What better day to start number five, than Washington's Birthday!

By George
It's not Presidents' Day. It’s Washington's birthday.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/spalding200402160805.asp

A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html

So there I was, figuring Bush would lose the election, when suddenly...

I guess the only thing worse for Kerry would be to get an endorsement from Al Gore.

the long view

Rob Long, NR, February 9th, 2004

The Candidates' Diaries
Special Iowa Madness Edition™

From the Howard Dean diaries:

. . . which is what it was, a setup, and that's all there is to it. He didn't want me to win. He wanted me to lose. He's got some weird plan he's cooking up to somehow get the nomination. I mean, how else could you explain it? He calls and tells me he wants to endorse me, which is weird, because it really should have been Lieberman he endorses, right? I mean, right? RIGHT? RIGHT?? Damn, just snapped another pencil. Okay. Cleansing breath. Cleansing breath. In to the count of three, out to the count of six. Okay. Okay. But it's odd that I get this so-called quote unquote major endorsement one day, and then the very next day AND I MEAN THE VERY NEXT DAY THE WHOLE THING TURNS INTO A PILE OF . . .

From the diaries of John Edwards:

. . . suddenly like the most popular girl at the dance when a few days ago, it was a lot of jokes about grits and stuff like that. And out of the blue, I get this call from Al Gore and he wants to talk about an endorsement, and I said to him, "Hey, didn't you already endorse Dean?" And then suddenly his voice gets all clenched up and high-pitched, like he's got something strangling him, kind of like that little bald, naked creature from the "Lord of the Rings" movie? The one who keeps trying to steal the ring? Anyway, I tell him thanks but no thanks . . .

From the John Kerry diaries:

. . . not nearly as boring as you'd expect poor people to be, honestly, although they did seem a little too intent on the "talking to the candidate" part of the program and most of them had that kind of sallow, unattractive fatness that comes from, I'm told, a fondness for the deep-fried potato. Oh well. I chuckled tolerantly several times (thank you, media advisers!) trying to approximate that upward twist at the edges of my mouth, you know the ones I mean? When the corners seem to suddenly stretch outward and upward to display in an external fashion feelings of wanting to show happiness? And, also, that thing that comes over some people when they suddenly see puppies, or smell chocolate-chip cookies, or their very favourite colour, or things of that nature? What is that feeling? Not sure. But I do know that when people feel it, they do that thing with their mouths — that outward stretching — and I've learned to do a pretty good job of it myself. And all in all, the event went rather well, and I know that I'm beginning to get more support from my fellow Democrats because just this morning, as I was sipping my tea, I received word that Al Gore had called that night, and would appreciate a return call. Curiouser and curiouser, thinks I. I'll return it later tonight, after a dinner with some poor people . . .

Taken from the walls of Al Gore's observation cell, Brushy Mountain Mental Health Facility:

. . . and then I tells Edwardses, I does, I'll make master such a good endorsementses that he'll surely wins the New Hampshire primarieses and then he'll be presidentses and poor old Al will be happy for master not like that mean master Dean who made poor Al wait on the phoneses and wait and wait until he took poor Al's endorsementses and see where he got to, see, see? Nowhere. And Edwardses says to Al thankses but no thankses and then he hangses up on poor Al and then AL KNOWSES YES HE KNOWSES THAT HE HAS TO ENDORSE THEM ALL! ENDORSE THEM ALLS! MAKE THEM ALLS HIS BIG FRIENDSES! No, no, no, Al, don't do that! Don't endorse another candidate. They'll just drop in the polls and it will ruin them! No one wants to see you again, Al. Your endorsement means that you'll appear with the candidate and that will kill his chances. They're good people, good men, they need support, not your endorsement. NO! NO! I HATE CANDIDATESES AND I WILL GIVE THEM ALL MY ENDORSEMENTSES! But they'll lose, they'll lose, and then who will lead the party? Who will run against Bush in November? Who? WHO? Who? WHO? WHY, WE WILL, MY PRECIOUS, WE WILL! WE'LL RUN AGAIN, MY PRECIOUSES, RUN AGAIN AND WIN THIS TIME, WE'LL WIN! How can we wins, poor Al? How can we . . . can we? YES! Can we, really? YES, YES, MY PRECIOUSES, YES WE CAN! We can? YES! We can, can't we? We can be presidentses of the United Stateses. We can. We can. Who's calling for poor Al? Why it's Senator Kerryses. Must take it. Must take it . . .

Those oh-so-compassionate liberals could hardly contain their glee upon hearing the news that Attorney General John Ashcroft is suffering from a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis.

"He has it coming. He is utterly sub-human and evil. Suffer, bastard," gloated an Internet user on the DemocraticUnderground.com Web site. "(T)he world would be better off without him," responded another writer on the forum. "I hope he is in the most severe pain a human being can suffer, and after that, I hope he remains in constant pain with no hope of relief," chimed in yet another bleeding-heart Democrat. Out in Hollywood, comedian Bill Maher echoed these unsparing sentiments during his HBO talk show monologue, speculating that Ashcroft contracted his unimaginably painful and potentially deadly illness from "wiping his (expletive) with the Bill of Rights." The audience roared with laughter.

America, land of the Ashcroft-haters

[This message was edited by Darla Diamond on 03-15-04 at 05:11 PM.]

A WIN FOR TERROR

Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonated those bombs of murder on 3/11 intended to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy – and they have succeeded.

In the months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have all heard – and ourselves often repeated – much brave talk about how terror cannot prevail, how justice must inevitably win through, etc. etc. etc.

The news from Spain suggests how very wrong those hopes were.

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary031504.asp

Lying Is Job One

If Krugman & Co. ever told the truth, they’d be finished.

Why does Paul Krugman lie about the economy? For the same reason that many liberal politicians do: If they told the truth, they’d never be elected into office. But when they lie, their chances of victory are greatly improved.

Here’s the truth about what has happened to the American economy over the last year:
Since the stock market bottom one year ago last Friday, the S&P 500 has grown $2.96 trillion in market value. Corporate earnings are now at an all-time record high. Gross domestic product has grown somewhere between 5 and 6 percent. Household wealth is at an all-time record high. Interest rates are the lowest in modern history. Inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index is non-existent. Jobs have grown between 122,000 (according to the Department of Labor's “establishment survey”) and 983,000 (according to the “household survey”), and the unemployment rate has fallen from 5.9 to 5.6 percent.

These impressive economic statistics are largely the result of growth policies enacted by the Bush administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad200403150933.asp

Weekly Standard

Husbanding Men
Dr. Laura sees where feminism went astray.
by Tammy Bruce
03/22/2004, Volume 009, Issue 27


The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands
by Laura Schlessinger
HarperCollins, 180 pp., $24.95

AMERICA HAS, at present, a 52 percent divorce rate,
"no-fault" laws that have turned what is supposed to
be a unique commitment for life into serial polygamy,
and a nearly complete amnesia about the fact that
children suffer in single-parent households. The
sanctity of marriage is at such a low ebb, it's not
surprising the idea of trying to redefine marriage to
include homosexuals has gained so much ground in
recent years. In a country in which marriage seems to
mean so little, what argument can heterosexuals make
to retain their monopoly on the empty institution?

The radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger may have
come closest to understanding why American marriage
has broken down so badly. In her new book, The Proper
Care & Feeding of Husbands, her idea is simple: The
major cause of the American divorce epidemic is the
refusal or inability of women to care for their
husbands. Schlessinger brazenly insists that a wife
should treat her husband with respect, that learning
about his needs is a good thing, and that making him
feel dignified and needed improves women's lives and
marriage.

Using the formula that has made Schlessinger's radio
show successful, The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands
examines problems submitted by listeners and offers
advice tailored to the real-life situations in which
people find themselves. Schlessinger's personal and
no-nonsense style explains her popularity, and this
new book is her seventh New York Times bestseller. For
years, attempts have been made to silence
her--specifically because her values-based perspective
challenges leftist cultural decay. But the success of
The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands is another
indication that her message is one Americans want and
need.

Schlessinger rightly points out the state of personal
relations between men and women in this country are in
trouble, and not always simply from failures of
behavior. American women, in particular, have been
systematically miseducated and misinformed for nearly
four decades. I was president of the Los Angeles
chapter of the National Organization for Women from
1990 to 1996, and I served two years on NOW's national
board of directors. I complained even then that the
biggest failure of the modern feminist movement was
its leaving men behind.

Somewhere along the line, the fight for equality with
men became an effort to have independence from men.
And many of our current cultural predicaments are due
in part to the condemning of traditional institutions
and culture by the women's movement over the past
forty years. The message of the feminist establishment
has been, in Gloria Steinem's famous words, that "a
woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." With a
mantra like that, it was inevitable we would create
women unable or unwilling to understand the men in
their lives--much less treat them with dignity and
celebrate them as husbands, fathers, and brothers.

WITH MEN UNIVERSALLY DEMONIZED as rapists, warmongers,
and sexual harassers, with masculinity itself defined
as a problem, it's really no wonder women's sense of
how to interact with men faded away. Young women from
the 1970s through the 1990s were routinely told that
marriage was by definition rape and that
heterosexuality itself constituted "sleeping with the
enemy." Many women chose not to marry, put off having
children, and began to experiment with their sexuality
in efforts to "find" themselves, free from the chains
of society and the dangerous parasite of men.

The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands is not a
theoretical work, by any means, but what Schlessinger
grasps in her popular and intuitive style is something
an enormous number of feminists have missed: The
freeing of women from the bonds of the family has
delivered many of them into a kind of sexual slavery.
If women are released from the deep structures of
being mothers and daughters and wives and sisters,
there isn't any reason for men to think of them
anymore as mothers and daughters and wives and
sisters. And men, being men, have not surprisingly
responded by considering women primarily as sex
objects--the only male-female relation left over.

So the feminist movement that was going to free women
turned out to be the great facilitator of the American
playboy, hustler, and pornographer. Sexual freedom and
personal liberty turned out to mean that women have to
leave their self-respect at the bedroom door. Have you
looked, really looked, at the women's magazines in the
supermarket lately? From Cosmopolitan to Glamour, the
headlines blast such sentiments as "Be His Love
Slave," or "Find Those Spots on Him That Will Make Him
Want More," or "What Do Men Really Want in Bed? Our
Survey Tells You!" Feminism wasn't supposed to be
about the titillation of watching Madonna masturbate
on stage, and female dignity wasn't supposed to be
about becoming someone's love slave.

Of course, when Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, and
Courtney Love are the new generation's feminist icons,
why would men think that we actually want to be
treated with dignity? And while neither a wife nor a
husband in a difficult marriage may subscribe to the
feminist manifesto, messages promulgated by popular
culture have clearly taken their toll on women's
understanding. What culture used to know is that women
civilize men. Men look to women for cues about how to
act and about what is appropriate. The decent early
supporters of the feminist movement still knew this,
but nowadays it seems to fall to Laura Schlessinger,
the supposed anti-feminist, to provide guidance for
women who want to know how to improve their lives.

SOME OF THE EARLY REVIEWS of The Proper Care & Feeding
of Husbands have been brutal and vicious, parroting
the rotten old line that occasionally putting one's
husband first and making an effort to be a good wife
is a sexist throwback to the dark ages. But the book
has nonetheless sold phenomenally well, almost
three-quarters of a million copies in print in eight
weeks, which is a heartening sign. And Schlessinger
has just finished a companion volume, a
workbook/journal, to be released in August.

Popular culture may finally be shifting back, giving
women, from across the social and political spectrum,
answers that will actually improve their lives. If
women begin to realize they're not sleeping with the
enemy, they may find a way to remain married to
someone who loves them and is a good partner in life.

Tammy Bruce is an author, columnist, and Fox News
Channel contributor. Her national talk radio show will
debut in April.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard,
All Rights Reserved.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For information Contact Dave Nourie: 888-383-3733



March 10, 2004


Talk Radio Network Enterprises Signs
Tammy Bruce into National Syndication
Show Launches on Flagship Station KABC, Los Angeles

Central Point, OR – Talk Radio Network Enterprises,
CEO Mark Masters announced the signing of Tammy Bruce
to host a nationally syndicated radio program. "She's
an incredible talent with unique perspectives that
will broaden the scope of talk radio today," says
Masters. The Tammy Bruce Show will begin airing live
4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Pacific on Saturdays starting March
27th.

"Tammy is smart...she's funny...she's
passionate....she's unpredictable...and above all,
she's entertaining! These are all of the ingredients
to a successful show. I am excited to be able to add
her to our radio station," says Eric Braverman,
Operations Director for KABC, Los Angeles. Braverman
also announced that KABC, Los Angeles will act as the
flagship station for the new Tammy Bruce Show.

Best Selling Author, Ms. Bruce is a veteran radio
personality, hosting The Tammy Bruce Show in Los
Angeles on KFI from 1993-1998. She is also a
contributor on the Fox News Channel. Her editorials
and commentaries on significant social issues have
been published nationally and internationally in a
wide variety of magazines, newspapers, and on
television and radio.

Ms. Bruce's first book, The New Thought Police, was
published in October 2001. An analysis of freedom of
expression and the culture wars, it explores the
importance of freedom of expression and personal
liberty and how that liberty is under attack by the
dangerous rise of Left-wing McCarthyism. Her current
book, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the
Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values, addresses
the rise of moral relativism in society and quickly
became a New York Times Best Seller.

Two years after joining the National Organization for
Women, introducing a brand of feminism that places her
somewhere between Donna Reed and Thelma and Louise,
Ms. Bruce was elected president of the Los Angeles
chapter of NOW at the age of 27. The youngest ever to
achieve that position, she doubled the chapter's
membership from 2,000 to 4,000 within a year with
issue campaigns that introduced a fresh view of
feminist activism. In her seven years as president
(1990-1996, the longest continuous tenure in the
chapter's 30 year history) she mobilized activists
locally and nationally on a whole range of issues,
including women's image in media, child care, health
care, violence against women, economics, and domestic
violence. Ms. Bruce also served two years as a member
of the National NOW board of directors.

Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning,
pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Reagan
progressive feminist. Ms. Bruce eviscerates the
Feminist Elite's hatred of men, marriage and
motherhood, the Black Elite's championing of violent
rap, the Gay Elite's "grab for children" by
insinuating let-it-all-hang-out Sex-Ed programs into
schools, the Academic Elite's nihilism and
anti-Americanism, and the Entertainment Elite's "moral
depravity beyond measure."

A native of Los Angeles, Ms. Bruce holds a Bachelor's
Degree in Political Science from the University of
Southern California. Her most recent public political
experience was serving on California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s Transition Team. She also notes that
her interest in politics and individual liberty was
sparked during her childhood in part because of the
work of authors Ray Bradbury and George Orwell, both
of whom remain her favorite writers.

Talk Radio Network Enterprises and its affiliate
networks also syndicate: The Laura Ingraham Show, The
Rusty Humphries Show, The Jerry Doyle Show, Motor
Trend Radio Magazine, Behind the News, Fight Back with
David Horowitz and many other fine programs.

For more information on these and other programs, call
(888) 383-3733.
Visit us at www.talkradionetwork.com
<http://www.talkradionetwork.com/> or email to
affiliates@talkradionetwork.com

Al-Qaida Barks, The Spanish Fly
March 17, 2004

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/031704p.htm

AFTER A terrorist attack by al-Qaida that left hundreds of their fellow countrymen dead, Spanish voters immediately voted to give the terrorists what they want -- a Socialist government that opposes America's war on terrorism. Al-Qaida has changed a government.


Until the bombings last week, the center-right Popular Party of outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been sailing to victory. But then the al-Qaida bombs went off and Spaniards turned out in droves to vote against the government that had been a staunch Bush ally in the war on terrorism. (I guess it's OK for a Spanish Socialist to "politicize" a terrorist attack just to get elected.)


In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.


Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.


The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"


One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.


After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.


Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it.


But, like the Democrats, the Spanish hate George Bush more than they hate the terrorists. Zapatero said the war in Iraq was based on "lies" and called on President Bush and Tony Blair to "do some reflection and self-criticism." So don't think of the Spanish election as a setback for freedom -- think of it as a preview of life under President John Kerry!


What kind of lunatic would blame Bush for 200 Spaniards killed by al-Qaida bombs? Oh wait -- Howard Dean just did. Summarizing the views of Socialists everywhere, Dean said: "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend."


Yes, with 1,700 dead or injured Spaniards, George Bush certainly has some explaining to do. What have the terrorists ever done besides kill and maim thousands of innocent civilians? Bush isn't fully funding "No Child Left Behind," for God's sake!


Before he was put into office because he supported policies favored by al-Qaida terrorists, appeasement candidate Zapatero said: "I want Kerry to win." Kerry is also supported by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who broadcasts Kerry speeches over Radio Pyongyang with favorable commentary.


So now Kerry really does have two foreign leaders on record supporting him: a Socialist terrorist-appeaser and a Marxist mass murderer who dresses like Bea Arthur.


Zapatero predicted that his own victory would help the anti-war party "in the duel between Bush and Kerry." Would you mind repeating that, sir? I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving.


However Spain's election affects Americans, we can be sure that Spain's surrender to terrorism hasn't been lost on the terrorists. It's difficult to imagine the American people responding to a new terrorist attack by deciding to placate the terrorists, as the Spanish did. A mollusk wouldn't react that way to an attack. Only a liberal could be so perverse.


No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it.


Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a "city upon a hill." We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies." He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980.


With the Spanish election, we are witnessing a capitulation to savagery that makes full-scale war inevitable. The Democratic candidate wants to represent godless Europeans. The Republican candidate wants to represent Americans. As Winthrop said: "The eyes of all people are upon us."

W.W.J.K: Who Would Jesus Kill?
March 10, 2004

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/031004p.htm

WILLIAM SAFIRE, The New York Times' in-house "conservative" -- who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives -- was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize.


With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)


The "passion play" has been put on in Germany since at least 1633. I guess 1633 would be "pre-Hitler." In addition, Moses walked the Earth "pre-Hitler." The wheel was invented "pre-Hitler." People ate soup "pre-Hitler." Referring to the passion play as "pre-Hitler" is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!


Despite repeated suggestions from liberals -- including the in-house "conservative" and Clinton-supporter at the Times -- Hitler is not what happens when you gin up Christians. Like Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine killers and the editorial board of The New York Times, Hitler detested Christians.


Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an "invention of the Jew" and vowed that the "organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed" so that the state would "remain the absolute master." Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century -- all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.


In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade, vs. seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!


But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. (And don't get them started on Zionism.) Like their Muslim friends still harping about the Crusades, liberals won't "move on" from the Spanish Inquisition. In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast.


But Safire argues that viewers of "The Passion" will see the Jewish mob and think: "Who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?"


Let's see: It was a Roman who ordered Christ's execution, and Romans who did all the flaying, taunting and crucifying. Perhaps Safire is indulging in his own negative stereotyping about Jews by assuming they simply viewed Romans as "the help."


But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? (Besides people who go around putting up nativity scenes that have to be taken down by court order?) The religion that toppled the Roman Empire -- anyone?


Jesus' suffering and death is not a Hatfields-and-McCoys story demanding retaliation. The gist of the religion that transformed the world is: God's only son came to Earth to take the punishment we deserved.


If the Jews had somehow managed to block Jesus' crucifixion and He had died in old age of natural causes, there would be no salvation through Christ and no Christianity. Whatever possible responses there may be to that story, this is not one of them: Damn those Jews for being a part of God's plan to save my eternal soul!


Gibson didn't insert Jews into the story for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way.


Of course, the original text is no excuse in Hollywood. The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of.

Spain Surrenders! Declares Poodle National Dog
Tammy Bruce
Thursday, Mar. 18, 2004

"...Socialism is a product of malignant narcissism, its proponents obsessed only with themselves, what they want, what they need, what’s good for them. Of course the Spanish surrendered, effectively begging Islamist animals for mercy."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/18/84515.shtml

Judge Permits Testimony About Fetus Pain
Tue Mar 23,10:53 PM ET

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - A pediatrician who says a fetus can feel pain during an abortion will be allowed to testify in a legal challenge to a new law banning a type of late-term abortion, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Richard Casey ruled Friday that Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand can testify as a government witness at a trial scheduled for later this month.

The judge rejected arguments from the National Abortion Federation (news - web sites) that the testimony would be irrelevant and unreliable.

The new law, passed by Congress last year, forbids a procedure anti-abortion activists call "partial-birth abortion." It is generally performed in the second or third trimester.


The judge said the doctor's testimony will help him assess Congress' findings that the procedure is "brutal and inhumane" and that "the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain."


Anand has conducted research on pain in fetuses and newborns and concluded that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which is representing the National Abortion Federation, argued that Anand's testimony is insufficient because he will say it is likely but not definite that a fetus experiences pain during late-term abortions.

But the judge said Anand's testimony has a sufficiently reliable foundation because it is based on extensive experience and research.

Simultaneous trials challenging the law are set to begin March 29 in New York, Lincoln, Neb., and San Francisco.

How 9-11 Happened
March 31, 2004

By Ann Coulter

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

AT WAR II
A Clash of Interests
Will it be the national interest, or the interests of the 'international community'? This is a campaign question

LEE A. CASEY & DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.


Presidential elections are not, as a rule, decided by foreign-policy issues. But key foreign-policy issues can be decided by presidential elections, and this will be particularly true of 2004's. The differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry in their approaches to international relations could not be more dramatic. Never has the partisan gulf been wider. While in the past Democrats and Republicans frequently disagreed about individual issues — the Vietnam War, U.S.-Soviet arms control — at stake now is a fundamental operational principle: whether American foreign policy will be principally driven by considerations of the national interest or by a tender regard for the wishes of the "international community," based on an ideology of "multilateralism."

Although the Left in general, and Democratic activists in particular, have ceaselessly carped about George W. Bush's "unilateralism," the president has actually followed a highly pragmatic approach to international cooperation, acting, whenever possible, in concert with other states and institutions — including Europe and the United Nations. In fact, on each of the major foreign-policy challenges it has faced, and continues to face — including war with al-Qaeda, deposing Saddam Hussein, interdicting WMDs and their components, and denuclearizing North Korea, Iran, and Libya — the administration has sought (and obtained) the support and assistance of numerous other countries and international organizations.

At the same time, Bush has eschewed improvident international commitments (such as the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol) that would tie America's hands in meeting the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world, compromise its sovereignty, and undermine its prosperity. Perhaps more to the point, the president has consistently treated multilateralism as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. This is the real complaint from Bush's critics, and they hate him for it — openly and unapologetically.

The religion of multilateralism began in post-World War II Europe, where the creation of multilateral Franco-German (and then "European") institutions was seen as the antidote to the nationalism that had sparked two world wars. The keystone of these efforts was the subordination of country-specific interests (particularly those of Germany) to the aspirations of a greater European community, de-legitimizing national action in the process. All this was so effective that, to this day, nascent unilateralism is one of the most serious charges that can be flung at a German politician, and even French officials routinely proclaim the overriding importance of common European interests in foreign affairs — rather than La Patrie or La Gloire. (Whether they believe what they say — the French foreign minister reportedly adorns his office with Napoleon Bonaparte's portrait — is another matter.)

Not surprisingly, France and Germany remain the "engines" of European integration, and, nearly 60 years later, the "common European home" has blossomed into a union that will soon stretch from Ireland to Poland. Together, Paris and Berlin — which secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld accurately characterized as "Old Europe" — seem determined to recreate something like the medieval Franco-German empire of Charlemagne. These new Carolingians have drafted a constitution (of which many of Europe's smaller states are understandably wary), and they are already flexing their ideological muscles. European politicians have set forth to preach the message that national sovereignty is anachronistic, if not positively dangerous, and that the "international community" is the ultimate font of legitimacy. Unfortunately, this message has been endorsed in the U.S. explicitly by senior Democratic officials, such as former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, and indirectly by Democratic politicians — including John Kerry — who appear to consider "engagement" with the "international community" the lodestar of a successful foreign policy.

Why Old Europe's new learning should appeal to anybody in the United States is not immediately obvious: The U.S. has never indulged in the ethnically based nationalism that ravaged 20th-century Europe, instead cultivating a far more inclusive patriotism that, as George Will once noted, accepts anyone willing to subscribe to the principles announced in the Declaration of Independence. The first and foremost of those principles, of course, is the right to self-government, free from "supranational" interference.

Nevertheless, the Old World's thinking has always had a profound impact on the New, and especially on "progressive" opinion. While American conservatives tend to look to the British Enlightenment for their intellectual inspiration, the Left has traditionally found its ideas, and ideologies, in continental Europe — from Rousseau, to Marx, to Jean Jaur's. This may explain why many American liberals, including a number of prominent Democratic leaders and foreign-policy experts, have so thoroughly embraced the European ideology of multilateralism. Yet this ideology is profoundly anti-democratic in nature, and irreconcilable with core American values such as self-government. The fact that it has been adopted by a self-styled populist party is astonishing.

At the same time, many U.S. multilateralists came of age during the Vietnam War, when political activism (both in the United States and Europe) involved vocal, and often violent, opposition to American government policy. Although the days of flag-burning are long past, the habits of thought engendered during the Vietnam experience, especially regarding the use of American military force overseas, are still evident; hence a straightforward, national-interest-based foreign policy is considered by many on the left to be morally dubious, if not outright repugnant.

As a result, it is hardly surprising that no element of Bush's foreign policy has so outraged the Left in general, and leading Democrats in particular, as the principle of "preemptive" war — a doctrine thoroughly grounded in considerations of national interest. The president has made clear that, in an age in which civilians are deliberately targeted and weapons of mass destruction are readily available, the United States cannot afford to absorb a "first strike," but will identify gathering threats and act to preempt them. This "doctrine" is nothing more than common sense, and there is bountiful state practice establishing its legitimacy under international law. One example — far too often overlooked — is the September 1939 Anglo-French ultimatums to Hitler, which declared that only a prompt withdrawal from Poland could stop the Western democracies from entering the war. Neither state, of course, had been attacked. Neither was threatened with attack, and the bulk of Germany's armed forces were headed in exactly the opposite direction. This too was an "elective" war, a war of choice — a choice made because neither Britain nor France was willing to "wait its turn."

Despite preemption's firm grounding in international law and practice, most leading Democrats have denounced the doctrine, although none — including and especially Senator Kerry — has suggested an alternative beyond generalized platitudes about seeking the assistance of our "allies" and the U.N. Security Council. They have yet to suggest exactly what assistance — assistance that could actually protect the American people from a reprise of September 11 — those allies might provide. The United Nations depends on American military might to implement its resolutions, not to mention guarantee the security of its own headquarters, while our European cohorts continue to reduce their military capabilities to embarrassing levels.

What our allies can offer, though, is the cloak of multilateralism. The "international community"'s permission is just about the only coin Old Europe has left to spend, and so it is determined to inflate that currency's value. It has accomplished this by advancing a view of international law that, on virtually every issue, works primarily as a means of constraining the United States. This is especially true with respect to the legal justification for the use of military force, and explains Europe's insistence that only the United Nations (where France enjoys veto power) can authorize legitimate use of military force. It also explains the near-hysterical Franco-German reaction when the administration sought to reward its friends, and disadvantage its opponents, by reserving certain reconstruction contracts for nationals of Iraqi Coalition countries.

Naturally, the new Carolingians recognize an exception to this rule where their own vital interests are involved — as demonstrated by the 1999 NATO war with Serbia over Kosovo. The Kosovo crisis was of paramount importance to France and Germany (one fearing Muslim reaction, the other a renewed flood of Balkan refugees) — but of only humanitarian concern to the United States. Russia would have vetoed any Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against the Serbs, and so France, Germany, and the EU were happy to have NATO proceed without U.N. authorization. It is a purely self-interested form of legitimacy that our allies are peddling, and the role they appear to have reserved for the United States is not unlike that of the 18th-century Hessians: the muscle. But unlike the Hessians, who were paid for their services, the United States is expected to both fight and foot the bill.

This, ultimately, is what the multilateralism the Democrats have embraced means, and this is what they will ask the American people to endorse on November 2. In the months to come, the Bush administration would be well advised to articulate clearly the profound differences between its national-interest-driven foreign policy — where multilateral action is a means to an end — and Senator Kerry's policy, where multilateralism is an end in itself. (Indeed, Kerry proudly proclaims that he is supported by many foreign leaders against President Bush.) The electorate can then decide whether Uncle Sam should become Uncle Sucker.

Messrs. Casey and Rivkin are partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. Both served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations.