Pennsylvanian in exile

Sharia watch: Minneapolis

Somalian immigrant cabbies at Minneapolis's airport are refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol.

When flight attendant Eva Buzek returned to Minneapolis from a trip to France, five taxi drivers refused to take her home from the airport. The reason? She had two bottles of wine in her suitcase -- and the drivers were Muslims, who don't drink and refuse to have alcohol in their taxis.

About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Somalis, many of them Muslim. And about three times each day, would-be customers are refused taxi service when a driver sees they're carrying alcohol.

"It's become a significant customer-service issue," said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, on Thursday.

Now the airports commission has a solution: color-coding the lights on the taxi roofs to indicate whether a driver will accept a booze-toting fare. The actual colors haven't been decided on yet, but commission officials met Thursday with representatives of the taxi drivers and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society to continue working on the plan.

The airports commission has struggled with the issue for several years. Alcohol is a serious concern for devout Muslims, said Hassan Mohamud, an imam and vice president of the society. The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, strictly forbids buying, selling, drinking or carrying alcohol.

The observant drivers object only to transporting openly displayed alcohol, said Ali Culed, a Somali Muslim who's been driving an airport cab for eight years. They won't search passengers or quiz them about what's in their bags.

"It is a religious issue," Culed said. "I cannot force anybody to change their belief, but not in my cab. I don't want the guilt. I just want to be an innocent person."

Hogan said taxi starters at curbside will look for duty-free bags with bottles or other obvious signs of alcohol and steer riders to cabs whose drivers don't object to booze.

Buzek, the flight attendant, said she was refused service in March after she told a driver to be careful with her suitcase because it had wine in it. Other drivers in the taxi line passed the word, she said, and four more refused her service. A dispatcher finally steered her to a driver who would take the fare.

Buzek, who grew up in Poland, said her treatment goes against American values.

"I came to this country and I didn't expect anybody to adjust to my needs," she said. "I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That's why I'm in this country, because of the freedom.

"What's going to be next? ... Do I have to cover my head?"

Mohamud said that wouldn't happen.

"According to Muslim law, a Muslim driver cannot question a person's faith or beliefs," he said. "It's not a matter of the person, it's what the person is carrying."

If other religious issues come up, they'll be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, Hogan said.

"We can't promise that we can accommodate every religious belief," he said. "Our interest is in making sure people can get a cab."

What a bunch of dhimmis there at the airport. These cabbies need to find another line of work if they are going to discriminate against passengers who are carry a LEGAL substance with them. It's not like it's soap or deodrant, which these cabbies probably find even more abhorrent.

The GOP doesn't need saved from its base

In spite of bleatings from RINO's like John Danforth, the GOP doesn't need to save itself from its base.

In a news story running this morning, former Missouri GOP Sen. John Danforth is hoping to take the Republican Party back from the religious right. The report, which is headlined “Ex-senator wants to save GOP from itself,” misses the point. The GOP does not need to be saved from its conservative base. What it needs to be saved from is its leadership which has driven the base to apathy.

The news story goes on to note that Danforth feels energy is “wasted” debating issues like gay marriage and also “diverts attention from important matters like the budget that are the proper province of government.”

The Christian Science Monitor, which served as host to the Wednesday breakfast in which Danforth made his comments, quotes the former senator as saying, “I am not going to give up on my party. I just want it to get back to its moorings … I just want them to disengage themselves from the Christian right.”

In another similar attack, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), blasted religious conservative leaders such as Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.

“The national representatives of the social conservative movement used to be sophisticated and tolerant. Today, they are sophomoric and angry. It’s an embarrassing spectacle seeing leaders bullied around by the likes of James Dobson, or watching the Christian Coalition team up with MoveOn.org in support of bigger government.”

Now is not the time to be blasting the very people whom the Republican Party is counting on for votes this November. Republican leaders should be reaching out to their constituents, not trying to alienate them.

As a Christian, I appreciate the Republican Party’s attention to issues such as protecting innocent human life. I see these issues as a core part of our platform. To blast conservative leaders for putting these issues at the forefront is not only bad for the Party, it is bad politics this close to the election.

From talking with Republican leaders, there are definite problems out there, but it has nothing to do with core Republican beliefs and everything to do with a lack of leadership. Counties are having problems staffing phone banks and organizing volunteers. Apathy is rampant. Conservatives are frustrated because Republicans aren’t acting like Republicans, and now we have Republican leaders blasting the religious base??? This just doesn’t make sense.

Now is the time to come together. We have our team of candidates in place. We must support them and work hard to get them elected. After November, we can do the proper analysis and see where changes need to be made. Now, we need every vote we can get, and those with the large microphones should be using it to rally the base, not keep it home on Election Day.

Clinton's anti terrorism failures

Richard Minter examines what Clinton didn't do, and when he didn't do it.

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Married people are smarter

How else do you explain that married people are more likely to vote Republican.

The wedding band could be crucial in this fall's congressional elections, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census data.

House districts held by Republicans are full of married people. Democratic districts are stacked with people who have never married. This "marriage gap" could play a role in the Nov. 7 congressional elections. Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to take control of the House of Representatives.

Twenty-seven of the 38 Republican-held districts with seats considered vulnerable by independent political analysts have fewer married people than found in the average GOP district. The USA TODAY analysis also shows that:

• Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.

•Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

The political tug-of-war is between people who are married and those who have never been.

The "never married" group covers a variety of groups who form the Democratic base: young people, those who marry late in life, single parents, gays, and heterosexuals who live together.

The marriage divide drew attention in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush beat John Kerry by 15 percentage points among married people and lost by 18 percentage points among unmarried people, according to an exit poll conducted by national news media organizations.

Most serious Democratic challenges this fall are in Republican-controlled House districts that have lower marriage rates.

For example, the two seats most likely to switch from Republican to Democratic are Arizona's 8th District and Colorado's 7th District, according to the non-partisan National Journal. The districts — in which Republican incumbents are not seeking re-election — rank 251st and 307th respectively in marriage rates among the 435 districts.

Of the five Republicans who have the lowest rates of married people in their districts, four are in tough battles with Democrats. On the other side, Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., whose district has a high marriage rate, faces a strong GOP challenge.

Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., whose district has the highest marriage rate (66.1%), says the gap exists because "people get more conservative when they settle down." Democratic pollster Mark Mellman says the gap is magnified because a greater percentage of married people vote than unmarried people.

18 DUI's????

Why was this man not already under the jail somewhere? This loser has 18 DUI's!

It took 18 convictions for it to sink in, but a Palmyra man now says he will never again drive drunk.

"I definitely learned my lesson through this whole process," said James F. Myers, 56, of the 200 block of East Cherry Street, during his sentencing hearing yesterday before Judge John Tylwalk.

Tylwalk said Myers' record is impressive, but for the wrong reasons.

"I've never seen anyone appear in court with this many DUIs," Tylwalk said before sentencing Myers to 21/4 to 5 years in state prison.

Myers' attorney, John Kelsey III, said many of the DUIs occurred when his client was struggling with depression, but Tylwalk was firm.

"Whether you're going through a depression or not," Tylwalk said, "there's still a price to be paid."

Myers is serving a 21/2- to 5-year state prison sentence he received in July in Cumberland County for DUI, speeding and driving carelessly in Middlesex Twp.

In the Lebanon County case, court records state that Myers was speeding in a 25-mph zone on South Railroad Street in Palmyra when he was stopped by police in October. He was arrested with a 0.163 percent blood-alcohol content, police said. Under state law, a driver with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent may be charged.

Myers pleaded guilty to the DUI charge.

"There must have been a huge crack in the system that this person is still out driving drunk," said Rebecca Shaver, executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

"Incarceration should be appropriate for this individual," Shaver said. "He needs to be taken out of circulation."

Shaver said MADD counts on police, district attorneys' offices, and probation and parole offices to keep drivers with multiple DUI convictions off roads.

"This is terribly upsetting to us at MADD when we hear something like this," she said. "This is totally absurd that someone is still driving after all those arrests."

Kelsey said eight of his client's arrests stemmed from a low point in his life.

"He was in a period of severe depression. They all happened around the same time," Kelsey said of the 1997 convictions in Adams County. "It was at a point where he didn't care anymore what he did or what would happen to him."

Kelsey said Myers' earliest conviction was in York County in 1970. Myers also had convictions in Texas, Ohio, and Dauphin County.

At his Cumberland County sentencing in July, the judge said the record of repeated DUIs was more than just a problem for Myers.

"You need more than just drug treatment," Judge Edgar B. Bayley told Myers. "The public needs protection from your conduct."

7-11 to Citgo: See ya!

7-11 tells Citgo it will find other sources for gasoline, and says Hugo Chavez was a big reason for the move.

7-Eleven Inc. dropped Venezuela-owned Citgo as its gasoline supplier after more than 20 years as part of a previously announced plan by the convenience store operator to launch its own brand of fuel.

7-Eleven officials said Wednesday that the decision was partly motivated by politics.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. is a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-run oil company and 7-Eleven is worried that anti-American comments made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez might prompt motorists to fill-up elsewhere.

Chavez has called President George W. Bush the devil and an alcoholic. The U.S. government has warned that Chavez is a destabilizing force in Latin America.

"Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president," said 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris.

"Certainly Chavez's position and statements over the past year or so didn't tempt us to stay with Citgo," she added.

Instead, 7-Eleven, which sells gasoline at 2,100 of its 5,300 U.S. stores, will now purchase fuel from several distributors, including Tower Energy Group of Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City, and Houston-based Frontier Oil Corp.

Democrat plans to stab the troops in the back

More reasons to vote Republican.

Should the Democrats seize control of Congress in November, the first order of business will be to stab American troops now fighting the War on Terror squarely in the back.

How do we know this?

Why, Charlie Rangel told us so.

The Manhattan Democrat is in line to take over as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which drafts the government's general spending outlines - and says he'd use that position to cut off funding for the war.

"You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" Rangel told the The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

What a terrific message to be sending Osama & Co. It's an engraved invitation to kill as many Americans as possible between now and Nov. 7, in hopes that Charlie Rangel and the rest of the anti-war nogoodniks carry the day at the polls.

What about the tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines now in harm's way? Rangel's leaving them twisting slowly in the wind: Why take risks in the War on Terror today, if Charlie and his friends intend to sabotage the effort tomorrow?

(And make no mistake: Rangel and his fellow aspiring committee chairmen make up a motley crew indeed - a subject we will return to in some detail in the weeks ahead.)

Meanwhile, how ironic - and significant - that Rangel's promise came as Vice President Dick Cheney charged Democrats with following a policy of "resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."

Indeed, some Democrats - including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid - are now saying that Iraqis would be better off today if Saddam Hussein were still in power. Lucky for them they never had to live under his brutal regime.

To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with Rangel's idea of cutting off the financial spigot, which would leave America's fighting forces high and dry - and forcing them out of Iraq, no matter the military and political consequences there.

In fact, the minority party remains in total disarray when it comes to a coherent Iraq policy: Pressed last spring by Republicans to vote for an immediate or phased troop withdrawal, Senate Democrats refused to do so.

But there are those like Rangel, and the 72 other House Democrats who comprise the Out-of-Iraq Caucus - chaired by the always-obnoxious Rep. Maxine Waters of California - who want to halt funding for the war now.

This is the congressional voice of the party's ever-more-shrill radical wing - which has opposed not just the liberation of Iraq but the entire War on Terror.

Allowing those Democrats to halt the U.S. effort in Iraq before the mission of stabilizing the country is done would send the terrorists the dangerous message that they need only stick it out long enough for America to pull out in surrender, leaving Iraq ripe for a bloodbath.

And not just Iraq.

It would send the world at large an even more terrible message about America's resolve and its willingness to fulfill its commitments abroad - a message that America is not to be trusted in matters of life and death.

Of course, there's one way to ensure that Rangel's plan is foiled.

That's to see to it that Democrats don't take control of Congress.

Simple as that.

The Clinton Legacy

Hamid Karzai hits a grand slam at a press conference

Some liberal shill asked the following question at today's press conference with Karzai and Bush:

And to President Karzai, if I might: What do you think of President Musharraf's comments, that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

and this was Karzai's reply:

Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.

These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.

Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?

Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?

That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.

We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.

We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.

The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

Condi vs Bubba

Condi calls BS on Bill Clinton's rant.

Condoleezza Rice begs to differ with Bill Clinton.

The secretary of state says the for mer president was basically full of beans when he lashed out at Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday - wagging his finger and bitterly accusing the Bush administration of abandoning the search for Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

"They had eight months to try, [and] they did not try," Clinton shouted. "I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since."

Clinton railed at "all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now" and denounced Wallace's "conservative hit job," demanding to know "how many people in the Bush administration you asked . . . 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke,' " the anti-terrorism chief.

But was Clinton telling the truth? (Remember the last time he wagged his finger in public?)

Secretary of State Rice suggests not.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there . . . is just flatly false," the former national security adviser told The Post's editorial board yesterday. "What we did in eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding [eight] years,"

Firing Clarke? Far from it, she noted: He "was the counter-terrorism czar when 9/11 happened, and he left [in 2003] when he did not become deputy director of homeland security," as he wanted.

That's a critical point.

Clinton insisted that his version is backed both by Clarke's book and public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

In fact, Clarke told the commission a very different story during hours of private testimony behind closed doors - one that jibed with a 2002 background briefing he gave to reporters.

Back then, he said: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [a] plan, strategy - there was no, nothing new."

Indeed, Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."

Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources . . . for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda."

In fact, a 1999 Clarke after-action memo - the one top Clinton aide Sandy Berger later stole from the National Archives - identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer "luck" prevented a cataclysmic attack back then.

And, as Clarke told the 9/11 Commission publicly, there was nothing the Bush administration could have done that would have prevented the attacks.

Sure, he tells a different story now. But that, he admitted, is because of his opposition to the Iraq war, which he believes distracted from the War on Terror.

Secretary Rice was a lot more honest, explaining yesterday that there was no full-scale War on Terror "the way that we're fighting it now" - by either administration - before 9/11: "We just weren't organized as a country, either domestically or as a leader internationally."

The blame for 9/11 goes back fully 25 years, and includes both Democratic and Republican presidents.

At the same time, the Clinton years were bookended by al Qaeda bombings - the 1993 attack World Trade Center attack, and the October 2000 suicide assault on USS Cole - with plenty of blood spilled in between.

Clinton effectively slept through it all - and now he's trying to rewrite history.

It won't wash.

The Dumbest Price is Right Contestant ever

I love The Price is Right, and every now and then a total idiot gets on the show.

Religion of Peace^TM Update

An Egyptian cleric explains his fatwa sanctioning the murder of Israelis.

Safwat Higazi: I did not call upon people to kill Israelis in the streets. I never said such a thing. ...

When I said what I said, I was dreaming a beautiful dream, which I hope will come true, and that we all agree upon it. I dreamt that we are the Arab Islamic States, not just Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. I was truly dreaming that we are the Arab Islamic States. Get a map of the Arab homeland, and erase the borders... Or maybe these can be borders between counties or states, like the USA, in which 49 states were united into one country. I had a dream that we were one country, called the Arab Islamic States. The capital of this country is Egypt, and the president of Egypt and its government head this country. This is the dream I dreamt. ...

I said that these Israelis... I specified the Israeli Jew, not just any Jew. I said, word for word, that these are American Jews, Dutch Jews, and Jews from all other nationalities - and to them this does not apply. He must be a Jew and an Israeli, and not just any Israeli, because there are Israeli Arabs, there are Muslim Israelis from the 1948 Arabs, there are Christian Israelis... He must be an Israeli Jew, and, in parentheses - a Zionist. This was the first condition to my fatwa. The second condition is that he must be a combatant - in other words, a reserves soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces. ...

The third condition was that this action must cause no damage. I even said that it was entirely forbidden for someone to wear an explosives belt and blow himself up, and destroy a car in the street, just in order to kill an Israeli. ...

The fourth condition I mentioned was that no innocent person be killed. If we apply these four conditions of the fatwa in order to kill an Israeli, one must make sure that he is a Jew, an Israeli, and that he is between 21 and 54, the age of the reserves, and if she is a woman, she must be between 21 and 34, which is the age of the reserves [for women], and even then, he must make sure that she has no children, because a woman of this age with children is no longer a soldier in the IDF. ...

Absent Apologies

Now that the Pope has apologized for hurting the Islamofascists' widdle feelings, where are their apologies?

Pope Benedict XVI, like a true spir itual leader, is working overtime to mollify Muslims irate over his use of a 14th-century text that made the hard-to-dispute observation that Islam is a religion historically spread by violence.

Tomorrow, he is to meet with the official ambassadors of several predominantly Muslim nations in what the Vatican says is an effort "to re-launch dialogue with the Muslim world."

That's all well and good. Certainly, the pope has shown remarkable contrition, in light of the reaction to his words - a reaction that seemingly proved his point.

The pope insists his remarks were "misunderstood." Who could disagree with his point - that "spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable"?

But his repeated efforts to reach out to angry Muslims may well be seen as a sign of weakness by the very people whom he is trying to reach. Each new expression of regret has been met with demands for an even more fulsome apology.

Frankly, given the overheated rhetoric emanating from Benedict's critics, it seems clear that nothing he does will ever appease the still-rampaging mobs, until - like the riots that protested those Danish cartoons - their leaders decide they've extracted maximum political benefit.

Are apologies still in order?

Yes - but not from the pope.

We have yet to hear an apology from anyone in the Muslim world for:

* The horrific murder of Sister Leonella Sgorbatti, a 65-year-old Italian nun gunned down with her bodyguard outside her pediatric hospital in Somalia. The killing is believed to have been a reaction to Benedict's remarks.

* The violent desecration of seven Catholic churches in the West Bank and Gaza by Palestinian Muslims.

* Overheated responses that have seen Benedict compared to Hitler and Stalin, burned in effigy and targeted for arrest by the religious affairs ministry in Turkey, where he is set to visit.

Dialogue is a two-way street: Pope Benedict has more than demonstrated his willingness to address his critics' concerns.

If further apologies are called for, they need to be made to the pontiff.

Not by him.

Tolerance: A two way street

The always great Charles Krauthammer talks about tolerance being a two way street.

Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It's hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.

Today's Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:

· In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.

· In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.

· In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down" the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children's hospital.

"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it" is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.

First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons. And now a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.

And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons; Saturday's craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam -- this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.

In today's world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.

The fact is that all three monotheistic religions have in their long histories wielded the sword. The Book of Joshua is knee-deep in blood. The real Hanukkah story, so absurdly twinned (by calendric accident) with the Christian festival of peace, is about a savage insurgency and civil war.

Christianity more than matched that lurid history with the Crusades, an ecumenical blood bath that began with the slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland, a kind of preseason warm-up to the featured massacres to come against the Muslims, with the sacking of the capital of Byzantium (the Fourth Crusade) thrown in for good measure.

And Islam, of course, spread with great speed from Arabia across the Mediterranean and into Europe. It was not all benign persuasion. After all, what were Islamic armies doing at Poitiers in 732 and the gates of Vienna in 1683? Tourism?

However, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout "God is great" as they slit the throats of infidels -- such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.

Just one month ago, two journalists were kidnapped in Gaza and were released only after their forced conversion to Islam. Where were the protests in the Islamic world at that act -- rather than the charge -- of forced conversion?

Where is the protest over the constant stream of vilification of Christianity and Judaism issuing from the official newspapers, mosques and religious authorities of Arab nations? When Sheik 'Atiyyah Saqr issues a fatwa declaring Jews "apes and pigs"? When Sheik Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, professor of Islamic law, says on Saudi TV that "someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one-third of a trinity. . . . Don't you hate the faith of such a polytheist?"

Where are the demonstrations, where are the parliamentary resolutions, where are the demands for retraction when the Mufti Sheik Ali Gum'a incites readers of al-Ahram, the Egyptian government daily, against "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers . . . who prepare [Passover] matzos from human blood"?

The pope gives offense and the Mujaheddin al-Shura Council in Iraq declares that it "will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' [head] tax; then the only thing acceptable is conversion or the sword." This to protest the accusation that Islam might be spread by the sword.

As I said. No sense of irony.

Tribunal Tribulations

Good piece on the tribunals from the lead editorial on the NY Post.

That agreement reached Thursday be tween Senate Republicans and the White House over the treatment of terrorist detainees and formation of military tribunals is far from likely to settle the matter.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner pushed a bill that ignored the administration's request for congressional clarification of Geneva Convention standards on interrogation procedures. (That clarification became necessary after a narrow Supreme Court majority recently whipped up unprecedented legal rights for terror captives.)

Now the White House apparently has a bill to its liking: one that doesn't hamstring the president's wartime ability to protect interrogators from "war crime" accusations.

Furthermore, military tribunals won't be exposing classified material in the name of those Supreme Court-created rights. Thus, programs that have disrupted past terrorist plots can continue.

Thanks goodness for small favors.

The New York Times and The Washington Post were - predictably - appalled by this outcome.

The newspapers - along with McCain, Graham, Warner and former Secretary of State Colin Powell - led the charge against the original administration plan.

Powell complained that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

And both Powell and McCain complained that an American failure to abide by the letter of the Geneva Conventions would place U.S. troops in jeopardy of terrorist reprisals.

Hmm.

The two men might reflect on the fate of U.S. Army Pfcs. Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca.

Iraqi terrorists abducted the two soldiers near a checkpoint near Yusufiyah, just south of Baghdad, last June.

Three days later, their bodies were found: They'd been dragged behind a truck, their eyes gouged out, their throats slit and their heads cut off.

So awful was the mutilation that only DNA testing allowed for a positive ID of the remains.

For good measure, Tucker and Mechaca's corpses had been booby-trapped.

This is the level of respect the enemy has for the Geneva Conventions.

Recall, too, that the innocents murdered on 9/11 merited Geneva Convention protections, too - they were civilians after all, as were the dead of London, Madrid and Bali.

Thus, the solicitude shown by Powell and McCain to the safety of American military personnel is understandable - they are ex-military officers themselves, after all - though misplaced.

But set aside the fact that unilateral American adherence to the conventions appears to pay no dividends. The bigger point is that placing a premium on the safety of soldiers at the expense of policies that have a record of protecting civilians gets things precisely backward.

America is at war.

Its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - volunteers every one - are already in danger: They place their lives on the line precisely to protect the nation they love, and its people.

Their sacrifices are augmented by interrogators working daily to prevent further attacks - either on the battlefield or, more to the point, here at home.

Again, this debate is far from over.

But it's shameful for those who oppose administration policy - McCain and Powell in particular - to use American service personnel to advance their dubious agenda.

Deal Hudson: The Pope's 9/11

Great piece from Deal Hudson's weekly email:

Just as the 9/11 terrorist attacks dramatically altered the future of the Bush presidency, the 9/12 speech of Benedict XVI will shape the future of his papacy.

Ever since he emerged smiling through the doors of St. Peter's, as the Cardinals' choice to lead the Church, Benedict XVI has successfully avoided reinforcing the stereotype of a tradition-bound conservative academic. He was not unaware, however, that the Catholic Left was ready to pounce on any miscue and hold it up to the world as proof of the disaster they predicted his papacy to be.

The Left didn't wait long. No less a critic than John Cornwell, famous for his depiction of Pius XII as anti-Semitic, announced that the pope's speech at the University of Regensburg has "set back relations with Islam several eras" (The Australian, September 18, 2006).

Cornwell fails to mention how the 9/11 attacks with reports of terrorist pilots plowing into American targets while praying to Allah put a stain on Islam that will take "several eras" to remove.

Cornwell, not surprisingly, connects the pope's criticism of Islam with the U.S. President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He quotes from the spokesman of an extremist Muslim group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, that the pope's comments "follow consistently negative, violent, and extreme descriptions of Islam: the use of the term Islamo-fascist by George W. Bush and evil ideology by Tony Blair…."

Cornwell makes no attempt to dissociate himself from the opinion of this extremist group. Indeed, the Left would love to spin the present chaos in the Muslim world into an indictment of the three most important defenders of freedom in the Western world.

Try as they may, it will backfire. Here's why:

In my last Window, The Ten Things Republicans Must Do to Win the Religious Vote" (August 27, 2006), I included the suggestion that the religion of Islam, as a whole, should not be "demonized." Yet, the level of violence in response to the pope's speech, including public calls for his murder, do nothing but encourage our worst fears about the Islamic faith.

For example, what are the quantity and quality of the so-called "moderate Muslims?" They seem to be hiding in closets all over the world because their voices are not being heard. I've observed no public denunciations of Muslims burning Christian churches on the West Bank, the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia, or the death threats against the Holy Father.

The Muslim reaction to the Regensburg speech will only strengthen the Western world's resolve to confront the threat of radical Islam, whether it is best called fascistic or jihadist. It will reinforce the resolve of Bush, Blair, and their supporters to stay the course in the Iraq war and keep the pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program.

Benedict XVI's basic point at Regensburg was that religion, whether Christianity or Islam, should not be spread by violence or conversion at the point of a sword. Such beliefs and practices, he argued, are contrary to God's nature. I don't know anyone who disputes his point, but there are thousands, evidently millions, who do. Why they believe that an authentic religious faith can be spread by force is a puzzle to me, but even more so is the desire to physically attack someone who publicly questions this teaching.

The broader subject of the pope's lecture was faith and reason in modern culture, specifically how the role of reason has been diminished in religions such as Islam and Protestantism. None of the Protestants I know are calling for retribution, although they might disagree with the pope, believing his comments to be unfair and inaccurate. Of course, there was a time, several centuries ago, when Catholics and Protestants killed each other over just such theological disputes. We should remember that.

And we should also remember that a fight is brewing, with millions of Muslims who are not afraid to die. Unfathomably, they view the invitation to rational debate as the occasion for declaring a holy war on anyone who would question the tenets of their faith. (I feel a personal irony in saying this because the professor who first introduced me to the subject of the relationship between philosophy and religion at the University of Texas was a Muslim from Iran.)

Benedict XVI took the lid off the ugly truth about the threat of radical Islam and how that threat is supported by their concept of God. The god of radical Islam is nothing but, "I Am Who Wills," to emend slightly a line from the Book of Exodus. Now it's up to the Holy Father to find those leaders in the Muslim world, the kind who sat next to our Catholic negotiators in Cairo and Beijing, and defuse the time bomb that ticks ever faster.

The UN is a mockery

Chavez and other assorted thugs didn't make a mockery of the Useless Nations, it already is a mockery.

Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put on quite a show at the United Nations this week, and it's tempting to dismiss it all as mere bombast. Except that their assertiveness can't be separated from the more important U.N. story this week, which is its continuing failure to come to grips with Iran's open defiance of the Security Council's demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.

At issue is whether the U.N. can have any role in enforcing collective security--and the mystery is why the very nations that say the U.N. must do so are doing the most to undermine it. Consider the behavior of Russia, France and China--all veto-wielding members of the Security Council--in squaring up to the Iranian threat.

In July, the Council adopted Resolution 1696, which noted "with serious concern that . . . Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Governors." The Council went on to express "its intention . . . to adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution." Article 41 refers to all legally binding measures short of war--sanctions, that is--to bring states into compliance with U.N. resolutions. The Resolution said Iran must cease enriching uranium by August 31, a deadline Tehran has openly flouted.

So, serious consequences? Not quite. Chinese Middle East envoy Sun Bigan has rejected sanctions on Iran as "detrimental not only to the region but also to ourselves"--the latter a reference to China's oil imports from Iran, up 56% from last year. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov--who is selling Iran a $700 million air-defense system--also says sanctions won't work. That sentiment was echoed earlier this week by France's Jacques Chirac, whom the Bush Administration has claimed is a stalwart ally in stopping Iran. "I am never favorable to sanctions," said the French President, adding that, if they are unavoidable, they should be "moderate and adapted."

In other words, it has taken less than a month for the deadline set by Resolution 1696 to prove to be absolutely meaningless, something Mr. Ahmadinejad predicted in April. Why then would the Permanent Five risk their credibility as an institution by setting a deadline in the first place? Why threaten sanctions if they have no intention of imposing them?

The answer may be that U.N. diplomacy has come to serve as a deterrent not against Iran but against any American effort to do anything about Iran's rush to acquire the bomb. Iran's nuclear programs are accelerating under this diplomatic cover, as its inauguration of a heavy-water nuclear plant late last month shows. Heavy-water reactors are the kind that throw off more weapons-usable fuel. The Iranian newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz underlined that event as evidence of the "worthlessness of this American resolution."

Meanwhile, the "cowboy" American President looks increasingly like the one who's been lassoed by the U.N., not vice versa. In 2003, the U.S. agreed to downplay clear evidence that Iran was cheating on its nuclear nonproliferation treaty commitments in order to give European diplomacy a chance. The U.S. continued to do so even after it became clear that the Iranians continued to cheat well into 2004.

Later that year, the Administration went along with another European negotiation, which collapsed after six months. Earlier this year, President Bush agreed in principle to negotiate directly with Tehran, provided it suspend enrichment. He has also repeatedly underlined the point, most recently in this week's speech to the General Assembly, that the U.S. does not oppose Iran's bid to develop civilian nuclear power sources.

Throughout all this, the Administration has consistently deferred, both in timing and tactics, to Europe, Russia, the IAEA, and now the Security Council. Its single insistence is that the international community demonstrate good faith in its ostensible commitment to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But that good faith has been conspicuously absent, raising the question about who is really serious about giving the U.N. a chance to show its "relevance."

The conclusion is hard to resist that the U.N. effort is really about persuading America that it can "live with" an Iranian bomb, just as it lives with a Pakistani bomb, because the costs of economic sanctions or military strikes are supposedly prohibitive. But a glimpse of what the world will look like if Iran succeeds was provided on Tuesday by Gamal Mubarak, the son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Cairo's heir apparent floated a proposal for Egypt to develop its own nuclear programs, clearly a signal that the largest Sunni Arab country will go nuclear itself to prevent Shiite Iran from dominating the region. And where Egypt goes, Saudi Arabia and Turkey cannot be far behind. Is the international system really prepared to live with five, maybe six, nuclear powers in the Middle East?

The media portrayed this week's U.N. speeches as a soap opera showdown between Mr. Bush and his adversaries. But in the matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is not only the Middle East that is at risk, but the U.N., which is why Messrs. Chávez and Ahmadinejad felt so free to mock its evident failures.

Bush set a trap...

...and the dems stepped right in it.

"It [the 2006 election campaign] shouldn't be about national security."
--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Sept. 14, 2006

Too bad. It will be. On September 6, 2006, President Bush set the trap. He spoke in the East Room of the White House on the war on terror. He announced that 14 terrorist leaders and operatives, who had been held and questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency outside the United States, were being transferred to Guantánamo. He outlined some of the information acquired from the interrogations of men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and explained that this information had contributed to disrupting terrorist plots here and abroad. In light of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, the president asked Congress to pass legislation that would put this interrogation program, and trials before military tribunals for captured terrorists, on a surer legal footing.

On the morning of September 14, in Room 222 of the Russell Senate Office Building, the Democrats marched into the trap. The Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services committee unanimously turned their back on Bush's proposed legislation. They reported out of committee, by a vote of 15-9, alternative language.

The next day, the president sprung the trap. He strongly reiterated his judgment that the bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services committee failed to provide sufficient clarity to guide personnel involved in questioning detained terrorists, and exposed such personnel to possible legal liability. The president said he would follow the advice of CIA director Michael Hayden not to continue the interrogations in such a murky legal environment. As the president put it, "Congress has got a decision to make. Do you want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

The president has a sound substantive position. Some legislation is needed (at least arguably) because of the Supreme Court's (ill-advised) Hamdan decision. That decision suggests that detained terrorists might enjoy the protection of the vague Article 3 standards of the Geneva Convention. CIA agents could not, therefore, use short-of-torture interrogation techniques that might be thought "humiliating and degrading." Unless the CIA were to abandon all techniques that a judge might construe as contrary to Article 3, the door would be open for agents to be held legally liable. The Bush-backed legislation would stipulate that compliance with U.S. law would constitute fulfillment of our obligations under Geneva. This would permit an effective interrogation program to go forward with confidence.

But the president has an even better political position. There is now a clear and live contrast between Bush and the Democrats on an important issue in the war on terror.

Wait a minute, you say--it's not just Democrats who oppose Bush. Four Republicans joined the Democratic senators--John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins. Colin Powell is with them. So the Democrats have cover.

No, they don't. The fact that McCain has badly damaged his 2008 presidential chances doesn't mean the Democrats can't be hurt in 2006. True, there could be a dozen GOP votes for the Democratic alternative on the floor of the Senate next week. There were a dozen Democratic votes for Bush's tax cuts in 2001. It didn't prevent Republicans from distinguishing themselves from Demo crats on taxes. A few defections won't prevent Republicans from saying--truthfully--that there is a real difference between the two parties on the war on terror, and that they stand with Bush and against Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Democratic candidates will respond that McCain also stands with them. It won't help. The American people don't agree with McCain on this. And they're not going to be persuaded by some of the arguments made by Bush's critics. Let Democratic candidates try to argue that, unless we go even further than required by the 2005 legislation sponsored by McCain (which Bush's proposal embraces), al Qaeda might react by not treating Americans decently. Let Democratic candidates try to defend the notion that we'll get lots of credit in Europe by going the extra mile--as if the 2005 detainees legislation generated any good will there. Let Democratic candidates align themselves with world opinion (as interpreted by Colin Powell), and join in expressing doubt about "the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

The key political fact is this: A GOP candidate can say he will vote to authorize interrogations that CIA director Hayden (no partisan gunslinger) says are important. The Democrats, by contrast, support legislation that would bring such interrogations to a stop. It looks as if the 2006 campaign will be, at least in part, about national security.

El Diablo?

Political Correctness in the battlefield

Doug patton writes of how political correctness compromises our ability to wage war.

Bill Cosby once did a comedy routine wherein he described the "rules" of the American Revolution. Intoning, as would a referee, Cosby announced that the British had to fight in the open, wearing bright red uniforms, that they must march in straight lines and could fire their muskets only when the order was given. Meanwhile, the colonists could wear clothing that blended into the landscape, could hide behind rocks and trees and could fire at will.

Unfortunately, American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan find themselves in a decidedly unfunny situation that is eerily similar to the comedic description Cosby gave us all those years ago. They are expected to observe rules of engagement that do not apply to our enemy and are guaranteed to get Americans killed.

The recent airing of the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," gave us all a brief glimpse into the timidity of today's leaders in both political parties. Nearly three thousand people died that day because of our unwillingness to face the reality of Islamic extremism, a foe as evil as any that ever launched an assault against a peaceful people. Over the past two decades, golden opportunities were missed and loyal allies were abandoned in the name of political correctness and military expediency.

Sadly, ever since our self-inflicted defeat in Vietnam (or even, some would argue, since our stalemate in Korea a half-century ago) the unwillingness of our leaders to do whatever is necessary to win seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Apparently, we have accepted the idea that when our enemy hides in a mosque, we must not attack him. While they fly airplanes into buildings, we are expected to "understand" them, try to comprehend why they hate us and not strike back with a "disproportionate" response.

While our enemy kidnaps, tortures and beheads innocent civilians and military personnel alike, we court-martial our own troops and send them to prison for harassing a few prisoners in what amounts to college hazing incident.

While our enemy declares war on Christianity and Judaism, using every cruel, inhumane, cowardly tactic to win at all costs, our soldiers are expected to observe sensitivity toward Islam and never "overreact."

Now we hear of a recent scenario in which American forces had the opportunity to kill nearly 200 known Taliban terrorists attending a funeral in Afghanistan and could not get the order from their superiors to take them out. These are people who will go on to kill our troops in the field. These are people committed to the twisted notion that a radical Islamic state is the only way to govern a nation. And these are people who will stop at nothing to take their jihad to the entire world. To them we are supposed to show respect because they are attending a service in a cemetery? Bury them all!

Can you imagine the response of our generals during World War II if they had a group of enemy combatants in their sights and were told by President Roosevelt's war department they could not attack because it would be insensitive to do so during a funeral?

Our military forces mercilessly firebombed the city of Dresden, Germany, incinerating tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The newsreels ran the story in our theaters, America cheered and we won the war in Europe unconditionally. We dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more people than had ever died in a single attack in the history of the world. Japan surrendered, unconditionally, and as many as a million American servicemen were spared the bloodiest invasion in the history of the world.

Not since the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese have we fought an enemy who so clearly required death or an unconditional surrender. We have not demanded and achieved unconditional surrender from an enemy since the end of World War II, and we won't unless and until we learn the lessons of 9/11.

A baby left to die, and the coverup in an abortion clinic

A Hialeah abortion clinic is being investigated for possibly letting a premature baby die and then covering it up.

When witnesses told police a baby was born alive and later died at a Hialeah abortion clinic, Miami-Dade prosecutors found themselves trying to determine when a fetus becomes a viable baby.

If the fetus found at the clinic was at 22 weeks of gestation, as the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner believes, healthcare experts say the decision is a fairly easy one. The fetus wasn't viable.

Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague said her office is still gathering evidence in the case, including two sonograms done on the mother before the baby was born.

''There are lots of questions that medically I don't have the answer to yet,'' Hoague said. ``You're talking about a fetus that could be aborted legally.''

A witness told police that someone at the clinic put the baby on the roof of the building when police first searched for it, casting suspicion on the whole incident.

''They hid the body from us for eight days,'' Hialeah police Deputy Chief Mark Overton said.

Hialeah police are pushing for indictments. They say the clinic staff should have called 911 and sent the baby -- a girl -- to the hospital.

''This has to be a homicide, an unlawful killing. It could be manslaughter, but we believe it falls in that realm,'' Overton said.

Prosecutors aren't so sure.

Hoague plans to present the evidence to medical experts to determine if the fetus was viable. But it will be at least several weeks before a determination can be made.

The case began July 20 when an anonymous woman called from a pay phone outside the clinic, saying a baby had been born alive and was killed by employees.

The next day, detectives located an 18-year-old who said she gave birth at the clinic. She declined to speak with The Miami Herald, which is not publishing her name to protect her privacy.

She told police she went for an abortion on July 19 and clinic employees gave her drugs to begin dilation. The next day, the teen said, she went to the clinic to complete the procedure. When she told the clinic staff she wasn't feeling well, they put her in a recovery room while she waited for the doctor to arrive.

In the recovery room, she said, she suddenly gave birth.

She told detectives she saw the baby gasping for five minutes as clinic staffers began shrieking, according to a search warrant.

On July 22, detectives searched the clinic -- but did not find the baby. Five days later, a source told police the baby had been tossed on the roof of the one-story strip mall.

On July 28, investigators raided the clinic again. This time, they found the baby inside a red biohazard bag in the clinic.

The medical examiner estimated the mother was 22 weeks pregnant, within the legal 24-week limit for an abortion in a clinic. Experts consider 22-week-old fetuses not viable because the overwhelming majority don't survive even in intensive care.

The medical examiner's office can't conclude from the physical evidence if the fetus was born alive or not because the corpse was so badly decomposed and because of its age, Hoague said. It's unclear if the baby's organs could have functioned.

''To the medical examiner now, this is a premature fetus that died,'' Hoague said. ``That would be a natural death because a fetus that premature that doesn't go into a neonatal unit is going to die.''

The medical examiner is basing the fetus age on several things including two sonograms done on the mother. The first one at Broward General Hospital determined she was 20 weeks pregnant, Hoague said. The second one, done at the clinic just a few days later, found she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Legal experts said the case will be hard to prosecute, given the conflicting sonograms and the medical standards.

''If there's going to be conflicting testimony about viability, and I suspect there is, they may not have enough probable cause for a homicide case,'' said Bruce Winick, a professor of criminal and constitutional law at the University of Miami.

Prosecutors can't legally charge anyone with a crime without at least meeting the legal standard of probable cause.

''The prosecution has an obligation here to bring a charge only if there is probable cause, which means . . . not just that it might have survived on its own, but was it likely to have survived,'' Winick explained.

Anti-abortion activists are watching the case carefully.

''In no other homicide investigation do you wonder how long would this person have lived had she not been murdered,'' said Jill Staneck, an Illinois registered nurse and anti-abortion activist who testified before Congress when it debated the Born Alive bill. Staneck is also a columnist for the website WorldNetDaily.com.

If prosecutors decide not to charge the clinic owner with any form of homicide, then they must decide whether the owner or staff violated laws regulating the proper disposal of fetuses or the licensed practice of medicine.

After the baby was born, Belkis Gonzalez, co-owner of the clinic, cut the umbilical cord and put it in a red biohazard bag, the warrant said.

Then ''Gonzalez swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure,'' the warrant says.

Detectives have not been able to take a statement from Gonzalez and her attorney, Gregory Iamunno, did not return repeated phone calls from The Miami Herald.

The doctor scheduled to perform the abortion was not in the building when the woman gave birth, nor did anyone present have a healthcare license, Hoague said. The doctor had seen the mother the day before.

State law requires abortion clinics to dispose of a fetus in the same manner clinics and hospitals dispose of other human tissue, using biomedical waste containers and following strict sanitary guidelines.

The clinic owners have run into legal problems before.

Last year, three people at a Miramar branch of A GYN Diagnostic Center were arrested for practicing medicine without proper licenses. A fourth person, Kieron Nisbet, also accused of practicing medicine without a license, is still a fugitive.

One woman arrested, Joselin Collado, had been providing sonograms and dispensing medication before doctors arrived to perform abortions. She's a licensed dental assistant.

All three arrested in Miramar pleaded guilty to practicing medicine without a license and received probation. Gonzalez and the other co-owner, Siomara Senises, were not charged.

The Hialeah clinic where the baby was found has since surrendered its state license and is closed.

However, the pair runs two other clinics in East Hialeah and North Miami Beach. Both are open.

All three clinics have received complaints in the past.

A spokeswoman for Agency for Health Care Administration said inspectors have visited the East Hialeah clinic and found no violations.

The state Department of Health is investigating the case.

Tancredo to Pope: hang in there

Benedict gets support from Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Controversy over the Pope’s recent statements about Islam spilled into Colorado politics on Wednesday, as Rep. Tom Tancredo urged the pontiff to "resist calls to apologize" and a Muslim congressional staff member accused Tancredo of throwing "fuel on the fire with his hateful words."

Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, sent a letter urging Pope Benedict XVI to stand his ground on a recent speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

"It is not surprising that your statements prompted such a visceral reaction in much of the Islamic world, where the free exercise of religion is largely proscribed," Tancredo wrote. "Conversion from Islam to any other religion is illegal. Punishment is swift and severe – in some cases death."

Tancredo was raised Roman Catholic but now is a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. He often has spoken about what he sees as a "clash of civilizations" between Islamic radicals and western societies.

Tancredo drew worldwide ire in 2005 when, in response to a hypothetical question, he told an interviewer that the United States could threaten to bomb the holy site of Mecca in the event of terrorist attacks.

In Wednesday’s letter, Tancredo cited four quotations from The Koran that he believes prove the point the Pope was making, including calls to "smite" unbelievers and "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."

But the letter drew an angry response from Nayyera Haq, the Muslim communications director for Rep. John Salazar. She stressed in an e-mail that she was speaking for herself and not her boss.

"As a man, Tom Tancredo has always been articulate in expressing his hatred of Islam and immigrants — no surprise there," Haq said. "In his arrogance, he chooses to disregard the existence of millions of law abiding Muslim American citizens. What is surprising is that as an elected representative, someone who should be working towards our collective safety, Tancredo chooses to throw more fuel on the fire with his hateful words."

"Tancredo is being irresponsible with his congressional authority and is knowingly creating a more dangerous environment for all of us. Congressman Tancredo should focus more on building bridges with the progressives in the Muslim world rather than burning the few bridges we have left."

A worldwide furor erupted after the pope’s initial speech Sept. 12 in his native Germany. On Sunday, he issued a statement saying he was "deeply sorry" for the angry reaction to his speech, which has included scattered violence around the world.

Many Muslim leaders have called for a more direct apology. The pope stopped short of that in a speech Wednesday, but he said his comments had been misunderstood and that he never intended to malign Islam.

Tancredo said he sent the letter to encourage the Pope to stand his ground.

"It’s sort of, ‘Hang in there, Pope,’" Tancredo said in an interview.

Still, he was not expecting a response.

"I can’t even get the head of the Department of Homeland Security to write me back," Tancredo said.

Typical responses from Miss Haq: reach out to "progressive Muslims" (as soon as we can find one), a veiled threat about "throwing fuel onto the fire", whatever.

The Pope was defending reason

Of course, radical Islam has no use for reason so they missed the point.

Five days: That's how long it took Pope Benedict XVI to express regret for all the offense caused by his speech last week at the University of Regensburg, in his native Bavaria. But maybe his apology--on Sunday, he said he was "deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages in my address"--was as sly as the speech itself.

That speech deserves to be read in its totality, and not simply as the spark that set fire to churches across the West Bank because some Muslim fanatics object to the suggestion that there is too much violence in their religion. And yes: Contrary to nervous Vatican disclaimers, Benedict plainly implies that Islam is a faith of the sword, though he makes the point abstrusely, in the form of an anecdote about the late-14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.

But that is neither the central theme of the address nor the main purpose of the anecdote. Benedict begins by recalling his own days as a professor at the university, when every semester faculty members from every department would convene before the student body, "making possible," he says, "a genuine experience of universitas." He goes on to note that the faculty included believers and unbelievers alike: "This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist--God."

That is the immediate prologue to the story he tells about a conversation between the "erudite" Byzantine emperor and an "educated Persian" in the winter of 1391. In it, the emperor condemns the notion of holy war, calling it "evil and inhuman." This is the line in the speech that inspires the current controversy. Yet the emperor's point--and the pope's--is that "God is not pleased by blood. . . . Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

This story, and Benedict's personal recollections that precede it, have something in common: Both involve dialogue between men of radically different beliefs. The dialogue is possible, Benedict suggests, because despite their differences the respective sides are bound by a "single rationality," capable of inquiring broadly into all fields of knowledge, including the "reasonableness of faith." The more important point for Benedict, however, is that genuine dialogue is possible only if there is a shared conviction among the speakers that the alternatives to dialogue--violence, forced conversion and so on--are "contrary to God's nature."

These reflections lead Benedict to a much graver indictment of Islam: "For Muslim teaching," he says, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Citing the 11th century polymath Ibn Hazm, Benedict adds that in Islam, "God is not bound even by his own word."

Let's play that again, since the rest of the media failed to notice: Pope Benedict suggests that the God of Mohammad is, or may seem to humans to be, "not even bound to truth and goodness." Who knows whether that really reflects a consensus view down the ages among Muslim theologians--Benedict makes his case about Islam by citing one scholar who cites another scholar who cites another. The more interesting question is why Benedict goes out of his way to use Islam as an example, since he also warns against similar tendencies toward insisting on God's radical "otherness" within the Catholic tradition itself. So why can't he simply illustrate the controversies of faith without going outside the boundaries of his own?

In fact, Benedict saves his sharpest barbs for non-Muslim targets: Protestantism, which seeks a "primordial" form of faith; liberal theology, which reduces Jesus to "the father of a humanitarian moral message"; scientific rationalism, the ethics of which are "simply inadequate" to answer the "specifically human questions about our origin and destiny"; and what might be called Catholic pluralism, a culturally adaptive notion of the faith that Benedict denounces as "false" and "coarse."

These aren't mere provocations. There is an overarching philosophical architecture to Benedict's critique, expressed in the notion of the "de-Hellenization of Christianity." Christianity, in his view, is shaped and defined by the great dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem, reason and revelation. When the Apostle John says "In the beginning was the Word," the "word," literally, is logos--which is reason, or argument. This, according to Benedict, expresses "the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry."

That rapprochement--a triumph of dialogue--lies at the heart of Benedict's theology: Strip faith from reason (as scientific rationalism does), or reason from faith (as Protestant literalism does), and "it is man himself who ends up being reduced."

There is a political subtext. Precisely in the middle of his speech, the pope describes the convergence of faith and philosophy as decisive to the character of "what can rightly be called Europe." He does not mention Europe again, nor, except obliquely, Islam. But near the end of his speech he warns that the "exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason" may be seen by other cultures "as an attack on their most profound convictions." "Reason which is deaf to the divine," he adds, "is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."

A Europe that cannot understand its own religion, except as a form of subjective irrationalism, cannot possibly engage another. A Christianity that voluntarily recuses itself from reason cannot sustain a belief in the goodness of its convictions, to say nothing of its truth. A West that abandons a critical dialogue between faith and rational inquiry ceases to be the West. It becomes, in a peculiar way, guilty of the same errors Benedict accuses Islam of making. This is the pope's teaching, and it requires no apology. Notice that he offers none.

Dumb like a fox: Bush having fun with his critics?

MichaelMedved went to the White House and thinks that Bush might enjoy messing with his critics.

This President, however, feels in no way cowed or discouraged or overwhemed, and that's the most encouraging lesson I took away from my hour-and-a-half in the Oval Office. He looks and sounds energized, and said several times how much he enjoys the Presidency, likes making decisions, and remembers what a privilege and an honor it is to be where he is. He even indicated a determination to go back to an effort to save Social Security after the election --- despite the crushing opposition the last time he tried to perform this public service. The President clearly loves his job and relishes the opportunities it affords him to change the country. He doesn't feel sorry for himself, and with his savvy resolution to make the most of the two years remaining to him after the mid-term elections, he doesn't want anybody else's pity.

Of course, that brightly lit Oval Office is hugely impressive but so, it must be said, is the impassioned individual who occupies it. If some of George Bush's most fervent detractors had been able to sit where I sat on Friday afternoon, they might not have bought the President's arguments, or his defense of his positions, but they couldn't dismiss the man's intellect, energy or information base ever again.

And one more thing: twice during his meandering conversation, the President deployed the word "nuclear." Both times, he pronounced it flawlessly --- as "new- clee-ar," not "nuke-cule-ar." Considering the huge press attention on the mis-pronounciation of this single word, nothing shocked me more about meeting the president than hearing him, in private conservation, avoid a mistake for which he's become celebrated in public.

If he can say "nu-clee-ar" in private, why does he still say, "nuke-cule-ar" when he speaks on camera? Could it be possible that there's some mischievous intent here-- that the President deliberately gives his own spin to the word just to provoke pompous pundits into paroxysms of supercilious rage? It seems like a far-fetched explanation, I'll admit, but after seeing the President's infectiously feisty mood this Friday, I wouldn't put it past him.

Chavez at the UN: self inflicted wounds

Captain Ed reviews Hurricane Hugo.

Chavez apparently thought he could adapt Cindy Sheehan's protest rhetoric to impress New Yorkers, but it takes more than warmed-over Chomskyisms and a dash of religious hallucinations to shock people in the Big Apple or the United States. Unfortunately, the gathered representatives of governments around the world are more easily impressed by lunatic rantings -- or perhaps just more amused.

Chavez did more harm than good despite the resounding applause given to his speech. Venezuela has been strong-arming Latin America to get its seat on the Security Council. Up until yesterday, Chavez had made inroads with his neighbors, some of whom share his distaste for the Bush administration if not his paranoia. After his performance yesterday, though, analysts stated that Venezuela had little chance of allowing such a diplomatically inept regime control their representation.

It did more extensive damage than that. Chavez' rant went a long way to prove conservatives correct about endemic anti-Americanism in the United Nations. Even other nations appeared stunned by the ferocity of the remarks, such as China's foreign minister, who had to ask for confirmation of his remarks out of disbelief. The warmth of the reception of these remarks provided a stunning look at the hostility that the non-democratic nations have for the United States, especially in the General Assembly. It will add fuel to the fire for conservative skepticism of the body's effect on spreading freedom and liberty around the world, which is supposed to be one of the UN's core missions.

Instead, we see that the organization has increasingly been hijacked by petty petrocrats and hallucinating dictators as a vehicle for hatred and obloquy. When the leader of one sovereign nation uses the UN dais to issue thinly-veiled demands for the annihilation of another nation, and gets followed by a circus act that makes him look like a moderate, then we know that the inmates are running the Turtle Bay asylum. Yesterday, Chavez proved that all the UN is missing is enough straitjackets to go around.

The Pope and dialogue

The WSJ weighs in on the Pope Kerfluffle.

Pope Benedict nailed two facts about Islam that are contributing factors to the faith's very rough entry into modernity. The prophet Muhammad, the model for all Muslims, established the faith through war and conquest. His immediate successors, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, whom traditional and radical Muslims cherish, reinforced Islam's identity as a victorious faith through the rapid creation of a world empire. Christianity was also at times spread by "the sword," and its use of that sword against nonbelievers and heretics was more savage than any Muslim imperialist's. But Christianity was not born to power. Jesus is not a conqueror. The doctrine of the "two swords" always existed in Christian lands--the division of the world between church and state--and created enormous tension. It helped produce Western civic society. And the image of God in Islam, which the pope underscores by talking about the Muslim philosopher Ibn Hazm, is a cleaner expression of unlimited, almighty Will than it is in Christianity. Islam is akin to biblical Judaism in accentuating the unnuanced, transcendent awe of God. When radical Muslims take a hold of this divine fearsomeness, it can untether itself quickly from "conventional" morality, thereby allowing young men to believe that the slaughter of women and children isn't an abomination. In that sense, Muslim jihadism, like fascism, rewrites our ethical DNA, turning sin into virtue.

The pope doesn't tell us how we should proceed to counter the defects he sees in Islam. He should, since that would begin a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between the West and Islam. But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech--and one sees the same reaction among those who are uncomfortable with President Bush's use of the term "Islamofascism"--is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume a public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, nonconfrontational dialogue, which criticizes "our" possibly offensive behavior while downplaying "theirs," will somehow lead to a more peaceful, ecumenical world.

We won't talk about the history of jihad in Islam. We would rather emphasize that jihad can mean an internal moral struggle for believers, even though the most progressive, revisionist Muslim (unless he has been completely secularized in the West) knows perfectly well that when Muslims hear the word "jihad," they proudly remember holy warriors, from the prophet Muhammad forward. We won't probe too deeply, and certainly not critically, into how the Quran and the prophet's traditions, as well as classical Islamic history, have given all believing Muslims certain common sentiments, passions and reflexes. We don't even talk about how the post-Christian West's great causes--nationalism, socialism, communism and fascism--entered Islam's bloodstream and altered Muslim ethics, often catastrophically. Many in the West, on both right and left, prefer to see Osama bin Laden's terrorism as a violent reaction to Western, particularly American, behavior. It is thus something that could be avoided. (Israel usually enters the discussion here.) We shy away from the more existential arguments that suggest that bin Laden's popularity in Islamic lands is the product of an enormous religious and philosophical distemper that derives from the world being the reverse of what God had ordained: Muslims on top, non-Muslims down below.

But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests. Given what's happened since 9/11, a dialogue of civilizations is certainly in order. To his credit, Benedict has at least tried to approach the invidious issues that will define any helpful discussion. For 200 years, the West has, for better and worse, helped create the intellectual framework within which all Muslims think. Muslim saints, like the Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim, or Muslim devils, like Ayatollah Khomeini, have Western ideas profoundly within them. If we withdraw from this civilizational debate, the decent men and women of the Middle East, most of whom are faithful Muslims, will have a very hard time defeating those who have brutalized and coarsened their culture and religion. Westerners are doing Muslims an enormous disservice--a lethal bigotry of low expectations--by telling the pontiff to be more diplomatic. This isn't how anti-Western Islamic theocrats, holy warriors and ordinary teachers in much of the Muslim world act. They're having a real, vibrant discussion. We should turn it into a debate.

no 9/11 tributes allowed in Michiganistan school

A high school in Michiganistan suspends kids for wearing patriotic shirts on 9/11.

Ben Lewandowski says he was only trying to be patriotic when he wore a homemade T-shirt featuring an American flag bumper sticker and the words "Remember 9/11" to Lincoln Park High School on Monday.

After all, it was Sept. 11 -- five years after the terrorist attacks.

The 17-year-old Lincoln Park resident put the shirt on Monday morning and headed to school -- where he was quickly sent to the office and suspended for three days for violating the school's dress code.

He was one of at least seven students sent home for wearing shirts featuring patriotic images and messages. It comes less than a week after three siblings were suspended for wearing shirts emblazoned with the First Amendment, despite warnings, and a week after more than 200 students were sent home on the first day of school for violating the district's dress code -- which bans apparel with writing or pictures.

For Lewandowski, who was sent home on the first day of school for wearing a shirt with writing on it, Monday's incident was his second offense.

"I was frustrated," said the junior, whose desire to become a firefighter was fueled after the Sept. 11 attacks. "It just made me so mad that I can't be patriotic."

Lincoln Park Schools Superintendent Randall Kite said the high school held a moment of silence Monday to give students an outlet to show their patriotism. He said some students had asked last week whether they could wear shirts to commemorate the day, and they were told no.

"We didn't think it would be appropriate, because of the dress code, to wear T-shirts with writing," he said Tuesday.

According to the dress code, students are allowed to wear school-sanctioned clothing, such as T-shirts bearing the school's mascot or clothing that supports school organizations.

This, according to the ACLU of Michigan, may violate the students' rights, particularly because it allows students to wear clothing that encourages school spirit but bans other forms of expression. ACLU officials have said that they plan to look into the constitutionality of the dress code.

Kite said the district had lawyers review the policy before it was enacted. Members of the district's school board have said the dress code is lenient compared with other districts such as Detroit and Pontiac, which have banned jeans and T-shirts completely.

Southfield's school district implemented a dress code last year similar to those enacted in Detroit and Pontiac this year. Southfield Schools Deputy Superintendent Ken Siver said Tuesday that the district didn't have any problems Monday with students violating the policy to wear patriotic garb.

Still, some Lincoln Park parents say they feel the district has gone too far.

Kaye Belcuore's granddaughter, 14-year-old Karly Belcuore, was sent home Monday from Lincoln Park High for wearing a T-shirt with patriotic messages on it.

"I think it's a little ridiculous under the circumstances," Kaye Belcuore said.

Kelly Galley agrees. Her three children -- 13-year-old twins Monique and Jaicen Massa and 11-year-old Jaymie Massa -- were suspended last week for protesting the dress code by wearing T-shirts with the First Amendment on them. Jaymie had stayed home from Lincoln Park Middle School on Tuesday, but Monique and Jaicen wore the shirts again -- their third offense -- and were suspended again, this time for five days. One more offense and they'll be expelled.

Galley said it's likely she'll end up homeschooling.

Rosie's view of radicals

Some observations from Arnold Ahlert.

September 18, 2006 -- "Radical Christianity is as threatening as radical Islam"
Rosie O'Donnell on "The View" last week

ROSIE O'Donnell is a rich, self-proclaimed lesbian celebrity, who has been able to adopt four children in far less time than the usual rigmarole ordinary mortals undergo.

Since she apparently believes radical Islam and radical Christianity are equivalent, perhaps we could imagine what kind of life she would be living in a country where radical Muslims, rather than "radical Christians," hold sway.

Rich? Unlikely, since women are second-class citizens in such radical Muslim countries.

Self-proclaimed lesbian? At best, a social pariah.

Celebrity status? Certainly - in the sense that O.J. Simpson is a celebrity.

Gay adoption? Virtually unthinkable, much less doable.

Making a statement critical of Islam? A fatwa issued demanding her death.

On the plus side, forced to wear a head-to-toe burka. Praise Allah for that.

Mighty warriors of Islam kill an elderly nun

Nothing like those scum proving the Holy Father right.

Gunmen killed an Italian nun and her bodyguard Sunday at the entrance of the hospital where she worked, officials said — an attack some feared could be linked to Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI.

The nun, who has not been identified, was shot in the back four times by two gunmen armed with pistols, Dr. Mohamed Yusef told The Associated Press.

The shootings occurred midday Sunday at the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital for women and children in volatile northern Mogadishu, witnesses and hospital officials said.

One person has been arrested and a search was under way for a second man, Yusuf Mohamed Siad, head of security for the Islamic courts now controlling the capital, told the AP.

The nun, who was believed to be around age 60, had been working at the hospital since 2002, colleagues said.

A Vatican spokesman called the nun's slaying "a horrible episode," the Italian news agency ANSA said.

"Let's hope that it will be an isolated fact," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said, expressing hopes for an end to the Muslim anger over Benedict's comments.

The Vatican is "following with concern the consequences of this wave of hate, hoping that it does not lead to grave consequences for the church in the world," he was quoted as saying.

The nun, known as Sister Leonella, helped to teach and look after children, said a colleague who gave his name as Dr. Teckle.

"She was a dedicated and organized teacher," he said. Her body was being flown to Nairobi, Kenya, before being returned to Italy, he said.

A Somali doctor who was acquainted with the nun said she had worked for 38 years in Nairobi and Mogadishu.

"She was welcome here in Mogadishu," Dr. Asha Omar Ahmed told Italy's SKY TG24 TV. "She had just conducted a (nursing school) lesson and was going home. She was opening the gate when she was shot."

No plan for the Dems

Thank goodness the dems are so obsessed on hating Bush.

With all this polarity, this drama, this added layer Mr. Bush brings to a nation already worn by the daily demands of modern individual life, the political alternative, the Democrats, should roar in six weeks from now, right? And return us to normalcy?

Well, that's not what I sense.

I like Democrats. I feel sympathy for the hungry and hapless, identify with aspirations, am deeply frustrated with Mr. Bush. More seriously, I believe we are at the start of a struggle for the survival of the West, and I know it is better for our country if both of its two major parties have equal responsibility in that struggle. Beyond that, let's be frank. Bad days are coming, and we're all going to have to get through them together, with two parties, arm in arm. It's a big country.

But I feel the Democrats this year are making a mistake. They think it will be a cakewalk. A war going badly, immigration, high spending, a combination of sentimentality and dimness in foreign affairs--everyone in the world wants to be free, and in exactly the way we define freedom at dinner parties in McLean and Chevy Chase--and conservative thinkers and writers hopping mad and hoping to lose the House.

The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity.

"The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a cliché because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me.

Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.

Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.

not my Grandfather's Methodist Church: a Planned Parenthood "missionary"

More reasons to run, not walk, from the United Methodist Church's national leadership as it is revealed that one of their "missionaries" is a staffer at a Planned Parenthood chapter.

In its 2004-2005 Biennial Report, the missions board of the United Methodist Church reported a total of 904 missionaries affiliated with the board.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that all 904 individuals are engaged in traditional Christian missions work.

One example is Susan Burgess. According to the website of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), the “ministry” to which she is commissioned by the GBGM’s deaconess program is to be an administrative assistant at a Northern California affiliate of Planned Parenthood.

Few United Methodists would agree that secretarial work for America’s largest abortion provider qualifies as Christian missionary service.

Even aside from moral qualms about abortion, there is much about Planned Parenthood that most United Methodists would find quite objectionable.

Like its parent body, Planned Parenthood-Shasta Diablo (where Burgess works) is very involved in far-left political activism. Last year, it lobbied in favor of a bill to “legalize same-sex marriage,” in blatant opposition to historic United Methodist Church teachings on marriage that have been affirmed by growing margins at the last few General Conferences. It also seeks to defend the legality of “aborting” infants who are already partially born, a practice condemned by the United Methodist Social Principles. Other political activities of Burgess’s employer include maintaining an “Action Fund” to help elect politicians who oppose any restriction on abortion and generating opposition to a proposed ballot initiative that would require its clinics to notify the parents of minor girls before performing abortion surgery on her.

As reported in Christianity Today, CNS News, and World Net Daily, a geographically adjacent Planned Parenthood affiliate, with which Planned Parenthood-Shasta Diablo works closely in its lobbying efforts, recently featured a video on its website that shows “A Superhero for Choice,” named Dianisis (presumably after the Greek god associated with drunken debauchery) who drowns a man in a garbage can for advocating teenage sexual abstinence and then goes on to murder peaceful pro-life protestors.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a very devoted eugenicist who advocated forced sterilization of people that she considered genetically inferior and made publicly clear that her work was largely driven by a desire to curb the birthrates of such “unfit” classes. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood honors its founder to this day. (Interestingly, Methodist leader Harry Ward, a contemporary of Sanger’s and founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, was also an outspoken advocate of eugenics as a solution to social ills.)

Some GBGM staff have expressed a striking lack of concern about how average church members might react to many controversial GBGM political and theological stances. For instance, last year GBGM official Sam Dixon strongly defended GBGM’s annual grants to secular left-wing political groups.

At recent meetings of the GBGM Board of Directors, several directors and staffers have lamented the trend of decreasing numbers of GBGM missionaries while expressing their desire for greater support from United Methodist congregations. Their ability to raise more funds and support may hinge on their willingness to restore trust between local United Methodists and the often out of touch GBGM.

the path to 9/11 was right

At least one former Clinton staffer has no problem with the "Path to 9/11."

A national defense analyst who served as a military attaché to President Bill Clinton says the controversial ABC miniseries that has been lambasted by the former Chief Executive and his advisers was, in fact, very accurate.

On Monday evening, ABC presented the second three-hour segment of "The Path to 9/11," a docudrama about the struggle facing America's counter-terrorism experts between the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the fatal attacks on September 11, 2001. The bombing occurred slightly more than a month after Bill Clinton first took office; George W. Bush had been in the Oval Office less than eight months when the two hijacked airliners smashed into the twin towers.

Drawn from detailed information contained in the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, the six-hour miniseries promised to "take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day" so they could "understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from [the] crucial eight-year period" between the two events.

Sunday's three-hour segment, however, created a furor with Clinton and members of his former administration, who wanted the entire program shelved. They accused the filmmakers of including "fictitious" and "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat. But retired Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson says his former boss had several chances to nab terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

"In fact, Clinton did sign the presidential finding saying that we needed to either kidnap him or kill him," Patterson recalls. "But just signing a piece of paper didn't result in any kind of action, because every time it came down to it and we had a chance to get bin Laden dead or alive, President Clinton chose not to."

Patterson is convinced several terrorist attacks would have been averted if Clinton had acted. "In the timeline of the movie and also [during] my time there, this was in early 1998 now," he explains. "And if you'll recall, later in 1998 we had the two embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya that killed hundreds of people."

Those attacks and others, says Patterson, could have been prevented. "[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11, and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities," he states. "We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him."

The former Clinton aide says the former president's desire to cover up the truth about his decisions related to bin Laden will not work. "I think President Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the war on terror, personally. That is his legacy," Patterson comments. "I think he's trying to change that legacy, which is what [he was] trying to do by not having this series shown." Instead, he believes Clinton will go down in history as the nation's worst Commander-in-Chief.

Patterson says the producer of the miniseries asked him about the accuracy of the events in "The Path to 9/11," and the former presidential aide replied it was a very accurate portrayal of the events.

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam"

More bleating from Rosie O'Donnell.

Ulcers are hopefully growing in the collective stomachs of ABC executives as they learn just how out of touch and irresponsible Rosie O’Donnell is. Now, as a member of Barbara Walters’ chat show “The View,” O’Donnell has a new forum to spew her left wing rants, and hopefully viewers will send her back to the unemployment line. In a discussion of the events of September 11, 2001, O’Donnell acknowledged that Islamic terrorists killed close to 3,000 innocent people. She then said that “radical Christianity” is just as threatening as radical Islam.

Addressing the 9-11 anniversary and talking about security, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck noted that since the attacks of 2001, America has not been attacked at home. “We have not been attacked,” she said. “We are on the offense here.”

O’Donnell, in her infinite wisdom, then interrupted and said that America was attacked “not by a nation” and as a result of Islamic terrorists killing 3,000 innocent Americans, we “invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries.”

First, I guess Rosie forgets the fact that Afghanistan, with its Taliban leadership, was the training ground for al Qaeda — the group directly responsible for killing thousands of Americans. That the Taliban sponsored, housed, and protected al Qaeda fighters and leaders. President Bush told the Taliban to turnover al Qaeda leaders or face the consequences. They refused and America took action against our attackers.

Second, America, in response to the attacks, focused its attacks on the Taliban and al Qaeda. Civilian causalties are tragic during the course of war, but, unfortunately, they occur. The point is that we did not target innocent civilians for butchering. This is exactly what radical Islamists having been doing with their attacks.

Hasselbeck noted that the funding of radical islam is widespread. O’Donnell again interrupted and said, “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.”

O’Donnell then added that Iraq and Afghanistan “never threatened to kill us.” What?!?!? Earth to O’Donnell! The purpose of al Qaeda, a group interwoven into the ruling Taliban, is the destruction of the American way of life. In Iraq, on numerous occasions, Saddam Hussein threatened America.

O’Donnell is just plain wrong. In addition to being wrong, her comment on Christianity is scary. At the same time those on the left are telling people to “understand” the views of the terrorists, we see more instances where they are bashing Christianity with impunity. We can’t say anything bad about people who want to kill us… we can’t profile… we can’t do what it takes to protect ourselves… but we sure can bash Christians. What is wrong with this picture?

It is my hope that ABC will learn that things will not change with O’Donnell. If they want to keep main-stream American viewers, O’Donnell needs to go. I’m sure she can find a good spot on Air America where no one is listening.

The Pope takes on Jihad

More reasons why I love Pope Benedict XVI: the Pope takes on jihad.

On Tuesday, in a riveting and provocative university lecture, the Pope explored the philosophical and historical differences between Islam and Christianity—a speech that would become the surprise centerpiece of a five-day visit that many had expected would be mostly just a walk down memory lane. There is little doubt left that Benedict is indeed highly attuned to the risks of fundamentalist terrorism. In fact, it is testament to where this problem stands on his list of priorities that he used the occasion of his triumphant return to Regensburg University, where he taught theology in the 1970s, to deliver a lecture that explored how Christians and Muslims may have historically viewed the relationship between violence and faith, based on the two religions' conceptions of the divinity.

His discourse Tuesday sought to delineate what he sees as a fundamental difference between Christianity's view that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of logos) and Islam´s view that "God is absolutely transcendent." Benedict said that Islam teaches that God's "will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The risk he sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence can potentially be justified if someone believes it is God's will. "As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?"

This is indeed Benedict doing it on his own terms. Rather than tackling the challenge of fundamentalist terrorism with a pithy remark packaged for the 9/11 anniversary or reaching for a John Paul-inspired sweeping gesture, the professor Pope went digging into his books. He went so far as to quote a 14th century Byzantine emperor´s hostile view of Islam's founder. "The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" Benedict added "I quote" twice to make it clear these were someone else's words. Nevertheless this reference was undoubtedly the most provocative moment of a provocative lecture. In a sense, explicitly including the Muslim prophet by name, and citing the concept of jihad, was a flashing neon signal to the world that the soft-spoken Pope intends to make himself heard clearly on this defining tension of our times.

Insanity

Only one word describes the US military and intelligence communities failure to strike at terrorists: Insanity.

The damning evidence was on the front page of yesterday's Post: A dra matic photo showing more than 100 Taliban terrorists in formation last July for a graveside funeral for one of their own in Afghanistan.

The image was shot from high in the sky by an unmanned American drone - which fed a continuous satellite feed back on the ground.

A ripe target for a surprise missile strike? It certainly would seem so.

But according to a statement yesterday from U.S. Central Command in Afghanistan, "a decision was made" - preposterously - "not to strike the group of insurgents at that specific location and time" because the site was a cemetery with a funeral in progress.

In the end, all intelligence officials could do was to watch helplessly as the terrorists split up into groups too small to be targeted with any precision.

The Pentagon said that it does not discuss rules of engagement.

No wonder.

For the rule makes no sense on its face.

The Taliban, as savage a foe as American troops have ever encountered, follow no rules at all. A failure to fire on an assemblage of that size, simply to protect the cultural sensitivities of a cold-blooded foe, borders on the insane.

This isn't the first time the military has lost an opportunity to strike a major blow against the terrorists.

Back on the first night of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 an unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft identified a convoy of cars and trucks fleeing Kabul as that of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Taliban. But a fighter-jet strike was vetoed - reportedly by Central Command's judge advocate general.

Mullah Omar was spared - and today remains in hiding.

To be sure, firing at that funeral would have gotten al-Jazeera in a tizzy.

Too bad about that.

After all, it's not as if the terrorists respect such events.

This past Sunday, the funeral of an Afghani provincial governor - killed last week by a suicide bomber - was itself attacked by another suicide bomber, killing six people, including his nephew.

The Pentagon cited that murder yesterday, proclaiming that Coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."

That could have been written by the same lawyers who kayoed the Mullah Omar strike; you can bet they won't be on the firing line the next time the Taliban start shooting.

How many Coalition soldiers will die because 100-plus Taliban were allowed to walk free will never be known, of course. It can't be.

This much is clear, though: The Taliban never show mercy - and they are contemptuous of those who do.

War is about killing.

Or being killed.

About winning.

Or losing.

Time to change the rules.

Tunnel Vision

WHITE TRASH WEDNESDAY

A mom rewards her son's completion of his homework by smoking weed with him.

A woman admitted to smoking marijuana daily with her 13-year-old son to reward him for completing his homework.

Amanda Lynn Livelsberger, 30, pleaded guilty to several charges yesterday and will be sentenced Nov. 27.

Ms. Livelsberger, of Conewago Township, admitted in Adams County Court that she had been smoking marijuana with her son since he was 11, and that she often gave it to him as a reward.

The boy told police that he was required to do his homework as soon as he got home from school, and then was allowed to smoke marijuana with his mother, according to court documents.

Ms. Livelsberger pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of corruption of minors, possession with intent to deliver drug paraphernalia, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a small amount of marijuana and possession of a small amount of marijuana with intent to distribute.

The plea did not stipulate a sentence.

The woman also said she smoked marijuana with two of her son's friends, ages 17 and 18, police said.

56 days left to beat Jack Murtha

56 days to help elect Diana Irey and send Jack Murtha packing. Why should the good people of that district vote for Diana?

Have you had enough?

Enough of the corruption in Washington?

Enough of the high taxes and wasteful spending?

Enough of the inside-the-Beltway politicians playing their games at your expense?

Enough of the insider politicians lining their campaign war chests with special-interest campaign contributions, and doing their bidding, instead of yours?

Fifty-six days from today, you can do something about it.

Fifty-six days from today, you'll cast a vote for a new Congressman.

Fifty-six days from today, you'll make a choice that will help determine the course of the next generation in southwest Pennsylvania.

You can vote for change . or you can vote for more of the same.

You can vote for someone who has a proven record of reform, or you can vote for a candidate who doesn't just defend the status quo -- he virtually invented it.

You can vote for a young and vibrant leader who knows the problems in Washington and has a detailed agenda to fix them, or you can vote for an old-fashioned politician who will do his best to keep the system in place.

You can vote for Diana Irey, the Washington County Commissioner with a proven record of reform, who's delivered seven straight budgets without a tax increase .

Or you can vote for Jack Murtha, a man so determined to excuse corruption in Congress that he once tried to enact a new law that would force taxpayers to pay the legal expenses of Members of Congress who had been convicted of taking bribes .

And who's voted for 12 straight salary increases for himself.

Forward for change, or backward for more of the same.

That's your choice.

For years, many of us throughout Pennsylvania trusted John Murtha. We knew him and he looked out for our interests and our values. But that John Murtha is missing today.

After 32 years in Washington, John Murtha has become part of the problem. To name just a few examples:

1. John Murtha - Wrong on Congressional Pay Raises. Since 1995, John Murtha has voted 11 straight times in favor of raising his own pay. (CQ #648, #317, #435, #289, #300, #419, #267, #322, #463, #451, and #327)
2. John Murtha - Wrong on Spending. John Murtha has voted multiple times to raid the social security trust fund - the key to your retirement - to pay for wasteful government spending projects.
3. John Murtha - Wrong on Health Care. John Murtha has voted to actually make your health care more expensive. He even voted against tax-free health savings accounts.
4. John Murtha - Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq.

"Jack Bauer insurance"

Fear of the ACLU and the rabid anti war left is causing CIA agents to take out insurance.

What would Jack Bauer do? If he worked at the CIA in real life today, the anti-terror hero of Fox's "24" would apparently be buying insurance in case the ACLU or John Kerry decided to sue or subpoena him for protecting America with too much vigor.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that more CIA counterterrorism officers are signing up for private insurance that would pay for civil judgments and legal costs if they are sued or charged with a crime. These are the agents who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and other jihadis, using what President Bush last week called methods that were legal but "tough." Those methods succeeded in breaking these men into divulging information that led to the arrest of other al Qaeda bigs, and to the foiling of plots that could have killed thousands.

" 'There are a lot of people who think that subpoenas could be coming' from Congress after the November elections or from federal prosecutors if Democrats capture the White House in 2008," wrote the Post, quoting a retired intelligence officer close to the CIA's Directorate of Operations, which conducted the interrogations. This is not paranoia. We reported yesterday how Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat, is blocking Bush nominees simply for having been mentioned in passing in emails about Guantanamo. Some of us also remember the infamous Frank Church hearings of the 1970s that pilloried the CIA and weakened it for decades.

Though the government pays the premiums for this kind of insurance, it is a sorry spectacle that these agents must now fear partisan retribution for having done precisely what the country asked them to do. The story is one more reason Congress should follow through on Mr. Bush's request to put its stamp of approval on such interrogations, including ex post facto immunity for these CIA officers.

Intelligence is the front line of this anti-jihadi conflict, and the danger from the current political second-guessing is that CIA officers will go back to the FBI's law enforcement mentality of reading terrorists their Miranda rights that failed the country leading up to 9/11. The country needs Jack Bauer insurance, too.

A memorial service without politicians

A solemn memorial service in NYC was much nicer since the politicians stayed home.

DURING the most solemn and emotional hours of yesterday's special morning, perhaps it is appropriate to offer a so bering thought.

At 100th Street and Riverside Drive, under the magnificent firefighters memorial built in 1912, "they" could, if they wanted, be seen but not heard. The "they" I am talking about are politicians.

"This is for the rank-and-file firefighters to honor their lost brothers and all those who lost their lives on that day," said Pete Gorman, president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association.

Now if you gag a politician, they don't appear, so thankfully none appeared for the political brownie points at the firefighters memorial.

But 4,000 of the Bravest turned out.

"That's why I come here, absolutely - it's the way it should be," said Kate Devlin, 23, daughter of fallen Battalion 9 Chief Dennis Devlin.

Before that sea of blue, stiff to attention as the names of their 343 fallen brothers were read to the ominous echo of a fire bell, all knew with no confusion for whom the bell tolled.

Agnello . . . Ahern . . . Angelini . . . and they would go on for many minutes as George Reilly, retired of Ladder 40, talked about his son Kevin, 28, also of Ladder 40 on 125th Street.

"Married two months to wife Jennifer, daughter of a firefighter. Five years? It feels like yesterday. He went into the south tower, and we never found him. But it's good there are no political speeches here - his fellow firefighters know what it's all about."

Mary Ill was there to honor her fallen husband, Capt. Fred Ill of Ladder 2.

A young man intoned more names. Hynes . . . Ielpi . . . then Ill.

"That's my son Frederick Jr. announcing his father's name," said Mary. "He is a firefighter in Rescue 1."

Said Fred Jr., "I grew up in the firehouse as a child. My dad would take me to the firehouse all the time - even go for rides in the truck. I knew what I wanted to be, and while today is sad, it's also honorable. No hoopla."

Ground Zero will always be a sacred place to all of us despite all the squabbles over design, money and compensation, but telling politicians they can be seen but not heard is probably the best invention since the American flag.

Why we fight

A reminder of why we fight.

Commemorative events around the nation yesterday recalled the profound loss suffered in the terror strikes of 2001. They may also have reignited passions about the way forward.

And about the importance of unity as the nation confronts its huge challenges.

President Bush was certainly hoping to use the anniversary to stoke those ideas: In his address to the nation last night, he cited the great "evil" that was revealed "on that awful day." And how "ordinary citizens" came together, "responding with extraordinary acts of courage."

Bush reminded Americans why they're at war: "It is a struggle for civilization," he said. "We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations."

The enemy, he said, is "determined to bring death and suffering into our homes." And the war "will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious."

"If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face . . . terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons," he warned.

It's a sobering thought.

The president was right that it will take "the determined efforts of a unified country" to prevail. And that was the most important message of yesterday's anniversary.

Bush urged Americans to "put aside our differences . . . to meet the test that history has given us." He compared that test to some of great challenges Americans have met in the past.

The United States has "confronted evil before, and we have defeated it - sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle."

He cited Franklin Roosevelt vowing to defeat "two enemies across two oceans." And Harry Truman standing behind "free peoples resisting Soviet aggression."

Liberty triumphed in those struggles, he said. And so, too, will it triumph this time.

Bush is right in assuming that Americans need to be reminded of the challenge as 9/11 fades in memory. If yesterday's anniversary nudges the nation to "rededicate" itself, as Bush said, to the "cause" of our day, it will have been worth the painful memories it invoked.

Refresher Course

incident at Al-Detroit airport in Michiganistan

A man from Yemen has a one way ticket from Detroit to Yemen and is caught with a book carrying a concealed knife.

The FBI is investigating the case of a 21-year-old Hamtramck man with a one-way ticket to Yemen who tried to board a plane with a knife hidden in a phone book.

Mohammed Ghanem, a native of Yemen, remains in jail after a Romulus judge set a $500,000 bond on Saturday. Ghanem was stopped on Thursday at Detroit Metro Airport by security officials with the Transportation Security Administration after they detected that he had a knife "artfully concealed" in a book, said airport spokesman Michael Conway.

Someone had carved out the inside of the phone book, and placed the knife inside it, said Ghanem's attorney, Nabih Ayad. "He said he didn't know where the knife came from,'' Ayad said. Ghanem was on his way to Yemen to get married, he said.
On Saturday, Ghanem was arraigned in Romulus district court on a felony charge of possessing a weapon in the area of an airport, which carries a maximum sentence of ten years.

Ghanem remained in a Wayne County jail Saturday after the judge set bond at $500,000. One concern among officials is that the man had a one-way ticket to Yemen, Conway said.

Ghanem was born in Yemen and is now a legal permanent resident of the U.S., Ayad said. He works as a bus-boy in a coney island in metro Detroit.
Ghanem lives in Hamtramck with family members, some of whom have been questioned by the FBI, Ayad said.

According to Ayad, it appeared that the cover of the phone book was torn off. Someone then cut out a section, slipped in the knife, and covered it back up with the cover.

More potential terrorists coming to the US

Saudi Arabia is sending 15,000 more students to the US.

KING Abdullah, who is also the chairman of the Higher Education Council, has approved a program to allocate 15,000 scholarships for study in the US and 3,000 in some Asian countries.
Announcing this here Monday, Minister of Higher Education Dr Khalid Al-Anqari said this is the largest scholarship program by the government so far.

The program will include doctorate, master’s, fellowship and bachelor degrees, according to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) report.

Huge Hike in Number of Scholarships The scholarships will be for science specializations required by the labor market, notably the specializations of medicine, engineering, computer science, mathematics and physics.

9/11

The 9/11 docudrama: Dem Senators threaten ABC's FCC license

This is a story worthy of the Gambinos, as Dick Turban and other libs in the Senate make a veiled threat against ABC's FCC license.

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries without having its broadcast license threatened?

In plain English: edit the parts that tell the truth about Clinton caring more about chubby interns than Osama Bin Laden, or we'll try to yank your FCC license. John Gotti would be proud.

Publick Edukayshun: 4 million kids left behind in LA

A grim take of how FOUR MILLION kids are forced to attend failing schools in Los Angeles.

This city is the main front in the pitched battle over the No Child Left Behind Act. Like many large urban school districts across the nation--though more brazenly--the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is resisting the law's core command: that no child be forced to attend a failing school.

In LAUSD, there are over 300,000 children in schools the state has declared failing under NCLB's requirements for adequate yearly progress. Under the law, such children must be provided opportunities to transfer to better-performing schools within the district. To date, fewer than two out of every 1,000 eligible children have transferred--much lower even than the paltry 1% transfer figure nationwide. In neighboring Compton, whose schools are a disaster, the number of families transferring their children to better schools is a whopping zero.

The question is whether Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings--whose administration has made NCLB the centerpiece of its education agenda--will do anything about it. She has the power to withhold federal funds from districts that fail to comply with NCLB, and has threatened to do just that. Rhetoric, so far, has exceeded action.

In L.A., the district has squelched school choice for children in failing schools by evading deadlines for notifying families of their transfer options; burying information in bureaucratese; and encouraging families to accept after-school supplemental services (often provided by the same district employees who fail to get the job done during the regular school day) rather than transfers. Still, the district insists that the reason for the low transfer numbers is that parents don't want their kids to leave failing schools.

That explanation rings false because, well, it is. The Polling Company surveyed Los Angeles and Compton parents whose children are eligible to transfer their children out of failing schools. Only 11% knew their school was rated as failing, and fewer than one-fifth of those parents (just nine out of 409 surveyed) recalled receiving notice to that effect from the districts--a key NCLB requirement. Once informed of their schools' status and their transfer rights, 82% expressed a desire to move their children to better schools.

The parents were twice as likely to prefer transfers to private schools than to other public schools, but as of yet private school choice is not an option under NCLB. That is a serious defect in the law, because the number of children eligible for transfers in inner-city school districts vastly exceeds the number of seats in better-performing public schools. "We don't have the space," LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer candidly acknowledged. "Think about it. We're 160,000 seats short. Where do you transfer to?"

In response, Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander and John Ensign and Reps. Buck McKeon and Sam Johnson have proposed adding private options under NCLB for children in chronically failing schools. But for now, the only hope for these kids is for Secretary Spellings to hold the districts' feet to the fire.

Last month, Ms. Spellings threatened to withhold federal funds unless the California Department of Education produced a plan by Aug. 15 to facilitate transfers for children in failing schools. That deadline passed with no action.

Meanwhile, Ms. Spellings has granted scores of waivers from NCLB requirements to school districts across the nation. These allow certain districts with failing schools to offer supplemental services to children before offering transfers. This reverses the order Congress stipulated, providing for transfers first and supplemental services only for those children remaining. By bureaucratic fiat, Ms. Spellings has delayed for thousands of children the chance to escape poor schools--and the day of reckoning for districts who are failing their most basic responsibilities.

NCLB can survive the waiver carrots, but only if they are accompanied by a serious stick. Were Ms. Spellings to yank federal funding and make an example of LAUSD, it would be the shot heard round the education world. School districts across the nation finally would have to enlist all possible options--interdistrict transfers, charter schools, private schools--to aid children stuck in failing schools. And, if past experience holds true, those schools finally will have a spur for improvement as their students leave and take funds with them.

But for now, LAUSD is calling Ms. Spellings's rhetoric. The California media seems to agree: Not a single major newspaper has reported on the secretary's threat to withhold federal funds, which if taken seriously ought to constitute front-page news.

NCLB is a flawed law in many respects. Still, it may represent the last true hope, at the national level, to ensure that our education system truly leaves no child behind. The establishment is chafing furiously under the tethers of accountability. If these slip away, it is unlikely that any politician will have the courage to buckle them back down again.

For better or worse, the law grants the secretary of education vast discretion in enforcement. But the law itself is clear in command: No child should be forced to endure a failing school for one minute, let alone 12 years. Under this administration's watch, four million children--by the states' own conservative measures--are in schools that have been failing for at least six consecutive years. Ms. Spellings has the power to make sure they are offered a brighter future.

Will she or won't she? Margaret Spellings's actions in the coming days will determine far more than the Bush administration's education legacy. They will determine whether our nation will make good at last on its sacred promise of educational opportunity.

The economy is so horrible...

That the high paying ironworkers union can't fill all of its job openings and has to advertise.

Thirty years ago, coveted openings in the ironworkers union usually went to friends and family of established members.

The perception was that "you were in or you weren't, and you had to know somebody to get there," said Scott Malley, business manager for Iron Workers Local No. 3.

These days, however, union apprenticeships are there for the taking. Despite hourly wages that start at $15.50 and jump to $28.18 after completion of a three-year program -- and a history in the region that goes back more than a century -- the union can't find enough apprentices.

So the Iron Workers union is trying an approach more familiar to retailers than unions: To recruit fresh blood, it is selling the virtues of working in the industry through a high-profile marketing campaign that was created by Downtown agency Blattner Brunner and kicked off over Labor Day weekend. Fifteen billboards -- "We don't go to the office. We build it." -- have gone up throughout the region, from the Strip District to Armstrong County.

Radio and Internet advertising also are under way. Overall, the union is spending several hundred thousand dollars on the campaign, said Mr. Malley, who also serves as financial secretary and treasurer for Iron Workers Local No. 3, which covers Erie and State College as well as Pittsburgh.

"I haven't heard of this kind of direct advertising before," said Marick F. Masters, director of the Center on Conflict Resolution and Negotiations at the University of Pittsburgh's Katz School of Business. "But it's something that unions are increasingly looking to do, particularly in the construction industry, where they have a very hard time recruiting qualified people."

Iron Workers Local No. 3 has about 1,300 active members, said Mr. Malley, down from about 2,400 in 1982. But with planned construction on power plants, shopping centers and possible slot machine parlors, he expects those numbers to rise. "We see that growth coming again," he said. "The potential's there."

To supply construction sites with union workers, however, more ironworker apprentices are needed. Women as well as men are welcome, said Mr. Malley, if they have a high school diploma or G.E.D., a valid driver's license and their own vehicle. They also need to pass a drug test, physical exam and basic test of reading, writing and math abilities.

The three-year apprenticeship program includes 600 hours of classroom instruction, where workers learn skills such as welding and blueprint reading. A pension plan starts immediately, he said, and health care starts within the first two months.

Religion of Peace^TM through History

Not that the MSM is going to cover it, but today is the 51st anniversary of the Istanbul Pogrom.

The Istanbul Pogrom was a pogrom directed primarily at Istanbul's 100,000-strong Greek minority on September 6 and 7, 1955. Jews and Armenians living in the city and their businesses were also targeted in the pogrom, which was orchestrated by the Demokrat Parti-government of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. The events were triggered by the false news that the house in Thessaloniki, Greece, where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was born in 1881, had been bombed the day before.

A Turkish mob, most of which was trucked into the city in advance, assaulted Istanbul’s Greek community for nine hours. Although the orchestrators of the pogrom did not explicitly call for Greeks to be killed, between 13 and 16 Greeks and at least one Armenian (including two Orthodox clerics) died during or after the pogrom as a result of beatings and arsons.

Thirty-two Greeks were severely wounded. In addition, dozens of Greek women were raped, and a number of men were forcibly circumcised by the mob. 4,348 Greek-owned businesses, 110 hotels, 27 pharmacies, 23 schools, 21 factories, 73 churches and over a thousand Greek-owned homes were badly damaged or destroyed.

Estimates on the economic cost of the damage vary from Turkish government's estimate of 69.5 million Turkish lira, the British diplomat estimates of 100 million GBP, the World Council of Churches’ estimate of 150 million USD, and the Greek government's estimate of 500 million USD.

The pogrom greatly accelerated emigration of ethnic Greeks, reducing the 200,000-strong Greek minority in 1924 to just over 5,000 in 2005.

Just what did they do to the Greeks they found?

While the pogromists were not instructed to kill their targets, sections of the mob went much further than scaring or intimidating local Greeks. Between 13 and 16 Greeks and one Armenian (including two clerics) died as a result of the pogrom. 32 Greeks were severely wounded. Men and women were raped, and according to the account of the Turkish writer Aziz Nesin, men, mainly priests, were subjected to forced circumcision by frenzied members of the mob and an Armenian priest died after the procedure. Nesin wrote:

A man who was fearful of being beaten, lynched or cut into pieces would imply and try to prove that he was both a Turk and a Muslim. "Pull it out and let us see," they would reply. The poor man would peel off his trousers and show his "Muslimness" and "Turkishness": And what was the proof? That he had been circumcised. If the man was circumcised, he was saved. If not, he was "burned". Indeed, having lied, he could not be saved from a beating. For one of those aggressive young men would draw his knife and circumcise him in the middle of the street and amid the chaos. A difference of two or three centimetres does not justify such a commotion. That night, many men shouting and screaming were Islamized forcefully by the cruel knife. Among those circumcised there was also a priest

.

By all means, Turkey needs to be in the EU.

Purging 101

Maybe he's onto something...

Just kidding, but it's nice to fantasize about purging liberal college professors.

Iran's hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported in another step back to 1980s-style radicalism.

"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with a group of students.

Ahmadinejad complained that changes in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish, but said, "The job for such a change has begun."

The Thin Blue Line gets thinner

A massive manhunt in NY is even more important now as Bucky Phillips is now a cop killer.

The search for the sniper who shot Trooper Joseph A. Longobardo took on a new urgency Sunday afternoon.

The massive manhunt now seeks a cop killer.

Longobardo, 32, a husband and father of a 13-month-old son, died Sunday afternoon in Erie County Medical Center. And escaped convict Ralph "Bucky" Phillips remains the prime suspect in Thursday's ambush-style shooting.

Doctors at the Buffalo hospital had battled day and night to try to save the life of the respected member of the elite Mobile Response Team but faced staggering odds from the beginning.

Thursday evening, a round from a high-powered semiautomatic rifle had blasted through Longobardo's left thigh, severely damaging a major artery.

Longobardo underwent at least two surgeries and received more than 100 pints of blood as doctors tried to stop the relentless hemorrhaging.

Saturday, they were forced to amputate his leg. Overnight, he went into cardiac arrest twice.

He died at 3:35 p.m. Sunday.

A second trooper, Donald H. Baker Jr., was also shot in the same attack. He remains hospitalized in Hamot Medical Center in Erie, Pa., and his condition has been upgraded to serious.

News of Longobardo's death quickly spread among the hundreds of troopers, federal agents and other local law enforcement who had gathered in Chautauqua County since the Thursday shootings.

The news was officially announced at 7:45 p.m. by State Police Superintendent Wayne E. Bennett, who told a news conference at Fredonia High School that Sunday had been "a very, very difficult day."

Then, Bennett said that the resolve to catch Phillips, who has spent most of his five months on the lam in his native Chautauqua County, is now even stronger.

"We will bring whatever resources we need to get this job done," he said. "This person . . . has to be stopped."

When asked if he hopes Phillips receives the news of Longobardo's death, the superintendent replied in blunt terms.

"You bet your life I do, because I think he's responsible for killing him," said Bennett, adding that he hopes Phillips continues to "keep looking over his shoulder, and to know he can run but can't hide."

Bennett said new resources and manpower continue to aid in the search led by state troopers. He said he has asked for the assistance of the Rochester Police Department's SWAT team and today will contact the New York Police Department in an effort to tap its extensive resources.

He said that help is sought in addition to that already provided by the Buffalo Police Department, Jamestown Police Department and several sheriff's departments and other state and federal agencies.

He also said there is no question that Phillips remains dangerous, urging the public to call with any potential sightings or suspicions.

"We will follow up on each and every lead, even if they are anonymous," the superintendent said, adding searchers continue to believe Phillips remains in the Town of Pomfret area.

"For whatever reason, he doesn't choose to leave," Bennett said. "We still feel his level of comfort is here locally."

Meanwhile, fellow troopers were reacting with sadness and anger. Daniel M. De Federicis, a Buffalo native who is president of the Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers, said he views Phillips as a "terrorist and assassin."

"I am asking Mr. Phillips to end this and just turn himself in," he said. "If he has any shred of decency left, and for the sake of his family and the community, he should turn himself in."

De Federicis said the strain on troopers involved in the search for Phillips is overwhelming, especially since Phillips is armed with high-powered weapons that he has allegedly already used to ambush with surprise.

"We are in harm's way, that's the reality of our job," he said in a telephone interview Sunday evening, noting that three state troopers have died in the line of duty so far this year as well as one in combat with the military in Iraq.

"This tragedy is not over," he said. "This is the most tragic set of circumstances that we've ever dealt with," De Federicis said.

Others close to Longobardo began remembering a man described as quiet, capable and dedicated. Detective Lt. Tom DiMezza of the Amsterdam Police Department said he taught Longobardo as a substitute teacher in middle school in the victim's native Amsterdam, Montgomery County.

"He was just such a nice, young man," he said. "If you met him one moment, you'd like him the next. He was just that type of kid."

Longobardo, an eight-year State Police veteran, was also a technical sergeant in the New York Air National Guard base in Scotia, Schenectady County. He was assigned to the Wilton substation in Saratoga County, and lived with his wife, Terry, and son, Louis, in Ballston Spa, also in Saratoga County.

Gov. George E. Pataki issued a statement late Sunday night calling Longobardo's death a "painful reminder of the great risks our state troopers face each and every day."

". . . Longobardo epitomized the professionalism, courage and compassion that have become the hallmarks of the New York State Police and we are profoundly inspired by his sacrifice," the governor said.

Phillips escaped April 2 from Erie County's Alden Correctional Facility after slowly cutting through a kitchen tile with a can opener.

Authorities also suspect he shot a state trooper in June near Elmira, after the trooper pulled him over for a traffic stop. Trooper Sean Brown survived the shot to his stomach and is recuperating.

Wetlands vs Property owners rights

A man back home in PA gets told how to use HIS land.

Robert Brace rolls into his rough-hewn wood-paneled office, thrusts out a meaty hand and, even before he sits down, is talking fast from beneath his mesh Pennsylvania Landowners Association ball cap.

He's driven here to sandwich an interview between two meetings 20 miles away in Erie, and doesn't have much time, maybe an hour, to talk. It's clear, though, that the robust, 68-year-old former cabbage farmer turned nationally known property rights advocate wouldn't downshift even if he could.

That's especially true when the subject is the Aug. 4 federal court decision that denied his claim that using environmental regulations to prevent him from draining, filling and farming a wetlands amounts to a taking, for which he should be paid.

"I don't like thieves and I don't like thievery, and that's what the government is doing," said Mr. Brace, who has framed, autographed photos of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on his office bookshelf. "What right does the government have to control my land? If I can't use it, we shouldn't be debating if I am entitled to compensation."

But where Mr. Brace sees regulators gone wild, the federal judge in the case and mainstream legal experts see court decisions in step with more than 100 years of precedents that allow government to regulate land use for purposes of protecting other property owners, and benefiting communities, public safety and the environment.

Still, Mr. Brace is revved up, in part because he's angry about the decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and because he senses a watershed moment for a property rights movement in Pennsylvania that, in recent years, has gone as dormant as a fallow farm field.

"People are tired. They still feel the same way, but they can't spend every hour of the day volunteering for these things," Mr. Brace said, noting that many of the activities of the Pennsylvania Landowners Association, the property rights organization he founded in 1987, have been shifted to the Defenders of Property Rights, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying and legal organization.

"I've worked for 20 years on this, trying to educate the public and Congress about righting a wrong, but how long can I do that?" he said. "I'm hoping I see a turnaround. I believe there's a chance. But if we don't, I don't think we as a nation stand a snowball's chance."

Family farm

His case, Brace vs. The United States, turns on a soggy, 30-acre corner of the Brace family farm near the headwaters of Elk Creek, which, closer to Lake Erie, is a popular steelhead trout fishing creek. The bottom land had been in Mr. Brace's family for 40 years when his father, a cattle and dairy farmer, retired in 1975 and sold the 134-acre parcel to Mr. Brace.

He began to clear the land, which had become overgrown, and started to repair a drainage system and install new ditches and drains with the idea of expanding his cabbage farming operation.

From 1977 to 1986, he did not use the land for pasture or crops. During that time, he installed more than five miles of underground drainage pipe on the property with the knowledge and aid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In 1987, two State Game Commission officers, on the farm to trap beavers that had dammed the creek, questioned whether the drainage work was allowed under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Later that year, Mr. Brace received letters from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, informing him he had drained regulated wetlands, caused sedimentation in the creek and damaged steelhead trout spawning waters. They ordered him to restore the wetlands or face fines of up to $25,000 a day.

"Ten Things Republicans must do to keep the religious vote"

Deal Hudson writes his Top Ten list.

With the midterm elections a few months away and the 2008 presidential election already on the horizon, here's my take on what the GOP needs to do to reinvigorate its religious base.

1. Consistently Defend Life: President Bush's decision to allow Plan B, the morning-after pill, to be sold in the United States contradicts his consistent defense of the culture of life. Conversely, we recently witnessed his veto of legislation to fund further research on fetal stem cells!

2. Emphasize Judicial Appointments: After successfully nominating and confirming two solid Supreme Court justices, Republican leadership lost track of the importance of this issue to religious conservatives. Liberal judges legislating from the bench are one of the main reasons that religious conservatives became active in politics in the late 1970s. Judges will remain in office long after the Republicans are no longer in power, making Bush-appointed judges the most important legacy of religious conservative influence in the present administration.

3. Keep the Marriage Amendment Alive: Homosexual activists have supplanted feminists as the leading agents of extremism in American politics. The proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution should be made a rallying call for the Republican Party in the months and years to come, a clear expression of its commitment to the values of religious conservatives. Half-hearted support for this amendment will turn-off and dispirit the actively religious voter.

4. Treat Immigrants with Compassion: There is a tendency in the GOP to identify the religious conservative with the conservative activist -- this is a mistake. The two groups overlap but they are not the same. For religious conservatives compassion is a genuine value that should infuse political rhetoric and public policy. Polling shows Catholics, for example, who attend Mass regularly, are more supportive of the Bishops' lenient attitude toward illegal immigrants than inactive Catholics. Other religiously active voters may well want to handle this issue without harsh rhetoric or punitive intent. President's Bush's compassionate position on immigration has not been heard above the shouting. The GOP might also keep in mind that most of these immigrants could become part of the religious coalition that has put the GOP into power. Hispanic Catholics are the single most important group missing from the GOP’s religious coalition.

5. Don't Compromise on Iraq: Religious conservatives affirm the principles behind the decision to send U. S. soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq. They may join in the widespread criticism of the implementation strategy of the Iraq war, but this is not to be confused with a change of mind about the justness of the war itself. GOP leaders should remember that its religious supporters are patriots whose parents and grandparents invoked their faith to resist both Nazism and atheistic Communism.

6. Pick the Right Presidential Candidate for 2008: Polls show Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain leading the pack of Republican hopefuls. Nominating a pro-choice candidate would be disastrous for the Republicans. The argument, "where else can they go," does not work because religious conservatives are religious first and Republican second: They will stay home or form a third party. McCain is attempting to repair his reputation with religious conservatives, but the gap is very wide and the memories on both sides are deep and bitter. Giuliani has estimable qualities but needs to undergo a genuine conversion on life issues. Governor Pataki needs the same conversion. Gov. Romney impresses people wherever he goes, but whether a Mormon candidate can garner Evangelical or conservative Catholic voters remains to be seen. Senator Allen is pro-life but inspires little enthusiasm (and his recent racial gaff did not help him). Senator Brownback, a Catholic convert, is slowly gathering steam but probably not quickly enough for 2008. Senator Frist was the initial frontrunner until he insisted that his medical training made him an expert on the bioethics of fetal stem cell research, thus losing the support of religious conservatives. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has proven his worth on issues important to religious conservatives, but would they accept his recent marriage and the circumstances leading to it? Other options? If Senator Santorum beats Bob Casey, Jr., which is very likely, he must be considered a candidate. And, of course, there is always the chance Gov. Jeb Bush could be talked into running, especially if Senator Clinton is nominated, thus eliminating the "dynasty" problem.

7. Remember that Terrorism is a Life Issue: The Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that the first obligation of any government is to protect the lives of its citizens: "It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense" (CCC 1909). Religious conservatives do not share the left's reservations about the just defense of our nation against aggression; they know those liberals are wrong who try to blame the U. S. for the attacks. Anything on the domestic front that distracts from the continuing war on terror should be put on the back burner.

8. Laugh at the "Theocracy" Label: Ever since the fight to save Terry Schiavo, the left and some Republican moderates have been accusing religious conservatives, including President Bush, of turning the United States into a "theocracy." Anyone familiar with the history of religion and politics knows this is a laughable claim and should treat it as such.

9. Avoid the Demonizing of Islam: Thus far the GOP has done a good job of distinguishing between the religion of Islam and its extremist groups who make up the international terrorist network. However, until leadership within Islam steps forward to condemn Islamic terrorism there will be growing pressure to equate Islam with "evil." GOP leadership should resist the temptation to write Islam off as evil. Such a move is based on bad history and worse diplomacy. It may appease a loud minority of religious conservatives, but it will certainly not make the party appear more "friendly" to religion.

10. Remind Religious Conservatives of the Record: In its first six years, the administration of President George W. Bush did more for religious conservatives than any other president, including Ronald Reagan. Bush went well beyond signing bills and defining policy that protected life and the traditional family; he created a partnership with the religious community, a "faith-based initiative," that invested in the ongoing work of churches to address our nation's social problems. Nothing, I repeat nothing, has infuriated the political left more than the funding of church-related social services.

The GOP needs to remember what earned them the support of religious conservatives in the first place, and stay the course in the midst of the tremendous pressure to "moderate" its message. Religious conservatives know that in politics "moderate" is a codeword for compromise.

Other than #9, I am in agreement with Mr Hudson. Islam IS evil.

Why you must vote Republican

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would be bad, but look at who would be the chairmen of a Democrat house.

With a little more than two months to go before midterm elections, the polls show Democrats well positioned to win the House after 12 years out of power. So it's not too soon to consider who these Democrats are and how they would govern.

All the more so because we've seen most of these faces and their agenda before. While Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi would be a new Speaker of the House, the 19 primary committee chairmen who would dominate hearings, issue subpoenas and write legislation are agents of change only in the sense of going back to the future. They represent the same liberal priorities that bedeviled Bill Clinton's attempt to govern as a New Democrat from 1993-94, and before that Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. To pick one example, 13 of the 19 voted against the welfare reform that Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 and hailed this month as a triumph of "bipartisanship."

Republicans have done little to deserve re-election, and so perhaps voters will ignore Democratic priorities. But one of the ironies of current politics is that a swing in only 15 House seats would result in a huge ideological shift in the legislative agenda. Most of the House seats in play are "swing" districts held by political moderates. The most liberal seats also tend to be the safest and thus are held by Members who can stay around for the decades needed to become chairmen. Their agenda is not the one those "swing" voters would be endorsing.

Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.

If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.

Ways and Means, the chief economic policy panel, would go to New York's Charlie Rangel (1970), who opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough. Over at Financial Services, the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Energy and Commerce would return to the untender mercies of John Dingell, the longest-serving Member first elected in 1955, who was a selective scourge of business when he ran the committee before 1994. The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.

Remember organized labor? Their champion would be George Miller (1974), who as the man in line to run the education and labor committee is the chief sponsor of the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections. Instead, union operatives would be allowed to publicly hound workers into signing "cards" that are counted as votes toward unionization. The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.

We also can't forget California's Henry Waxman (1974), among the most partisan liberals and who at Government Reform would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration. And then there's Alcee Hastings, who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.

There would certainly be exceptions to this left-wing revival. Missouri's Ike Skelton (1976) supports a larger military and wouldn't mean much of a change at Armed Services. Colin Peterson (1990) of Minnesota wouldn't change the pro-subsidy bent of the GOP at Agriculture, and Minnesota's James Oberstar (1974) couldn't possibly be worse at Transportation than Alaska Republican Don Young.

The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington.

A Tribute to a fallen warrior

Nobody can write like Steve Dunleavy, as he eulogizes a fallen hero of the NYFD, Michael Reilly.

FROM Baghdad is blazing to The Bronx is burning - Michael Reilly was born to be brave.

And he chose to join a warrior class that isn't called "the Bravest" for nothing.

He died as he lived - courageously - but bravery is not confined to those who fight fires. Their families, who spend careers worrying, are called on to show unthinkable courage in public while they suffer grievous loss.

Yesterday, at Mike Reilly's funeral Mass, his mother, Monica, was halted in her tracks as she walked up to receive Holy Communion. She stopped and stared at her son's fire helmet as it sat on a table near the altar.

Seconds later, showing the same steel as the son she raised, she straightened her spine and went up to God's altar.

The funeral was attended by 8,000 to 10,000 firefighters, some from as far away as Montreal.

Throngs listened silently as bagpipes skirled the Marine Corps hymn around the magnificent St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church in Ramsey, N.J.

Stiffly, a Marine contingent stood with a crisp salute as they silently mouthed the words we all know: "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

But it's the next lines that we forget and they so proudly live: "We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea; First to fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean; We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine."

In either uniform, USMC or FDNY, Mike Reilly commanded respect.

"He was absolutely fearless," said former Marine Cpl. Timothy McGill.

McGill was with 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines who fought the forces of evil in Fallujah.

Amidst the acrid smoke and the bloody bodies, McGill often thought back to saner times - among them attending Ramsey HS in New Jersey, where he palled around with Mike Reilly.

And then he would hear that young Mike was in the Marine Squad 472, fighting fires all over Iraq.

It was an absolute must-be meeting. So they hugged and shook hands outside the maelstrom that is Baghdad, while we sat home in our safe corral. And President Bush was getting heat from every wimp on the horizon.

"It was so wonderful meeting a hometown friend. We swapped high-school stories and stuff about our hometown," former Cpl. McGill recalled.

"The thing about Mike was that he loved the action. He told me just how much he loved it. And when he put on that uniform he just stood proud and fearless. A real wonderful credit to the Marines and our country. But he did not know fear."

Matt Crowley, whose father, Billy Crowley, was a member of the pipe band that swirled past the church yesterday and whose brother Tommy is on the job, was in Mike's probie class.

"He was an absolute perfectionist. He knew what he was doing at all times. He actually left that job in the fire department in Stratford, Conn., and took a big pay cut to come to Engine 75.

"He could have had his pick of any firehouse anywhere, but he chose to come here. That was Mike Reilly."

But being a brave Marine and a brave fireman - great feats both - wasn't enough for Mike Reilly. He had to be handsome and friendly and athletic as well.

"You could see it even when he was a little boy," said Barbara Johnson-Soued. "My son Derek went through three schools with him growing up. He was a people person. But very active. He was on the junior golf team with my son and on sports teams everywhere.

"You knew someday he would be someone."

Michael's sister Erin, 23, in a charming eulogy, said her handsome brother was many things - "He was a pro bull rider, depending on which night you met him" - and cracked up the congregation.

Sometimes a smile or a laugh is the only weapon against the crushing blitzkrieg of losing a real-life hero who only made it to 25 years.

Here was a guy that looked death squarely in the face and refused to turn away - a spirit FDNY firefighters somehow have tattooed on their psyche.

Even Fire Commissioner Nick Scoppetta, not always popular in the rank and file, told the congregation something they secretly knew.

"He [Michael] would never avoid danger. Perhaps he almost wanted to seek it out, but in a proper manner."

Mike's father, Michael Sr., stood erect and strong, and he repeated the poetic lines from "A Thousand Winds" that are certainly a fitting mantra for the Bravest.

"Do not stand by my grave and cry, I am not there, I didn't die."

Structural Failure