to. The ugly truth.

The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough.

We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.

But that is not the disaster.

The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight.

Faced with a fundamental challenge to our own security, to everything we believe in, to the world order to peace and security for which we and our parents fought so hard for so many years, you now want to pretend like none of these threats are real. You want to surrender to the evil I have been telling you about. An evil that, unchecked, can consume large parts of the world and threatens to usher in a dark age.

You didn’t like it when I talked about evil. Sounded too simple, too uncompromising, too moralistic. Too … biblical.

I don’t know what else you call people who fly passenger jets into office buildings; who rape women in front of their husbands and children, and execute their opponents in acid baths; who seek to spread tyrannical and archaic religious regimes that enslave women and stifle fundamental freedoms. Who want to dominate the world’s primary oil fields with nuclear weapons.

I call it evil. Works for me.

Read the rest.

Mark Steyn at the Heritage Foundation

On the war with Islam.

The video is about 50 minutes and is well worth your time.

More on the oxymoron: journalistic ethics.

Dr. Helen comments on her experience with Journalists .... and then others chime in:

Neo-neocon has an interesting post on her experience with the Psychology Today article on "fearful" conservatives and "rational" liberals. She was interviewed for this particular article and surprisingly, her interview was left out of the article. Perhaps she didn't tell the interviewer what they wanted to hear. I have this happen frequently. XYZ magazine, TV show, etc. calls me and asks my opinion on X and I give my unfiltered response--usually not what they want to hear--and the familiar, "We'll get back to you, uhh....real soon"-click is the typical reply. I have even been told by some shows that "we will just keep looking for someone who agrees with our point of view." "Good luck," I tell them. My feeling on most interviews etc. is that if I cannot say what I want or it will be edited to the point that I do not recognize my words, why do it?

Blinding Us with Science

Jonah Goldberg has a new essay out that has some amazing quotes and raises some thought provoking issues:

First the quote:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), declared this month, “It is scandalous that eight years have passed since we have known about stem cell research and the potential to conquer all known maladies, and federal funds have not been available for the research.”

All . . . known . . . maladies? Really? Before that, John Edwards all but promised that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for Christopher Reeve to walk again.

The promises made by the embryonic stem cell research advocates are breath taking, and scandalous!

Now some thoughts:

Simply because science can do something is in no way an argument that it should (or shouldn’t) do it. Science is morally neutral. Science kills and science cures. Which is why it’s so disturbing that both left and right have bought into the rhetoric of science as a source of morality. Scientists themselves tend to understand the moral ambiguity of science, which is why they spend so much time arguing about professional ethics.

For example, everybody agrees that life-ending experimentation on a 5-year-old boy would be wrong. But what if such research could solve “all human maladies?” Would it be wrong then? More relevant, would it be “anti-science?”

Yes, yes, ESCR advocates reject comparing embryos to fully developed humans.
But that misses the point on two scores.

First, the determination that embryos have no moral worth is not a scientific conclusion but a moral one. Second, rejecting the comparison doesn’t answer the question: Is it anti-science to bar certain procedures on moral grounds?

Virginian Pilot Outrage of the Day

As is common in most of the MSM, the Virginian Pilot’s “letters to the editor” are a close reflection of its editorial position. The few exceptions, as they say “prove the rule.” That is why – as an example - in a community surrounded by military personnel, the letters to the editor are overwhelmingly against the Iraq war even though the military – and especially the military families involved in the fighting – are the strongest supporters of the war.

My friend, Ted Galanides, recently had a rare letter printed that was critical of the Norfolk Forum for inviting so many Liberals speakers. In particular he referred to a recent speech by Bill Moyers, the very controversial host of a Leftist TV program on PBS. He was so disgusted by Moyers that he walked out.

In response the Pilot has taken the not-unusual position of printing several letters criticizing Ted and defending the Norfolk Forum and Bill Moyers. The latest, a letter by Norfolk Forum Board member Charles McPhillips characterized the Moyers rant this way: “with the notable exception of Mr. Galanides the large audience for Mr. Moyers remained at Chrysler Hall in rapt attention until the end of his eloquent address, after which he received a rare standing ovation.”

"Rapt attention?" "Eloquent address?" Not the Bill Moyers I know and loathe. The one who instructed the FBI to find homosexuals in Barry Goldwater's campaign and the author of the infamous "Daisy and Atomic Explosion" ad that the Johnson campaign ran against Goldwater.

Moyers' who said this: During coverage of the 2004 presidential election,

Moyers stated, "I think that if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think that there would be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. I mean that the right-wing is not going to accept it."[9]

That “rare” standing ovation is one of those phenomena that I have experienced myself. All it takes to start one is to get to your feet, urge your friends to do the same and in a few seconds people around you are psychologically bullied into standing up so as not to appear sullen.

I differ with Ted in one respect. Had I seen Moyers on the program, I would not have walked out; I would not have gone to the Forum in the first place. I have better ways of abusing myself for a few hours, and I can do it in the comfort of my own home.

Ann Coulter: "Duke Rape" and NY Times Lying Techniques

Ann makes a point that cannot be overemphasized. The primary lies told in the MSM are lies of omission. It's what they leave out that is the lie.

The first part of the story — the lie part — was angrily reported in the Times. But as the accuser's story began to unravel, the Times gave only a selective account of the facts, using its famed lie-by-omission technique.

Among the many gigantic omissions from the Times' pretend-balanced article ("Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers") is the fact that the only remaining particulars about the case that are not completely exculpatory come from a memo by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb — written four months after the alleged incident.

Gottlieb, the lead investigator on the alleged rape case, took no contemporaneous notes when he interviewed the accuser, but rather waited for the facts to come in — and his case to be falling apart — to write a memo recalling her statements during that initial investigation. The statements he recalled were surprisingly favorable to the prosecution!

The only problem with his memo, besides being preposterous on its face, is that it is contradicted by the contemporaneous notes taken by other people involved in the investigation. Indeed, the only thing Gottlieb's memo was consistent with were the facts as the prosecution was then alleging them.

Of course, it was hard to keep straight what facts the prosecution was alleging. The accuser made up so many stories about the incident that the Times was forced to offer her Jayson Blair's old position.

The Times "No Answers" article gave no indication that Gottlieb's memo was written four months after the alleged rape, but rather refers to it as the policeman's "case notes," falsely suggesting the notes were taken during the investigation and not after the frame-up.

Beginning with the strongest invented evidence from Gottlieb's "case notes," the Times reported that the nurse who examined the alleged rape victim told Gottlieb that the "blunt force trauma" seen in the examination "was consistent with the sexual assault that was alleged by the victim."

Or at least that's what Gottlieb wrote four months after talking to the nurse. It's not what the nurse wrote the night she examined the accuser. To the contrary, the only sign of physical trauma the nurse noted in her written report immediately after examining the accuser were some superficial scratches on the woman's knee and heel.

Indeed, in all 24 pages of the report prepared by doctors and nurses who examined the accuser the night of the alleged rape, there is no mention of any "blunt force trauma" or any injuries other than the scratches.

Duke Faculty Claims Widespread Racism, Sexual Assault on Campus. Avoid Duke At All Costs!

According to 88 leading members of the Duke faculty this is what students will find on campus:

Social Disaster

Rape

Racism,

Segregation,

Isolation

Sexism

Sexual violence

Protesters making collective noise.

And those are just the most prominent issues facing you as a student at the Durham campus.

Of course if you happen to be a white lacrosse player, bring your lawyer to campus with you. You'll need representation and a big budget. On the other hand, if you are a black basketball player, bring your copy of Tom Wolfe's "I am Charlotte Simmons." Its an instruction manual on getting it on with the willing coeds on campus.

Duke Lacrosse Mother Letter

Prof. Holloway,

I am the mother of a Duke Lacrosse player. After reading your article in September, I penned a response. I held off sending it, to see if my thoughts would change as my anger subsided. Unfortunately, my anger has not subsided. I do not want to prejudge you as those who prejudged the innocent Duke Three and the entire lacrosse team. Therefore, I respectfully request you respond to my letter so I may better understand why you would write such a vile article. Below is my response to your article.

I sit and ponder, how could any woman be so cruel and callous, and judge a whole class of individuals without any facts. What was more puzzling and definitely more alarming was that you had a son convicted of rape and attempted murder, and who was going to be tried for the murder of two others. It has always been my belief that educators not only had a moral obligation but a duty to have an open mind and to encourage your students to do the same. I teach History to high school students. Clearly, you do not understand this obligation. My first reaction was to attack, but what would be the sense. I wondered, do you attack our sons, because you feel guilt for your own failures as a mother? Do you attack our sons, because you are so selfish that you cannot stand the thought of our sons leading successful lives, when your son did not and can not? Do you attack our sons to justify your own short comings? Do you attack our sons because it's easier than looking yourself in the mirror? Do you attack our sons because they are innocent and your son was not? The answer may be yes to all of those questions. How sad for you that you have been reduced to a pathetic, heartless individual. While people with souls and hearts, would suffer and wallow in their own pain for a while, when the dust settles, they would fight to turn a tragic situation into something positive. Instead, you are so self centered, you have made yourself the victim in your son's death and in the Duke hoax.

"We all leave footprints in the sand, the question is, will we be a big heal, or a great soul." - Source Unknown

This week I was touched by two families who have suffered the worst imaginable loss in any parent's life, the loss of a child. One was Rachel Scott, age 17, the first person killed at Columbine, the second was Louis Acompora, age 14, killed while playing the game he loved, lacrosse, by a syndrome known as commotio cordis. What struck me is that both these remarkable young individuals were able to leave a lasting legacy that has and will continue to touch million of hearts and souls. Rachel Scott's legacy has been the formation of Rachael's Challenge which challenges us and inspires us all to do random acts of kindness. Louis Acompora's foundation has saved countless individuals by making defibulators available in schools and other public areas.

Though I cannot compare the loss of a child, with the loss of a child's trust in the kindness and goodness of man, I wrestle with what will be the legacy of our sons and our families as we emerge from this travesty of justice. Rachel Scott said, "Look hard enough and you'll always find a light." So I have challenged myself to find "my light".

At this time the path is dim for I have not let go of the anger and rage I feel against Nifong for creating and continuing this hoax for his own personal and political gain; against the Duke administration for abandoning our sons, even today as the evidence clearly shows their innocence, and using the lacrosse team and Coach Pressler as the scapegoats in a feeble attempt to protect Duke's reputation; against some of the Duke faculty for condemning and harassing our sons without a scintilla of evidence to further their own philosophical agendas; and against [accuser's name withheld] for not having the courage to end this charade by telling the truth.

However, I also recognize that to find the light I must choose forgiveness. Forgiveness does not mean I do not want Nifong disbarred or Duke to walk away without an apology to our sons. Forgiveness is just the ceasing to feel resentment and anger. I am not there today, but I am at a point that I must consider the possibility that there is a "light", for if I do not, I will find myself like you, Professor Holloway, a sad, bitter, resentful woman, attempting to squash the dreams of others because after your own personal tragedy you were not able to find your "light" and therefore have no dreams of your own.

When Colin, Reade and Dave are exonerated, what will be our legacy? I believe these three courageous young men will be great souls. They have showed us over the past six months how to handle adversity with class and dignity that is beyond their years. Each one of these young men will leave lasting imprints on all those they touch. They will have entered the eye of a hurricane and come out to tell others abut it. The legacy of the lacrosse team will be that of "truth". We will not stop, no matter what, in our quest to let the world know the truth of what transpired on March 13/14, the lacrosse team has stood steadfast in the events that occurred, even after being vilified publicly.

But what will my legacy be? I need to find a goal, as do many of the mothers and fathers of the lacrosse team, so we will be able to try to make sense out of something that has no sense. It may be a crusade to protect the "accused's" identity in rape cases much like the accuser's. Sadly, even when the young men are exonerated, there will still be many who will characterize the lacrosse team as "rapists". There will still be whispers. Many still want to turn a blind eye to the facts. Without any evidence the Durham Police Department, put our son's pictures on a "Wanted Poster" and published it in main stream national media for days. Colin, Reade and Dave's pictures, continue to be shown in the mainstream media. I hope I am able to emerge from this travesty with a vision to make the choice to make a change to protect other innocent young men.

I live the negative impact of this hoax daily knowing the three families live it greater than I do. I hope that one day I have the strength to choose to make a positive impact for if I don't, I may waste my life, like you, Prof. Holloway, wallowing in self pity. You are a big heel in the sand, I chose to be a great soul.

The Scott and Acompora families will be my inspiration! They will lead me to my light. You have also inspired me, of what I choose not to become.

Patricia Dowd Mother of Duke Lacrosse Player, Kyle Dowd

Liberals and Conservatives - the Difference

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer, and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

Liberals; and Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.

That's how villages were formed

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night, while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men, who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned to live off the Conservatives, by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's, and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these Liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "Girliemen".

Some noteworthy Liberal achievements; include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the Elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the Jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish, but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard Liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the" designated hitter rule" because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history; that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more Liberals, just to piss them off.

Undercover Mosque

What the Islamofascists are really teaching in their mosques.

The Watchmaker

Click on the link for "The Watchmaker"

AP: When it Doesn't Make Stuff Up, Misleads.

Consider this article: UAE beats Americans' environmental harm.
Then consider this statement:

The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001

Actually the US was NEVER bound by the Kyoto treaty. It was never submitted by President Clinton when the treaty was first written becaue it would not have been ratified by the Senate.

Here are the details from Wikipedia.

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

And these are the people who claim that Jamil Hussein is real and all his 61 stories are true.

The Latest & Greatest On Jamil Hussein

An update

Mark Steyn: Pelosi a rare example of a woman who 'has it all'

I don't know where they stand on apple pie, but the Democrats have come out for motherhood in a big way. In fact, who needs apple pie when you've got the extra-sugary content of the Washington Post? Last Wednesday, the capital's newspaper of record (now available in print, online and in granulated form) published a column headlined ''Grandma With A Gavel.''

Can you guess which grandma it was, boys and girls? Yes, it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has single-handedly, as she put it, ''shattered the marble ceiling.'' And she's right: From CNN to the New York Times, the entire press corps has lost its marbles. Grandma Smith Goes to Washington is the hit of the planet. At a time when most grandmothers are reduced to eating dog food because the Bush administration refuses to let them bulk-order prescription drugs from Saskatchewan or, even more horrifying, reduced to watching Robert Goulet in dinner theater night after night in Florida, Gran'ma Pelosi has single-handedly shattered the dinner-theater ceiling and/or dog-kennel ceiling. ''Grandma With A Gavel'' was written by hard-headed reporter Ruth Marcus, scourge of Republican Justice Departments for many years, and this column reflected her notoriously sharp forensic skills:

''The images as California Democrat Nancy Pelosi took office last week were striking -- and stirring -- in their unfamiliarity. Pelosi, holding her infant grandson swaddled in a white receiving blanket, as she sat in the well of the House, awaiting her election. Pelosi, with the assurance of a mother experienced at dispensing cookies to impatient toddlers, giving each child his -- and her -- turn with the gavel. Pelosi raising her hand to take the oath as her grandson, at her side, fiddled with grandma's papers.''

Golly. One only hopes the wee ones understand that, post-coronation, Queen Nancy's ascension to the throne might cut into all this quality time. "Gran'ma Got Run Over By Her Reign, Dears,'' as the old song so shrewdly warns. But don't Republicans have families, too? Yes, but let's face it, they creep you out, don't they? If you have the misfortune to be nominated by the Bush administration, your kids get headlines like ''An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated.'' That was the Washington Post's Style Section on Chief Justice John Roberts' moppets: They didn't care for ''the 1950s-style tableaux vivant,'' or the ''freshly scrubbed and adorable'' look from ''a Currier & Ives landscape''; they sniffed at the ''seersucker suit with short pants'' of ''towheaded Jack'' and his sister's ''blond pageboy''; they didn't even like the name ''Jack

Plastic Turkey Story

One of the problems with the MSM is that it's a one-way medium. THEY are telling YOU. You can write them a letter or make a phone call to try to get a correction, but the only part of the dialog that other people read is what THEY allow. The MSM essentially has a "mute" button on disagreement.

So if they tell a lie about either a big or small thing, we - the public - is left dependent on the whims of the person who first told the lie. They can either admit it or not. And if the MSM telling the lie is the source of information for a lot of other media outlets, the lie quickly becomes the "truth."

And imagine if the MSM prints a correction. Like this one.

Correction: July 11, 2004, Sunday An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.

Notice where it was found. Section 4, page 1, column 2. By this time the story about Bush's "plastic turkey" had turned into an urban myth spread throughout the world by the "repspected" NY Times and by all the papers tht picked up this story; and thier number is legion.

Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?

If it were up to the MSM, there would be no further questions about Sandy
Burger's pantload. It will be a test of the strength of the new media, the Internet bloggers et al, to see if we can find out from the politicos, the law enforcement officers, and perhaps the average citizen with a clue to find out what Sandy Burger and the Clintons wanted hidden from view.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

[snip]

Politicians never like to admit mistakes. They see legitimate inquiries as politically inspired, which they often are. Changing the subject or shifting blame to others aren't tactics peculiar to the Clintons.

The Clintons, however, take the game of deny-deceive-and-distract to a new level. Their relentless personal attacks on Ken Starr were designed to undermine the credibility of information about Bill Clinton's perjury, to deflect attention from his own failings. Clinton's excessive reaction - complete with hyperbole, finger-wagging, and scolding - to a simple question from Fox News' Chris Wallace about his response to al-Qaeda is in the same vein. Something here touches a nerve.

That nerve is exposed in the Sandy Berger saga. This story at bottom is about the security of our nation, about what was - or was not - done to protect us from the most shocking and deadly attack on American citizens by foreign agents in our nation's history. This story is critical not only to understanding our past but also to securing our future. It can help us understand what it is reasonable to expect can be done to keep us and our loved ones safe from harm. It is, in short, as important a story as there is.


**********

It is a story the news media should be desperate to explore, not desperate to avoid.

They should want to know the full story, no matter what the implications are for the legacy of a president much loved by an overwhelmingly liberal media or what the risks are for a former First Lady whose future is tied to her husband's past. Those risks loom especially large before a field of potential Republican presidential candidates with strong reputations in security matters - like Rudy Giuliani, for example, whose courageous performance on 9/11 still resonates.

Those who wrap themselves so frequently in the mantra of the people's right to know should want to know the truth - all the time. Sadly, today's would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins look more like ostriches than hawks, showing no curiosity about what Sandy Berger was hiding. Had that been the attitude when Watergate first appeared as a minor news story, Richard Nixon would have served out his full second term. The rest, as they say, is history.

Will Saudis Ban the Letter ‘X'?

It appears that the letter "X" too closely resembles the Christian cross.

But here's the most interesting part of the article:

Among the commission's deeds is the famed 1974 fatwa — issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile. In a book issued by the Islamic University of Medina, the sheik argued: "If the earth is rotating, as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom."

The next time a Leftist, equating Islam with Christianity, says anything - let him have it with that fatwa.