Guest Blog: Murder in the Vatican Author Ann Margaret Lewis.

Welcome to the blog for my novel A Pius Man.



The Good News: No Snarky Theology this week.  After Communion, Lent, Sex, and Evolution, I'm taking a break.



The Even Better News: Today, we have a guest blog from Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.



Since Murder in the Vatican deals with tales from the Sherlock Holmes canon that involve Holmes working with Leo XIII, I asked if she could blog about history in fiction, religious historical character in fiction, or "something like that".   As you can see, I was very helpful about picking out a topic for her.



The below was the result.



For the record, I have not doctored or altered her text in any way.  In fact, the only "edit" I made was that she insert some hyperlink footnotes to some of her statements.



And, here we go.

With Religious Characters, Honesty is the Best Policy

Ann Margaret Lewis

You can’t help but notice: people of religious faith make popular villains—especially with secular publishers and film studios. From The Three Musketeers and Hunchback of Notre Dame, to DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. From the Godfather series, to even Charles Dickens’ Pickwick Papers. From Voltaire’s Tartuffe, to TV shows like Showtime’s Borgias and films, comic books and animated films like Happy Feet. The list goes on and on.



So it’s safe to say that making a villain a person of religious conviction isn’t an unusual convention. A great source of conflict and interest is a character who goes against their own supposed principles, or warps them to their own ends. And in any case, to many in the secular world, someone who believes something to the exclusion of all else, someone who isn’t a relativist, has to be close-minded bigot, right?



On the contrary, having principles and sticking by them does not always mean that. Real people are not so cut and dried. What one needs to be, when creating characters and even creating their villains, is honest. Otherwise, the whole convention just gets to be….well…cliché.



When I wrote Murder in the Vatican, I did my best to portray Pope Leo XIII in a way that was, I hope, honest. I would be just as honest in writing about a shameful pope like Alexander VI. But I wasn’t interested in a crummy pope. I’ll leave that for Showtime to cover (yawn). Our secular culture is so hungry to see religious figures as corrupt, they rewrite history to try to turn those who were fine people into villains—as is this case of the pope of this blog, Venerable Pius XII. And not just he, but Benedict XVI as well—if he isn’t a Nazi (here Benedict’s the story in his own words), then he’s a protector of paedophiles (never mind that he was one of the one’s trying to do right in that regard).



So it stands to reason that I decided to do something—well—different—to go against the grain. The religious folks in my book aren’t the villains. While, Pope Leo is a man of his time, he is also a man of the future in thought. He was a son of a noble family, quite different from his predecessor and successor (Pius IX and Piux X) both of whom came from humbler beginnings. Perhaps that is why Leo has not been put on the sainthood track, though his care for the poor and the working class was legendary. But I realized through simple research, all I had to do was write Leo as he was to the best of my ability to have an interesting character.



Sherlock Holmes himself says in the story “A Case of Identity”—“Life is infinitely stranger than the mind of man can invent.” I would suggest to the would-be storytellers of the world that before you go with the tired cliché of a corrupt religious character, try making them three dimensional, tell the truth about them. Give them a point of sympathy, for most humans have one. It is far more satisfying for your readers/viewers (not to mention less bigoted).

About the Author: Ann Margaret Lewis

Born and raised in Waterford, Michigan, Ann Margaret Lewis attended Michigan State University, where she received her Bachelor's degree in English Literature. She began her writing career writing tie-in children’s books and short stories for DC Comics. Before Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, she published a second edition of her book, Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, for Random House.

Ann is a classically trained soprano, and has performed around the New York City area. She has many interests from music to art history, to theology and all forms of literature. She is the President of the Catholic Writers Guild, an international organization for Catholic Writers and the coordinator of the Catholic Writers Conference LIVE. After living in New York City for fifteen years, Ann moved to Indianapolis, Indiana with her husband Joseph Lewis and their son, Raymond. Together they enjoy their life in the heartland.

From Comic books readers and Scifi fans, to James Patterson and back. Why anyone can enjoy a Pius Man

[Author's note: this was originally going to be a note on Marketing. It didn't turn out that way.]

What do you call a book chock full of hundred year old conspiracies, dangerous priests, psychotic mercenaries, operatives trained to kill practically from birth, international political intrigue, a terrorist plot, and a wide ranging collection of protagonists the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the team that took out Dracula?

You call it my book A Pius Man.

Now, who should read it? On the face of it, it seems like yet another in a long line of bad Da Vinci Code ripoffs that have come out in legion since Dan Brown's super-hyped novel hit the scene an interminable amount of time ago. However, while my book has conspiracies and religion, that's more or less where the similarities end. There will be no puzzles, the French will not be a threat, and no one will spend dozens of pages finding their way out of an art museum.

That said, there are some people who just don't read thrillers. Understandable, it's a term so generic you can toss a net over a whole host of authors... some of whom probably should have a net thrown over them anyway, just to be safe. However, when a field is as vast as the comic-bookish feel of Clive Cussler's NUMA novels, to the theoretical science of James Rollins, to a Barry Eisler novel, half of which takes place in the head of his protagonist, assassin John Rain. It's almost as diverse a group as public Catholic figures—as Oscar Wilde used to say: Here Comes Everybody. Can't call it a historical thriller, because then it will be mistaken for a period peace like the Sharpe's novels of Bernard Cornwell—I wouldn't mind having his audience, but they might feel gypped to find it set in the 21st century.

So, who the hell should read this book?

Comic book fans: My first agent drew parallels between the team of protagonists and the Justice League—possibly since this is the most international team since the original Dracula. One character has already been compared to Deadpool—of the comic, not the film. Throw in adversaries who seem preternaturally strong, fast, and trained... well, it's not like fighting the Hordes of Hydra, but my villain isn't exactly the Red Skull. Some are as serious as a police procedural, and some might as well have wanted to be Doc Savage when they grew up. One of them even works with “Middle Earth's Most Wanted Elven Assassin,” and no, I'm not kidding.

Science Fiction fans—who will hopefully forgive me for calling it “SciFi” above: Key pieces of this story involve NLW technology. Or, in standard English, non-lethal weaponry. Microwave cannons that emit plasma beams, tazer beam weapons, gases, explosives; if it's been mentioned, or appeared in a semi-realistic video game, it's probably in there. Throw in the laser-keyboards and the microwave microphones, you can outfit a small Sharper Image store.

Spy fans: International intrigue? Got it. Shadowy figures? Check. Conspiracy theories? At least five of them, and three are right. We also have: the obligatory evil Cardinal; a pale, silver haired priest with commando training (not to be confused with an albino, of course); the Jesuits, the Opus Dei, and the Knights Templar all show up, just so I can play with some of the old cliches

Readers of history: Yes, A Pius Man actually has historical facts. Literally, they happened. This is a book where the history presented in its pages can be footnoted. I know this because the original draft had footnotes. It was suggested that I take them out... however, I still have the bibliography in the back.

People who like intelligent destruction: There's an assassination on page two, an explosion on page three, a wrecked car by page seven, and a mercenary with a resume that reads like scripts of the A-Team. We'll ignore the shootout on the Spanish Steps in the armored SUV. Death, property damage, and utter ruination are always good for an audience. It worked for four Die Hard films.

Political folk: As much as I loathe to admit it, there's politics in this novel. It goes to motivation for the various and sundry parties. Besides: how do you negotiate being a Catholic—universal—Church? Unlike being a superpower, like the United States, you can't pick and choose who you associate with just because they're valuable to you. If that were the case, I wouldn't have a friend whose uncle is a missionary in China. And what happens when you put an African Pope who's to the right of Attila the Hun into the middle of this particular hurricane?

At the end of the day, the only people who should probably NOT read A Pius Man are those who expect a novel by way of Mitchner, or Clavell. Half of the book is filled with thoughtful, drawn out characters who are trying to think their way through the problem at hand. The other half of the book is filled with various and sundry creative ways to lay waste to large parts of Rome—from shooting up the Spanish Steps to trashing Leonardo Da Vinci airport.

Oh, and there's a love story in there, too.

And this is just the first book. Book two is the fallout, and countermoves by those bad guys who survive book one. Book three is where I recreate the Battle of Thermopylae.... if the 300 had possessed remote-detonated landmines.

Anyway, if you or any of your friends might enjoy anything listed above, you might want to join the fan page, or invite them to tag along. Or both.

2400+ Iraqi war dead

World War II


The battle of Okinawa (April 1-July 2) - 50,000 American 200,000 Japanese dead

To retake the Philippians from the Japanese - 60,000 dead

Iwo Jima- 6821 American dead estimated 20,000+ Japanese dead.

D-Day- Omaha Beach- 3,000 people in 12 hours.

The Vietnam war. - 50,000 (20/day)

According to the worst war numbers I can find-- from, of all places, a site called antiwar.com -- total dead in the Iraq war on the American side is 2743. Dead from combat: 2235.

What I can't find anywhere are the numbers of the dead in Afghanistan. I did a search, and all I got were Iraq body count sites. I needed to ask a military expert I'm friends with, and he estimates between 350-500, although he thinks it might be even lower than 350. Essentially, it is lower than any war the US has ever fought.

Now, I have a question. People say nothing about the dead in Afghanistan. They do not honor the fallen in Iraq, but carp about the body count. Yet, we have sacrificed less blood in this entire war than in any major battle in World War II.

We lost more men on D-Day- June 6th, 1944- than in the ENTIRE 9/12/01- 10/9/06 timeframe. We lost more people on September 11th than in the whole war.

Why is it that the American dead in Iraq is worth more than the American dead in any other battle? Why is it that protestors crying out about simple numbers care more for Americans than for Iraqis? Why are Iraqis not worth dying for? What makes the Iraqi people LESS special?

Iraqis are so "useless" to the body counters that I've only seen "Iraqi civilians dead" counted... when they count terrorists killed. Are Iraqi civilians really considered the moral equivalent of the terrorists who kill them?

Every human life is precious, every one is special. American soldiers volunteer to be in harm's way. Even a man like Casey Sheehan, son of Cindy Sheehan, believed this, and deliberately stated that he fought for Iraqis.

The US shed blood for Philippinos, Japanese, German Jews, Soviets. Why not Iraqis?

For every one US soldier who has died, approximately 1,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's reign. Are they not worth it?

Even if the most wild, borderline psychotic numbers about Iraqi civilians dead are accurate, [50,000, from http://www.iraqbodycount.net/], taking into account that Saddam killed 80,000 people per year, we have still saved 190,000 civilians. Are they not worth it?

If you truly hate the war, and you cite the body count, what are you saying? Are you saying that Iraqis aren't equal to our men and women? Are you pleading a humanitarian cause for soldiers who volunteered to go into harm's way instead of civilians who get killed by dictators or terrorists?

The lives of our soldiers are not to be thrown away lightly. But to devalue what they fight for, to dismiss the Iraqis being defended, you devalue them. They're in the field to defend the Iraqi people.

People who cite the death toll say they do it to support the troops, but there are troops who want to stay and finish the job. Do they support them? Do these people truly and honestly support and honor THEM?

No honor is given them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers to protest the war.

Or by trying to set fire to buildings to "support the troops."

Or by rewriting what our soldiers say.

May I ask, for those of you who cite the death toll as a starting point to rally against the war, why?

I would submit that those people do not give a tinker's damn about the soldiers, but they feel that reducing soldiers to numbers would be good for emotional shock value. Could it be possible that they do not actually belittle the lives of the Iraqis saved, but also the lives of the soldiers lost? After all, how much could a a soldiers death be worth if the lives of 1,000 Iraq civilians just barely equal his life? Isn't his death worthless because the people he died for are all but worthless?

And could it be that these people, so eager to "bring the troops home," care nothing for the dead in Afghanistan? They don't even count in the news cycles. By this math of the human life, as calculated above, does this mean that soldiers who die in Iraq are worth more than those who die in Afghanistan? In which case, how much must an American soldier be worth in Afghani lives?

I would submit that the dead are worth more than their weight in gold, and that the people they've died for are worth just as much. I would also suggest that the protesters who hurl the body count out like so many cold and callous numbers do not care what happens, as long as their agendas are secured.

Uranium, Wilson, Niger, and Iraq.

I came across an odd little fact recently. Several, to tell the truth. Most of them having to do with Joe Wilson, the person who tried to speak "Truth to power" at the Bush administration.

You may remember this little problem a while back. The story goes like this: Joe Wilson, Ambassador to Iraq during the Iraq war (1991), expert in the Middle East, is sent by Dick Cheney's office to go to Niger to find out whether or not Saddam has tried to procure Uranium from them. Wilson reports that there was no such attempt. After that, the evil Bushhitler administration sandbags Wilson, and blows the cover of his secret agent wife, Valerie Plame, because the evil Bush administration must cover their asses about their lies.

Um…problem.

Where to start…how about with the fact that Joe Wilson was NEVER an Ambassador. Look up in a Lexus Nexus search through the NYTimes for Wilson during 1991. His title was NOT Ambassador, it was "Deputy Chief of Mission." The Times described him as being more like a building superintendent, making sure the janitorial staff was fully stocked. He's such a Middle East expert, he speaks NONE of the languages.

Dick Cheney's office hadn't heard of Joe Wilson when he popped up claiming to have proof that Bush lied, kids died. In fact, no one was entirely certain why Joe Wilson, who was unemployed before being sent to Niger, was sent in the first place. He speaks none of the local languages, has zero skills in terms of investigation or spy skills. Basically, it became a matter of "Who sent this schlub?"

Enter the wife.

On his approved papers for Wilson's trip to Niger, there's one name that sticks out on the forms—the name of Valerie Plame, his wife, a CIA desk jockey. Her name was blown by someone named "Scooter" Libby— an underling in the VPs office, who claimed he didn't know what her ranking was. He had heard the name of Plame all over the beltway, so he naturally assumed that Valerie's CIA employment record wasn't a secret. Scooter made the assumption that Wilson's trip to Africa was a make-work project by Plame in an attempt to get the husband out of the house for a while, and said as much.

Valerie Plame's status with the CIA is "classified." However, that's the status of everyone down to and including the janitorial staff. She is not a covert agent. She took the bus to Langley every morning. Any idiot with a bus pass getting off at the next stop would know who she works for. Then again, most covert agents who don't want to be noticed also tend to shy away from Vanity Fair photospreads, like Ms. Plame.

Almost two and a half years later, the most they could get on "Scooter" was purgery—which, in a federal court, is defined as being interrogated one day, and give a slightly different answer to the same question when you're asked two years later.

Did I miss anything…oh, yes, the crucial, all important part—the uranium from Niger. The most important part is, "Was Wilson right?"

Wilson's finding were covered in the proof that Saddam was going for nukes. In fact, Wilson was too stupid to realize what he was saying.
Reading Wilson's report, you notice that all Saddam's agents in Niger were doing was to "increase trade with Niger," and "increase exports from Niger." After a simple AOL search, I looked up what DOES Niger export? I found SESRTCIC
Guess what the major export of Niger is?
Guess what industry employs over HALF of Niger's population and income?
One guess is all you need.
Uranium.
There's also a nice little book written by the head of Saddam's nuclear program from the late 1990s called "Saddam's Bomb Maker." It's remaindered now, but you should be able to find it in any Edward R. Hamilton bookstore.
Add this to the fact that they've been hauling out Uranium from Iraq by the ton [previous post], and I wonder exactly what Wilson will be doing with his spare time.
I hope a jail sentence.

Iraq WMDs-- for those who asked.


For those of you who've asked about one of the WMDs mentioned in my last column, I suggest reading the below. I found this while going through my old email.

U.S. HAULED TONS OF URANIUM FROM IRAQ

July 8, 2004 -- The United States secretly shipped nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium which could be used for making dirty bombs out of Iraq last month, officials revealed.

In addition to the uranium, approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items were transferred last month from Iraq to an undisclosed U.S. Energy Department laboratory for analysis.

The airlift ended on June 23, five days before the United States transferred sovereignty to Iraq's new interim government.

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called the secret airlift "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

But U.N. officials squawked at the removal, saying the International Atomic Energy Agency never OK'd the move.

"The American authorities just informed us of their intention to remove the materials, but they never sought authorization from us," an IAEA official said.

However, U.S. nuclear authorities said yesterday they had Iraqi approval and didn't need U.N. authorization. Post Wire Services

A really short history of Terrorism against US
Category: News and Politics


For those people who seem to think that Al-Qaida is the only people on the planet who want to kill us (and who think that Osama, himself, personally, is the mastermind and key to every plot on the planet), I suggest a brief bit of history.



November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East. Six months later, Saddam Hussein takes over Iraq, confident that Carter will be just as active against him.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah-- is anyone else detecting a theme?) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard. The Italians let them get away, and they were later captured by American forces, and again let go by the Italians.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

(Then came an amazing pause in Muslim extremists' war on America when we won the Cold War, and thus depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. Taking out terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq, slows them down, what a thought!)

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God"-- which translates as Hezbollah) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, with al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001

Some Things Never Change, Do they?

(The following can be footnoted in David Dalin’s The Myth of Hitlers Pope, Ralph McInerny’s The Defamation of Pius XII, or Roy Schoeman’s Salvation is from the Jews)

Ann Coulter noted recently the intriguing diary entries of British jihadist Zeeshan Siddique, on April 10th of 2005. Siddique was captured that April in Pakistan by that country's security forces. His diary is a sort of Plan-a-Jihad journal, which included his commentary on the Popes death, "Allah will throw him in hell."

This is, of course, after Islamists tried to kill John Paul II (a plot with pointman Ramzi Yousef, World Trade Center bomber from the first attack, and backed by a certain Osama bin Laden). Question: what did the Pope ever do to these people?

The answer lies with the main problems with the Middle East.And believe it or not, the problems with the Middle East started a while ago. You may not believe that if you’re part of the left crowd, but its true.

Whatever do I mean by that? Do I mean, as Bernard Lewis does in his What Went Wrong? that the Middle East never grew out of the Ottoman Empire mentality that they rule the world? That’s certainly part of it, and I wouldn’t even presume to question the scholarship of a man like Lewis.It is, in fact, far worse than anyone supposes. The trouble with the Middle East, in part, can be traced to the Nazis.

No, I am not being allegorical, but literal. You may have heard of the myth of Hitler’s Pope (Which happens to be a very nice book by Rabbi David Dalin, btw), that Eugenio Pacelli, aka Pius XII, worked with, for, or around Hitler in support of the final solution of the Holocaust. Daily readers (all four of them) know my opinion on that subject,. This, of course, is a myth started by former Nazi Rolf Hoccuth, and perpetuated by liars tramps and thieves like John Cornwell, James Carroll, Gary Wills, Susan Zuccolti, Evan Katz (who was sentenced to jail for his lies), and an ever growing list of liberal Catholics who’d like to see the Catholic Church swing from the nearest tree (thats crucifixion, not hanging).

What you never hear about is what Rabbi Dalin labels Hitler’s Mufti. To be more precise, he is properly called the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini was installed by the English, who are themselves not known for being very pro-Semetic. Remember, in the 1920s, as a prize of World War I, Palestine was a mandate of Britain, they ran it and everything in it. Hajj al-Husseini was the recognized leader of the Palestinians, and in April 1920 led a rampage against local Jews, wounding 211, and killing five. The British convicted him, but ignored the whole incident and made him Grand Mufti two years later.

Al-Husseini called for an anti-Jewish jihad in Palestine during the 1930s, saying "Murder the Jews! Murder them all!," starting riots in 1929 and 1936-1939. He would later move his rhetorical style to Berlin radio, stating in one “Kill the Jews, Kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth! This is well pleasing to Allah!” (reminiscent of Eduardo Chianelli’s exhortation in the film Gunga Din: Kill for the Love of Kali! Kill for the love of killing! KILL! KILL! KILL!)

Al-Husseini’s connection with Hitler begins in 1937, when he sent emissaries to Berlin, first lending support, then suggesting collaboration. In this he was a little slow. When the German anti-Jewish laws went into effect in 1934, the Islamic world sent them congratulations. Husseini would become friends with Adolf Eichmann (the banal evil that engineered the Holocaust logistically), and pushed for the extermination of Jews as soon as possible.

It is not surprising that Eichmann was also sent to meet with the Irgun, one of the lead armed Zionist groups, the Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and Irgun was happy to catch them in Israel. However, al-Husseini had no problem with Jews coming to Palestine, as long as they would die. He was also sent to Iraq to do a pro-Nazi rally there, but was tossed out (more on Iraq later).SS chief Heinrich Himmler took Husseini on tours of the death camps, and the mufti pushed for greater diligence in running the gas chambers. Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny mentioned that the mufti played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews. At the Nuremburg trials, he stated that the mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler one of Eichmann’s best friendsHe also had a Muslim clerical school in Dresden, where Muslims could be trained in Nazism, and introduce it to the Middle East. In exchange for this service, Husseini went into Bosnia to recruit Muslims for the SS, who wore specially marked fezzes with the swastika on them. You can also see photos of Husseini in Bosnia inspecting the SS troops (see: Shoeman, 258. If you want to see more research on Muslim/Arab Nazis, hit the Yad vashem archives , or the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The Muslim SS Hanjar (sword) unit massacred about 90% of Bosnia’s Jews.

Husseini made it to Egypt after the war, hiding there until the day that bastard died in 1974.So what? Why does Mufti al-Husseini matter today? What’s he to do with the Middle East? Well, lets start with the fact that the grand mufti imported Nazi experts to train young Palestinians in guerilla tactics, the start of a group we know as the Palestinian Liberation Organization.During the Six Day War in 1967, Israelis found Egyptian prisoners carrying issues of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. Ironically, it had been translated into Arabic by a man known as el-Hadjaka former Nazi propagandist Lius Heiden. Mein Kampf would be republished by Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in 2001 and was an instant bestseller throughout the Middle Eastin 1999, it was sixth on the bestseller list in Palestine (and this is before the reprint). By the way, did I mention that Schindler’s List is banned?

And the legacy of al-Husseini lives on today, in the form of his nephew, Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. Yes, I know, if you blink you miss the key word, Arafat. Yes, THAT Arafat.Then there’s the Grand Mufti’s grandson, Skeikh Ekrima Sabri, the CURRENT Mufti of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He said “The figure of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated. It was a lot less. It’s not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere.” Funny, Pope John Paul II never visited the Temple Mount, but he DID visit the Wailing Wall, which is right next door.

Anyway, remember how I mentioned that pro-Nazi rally that got Husseini tossed out of Iraq? One of those rally members was a man named Khayrallah Tulfah. After the war, he lived with his nephew, and in the main room of his house he had an idolized portrait of Hitler on the wall. This nephew would grow up to be one mean and nasty fellow, in fact, one of his mistresses noted that he would look himself in the mirror and state “I am Saddam Hussein. Heil Hilter!”

And let us not forget Gamal Nasser, who helped the Nazis in Egypt during the war, and who later led the Six Day War against Israel. He even adopted the slogan “One folk, One party, One leader.” Sigg Heil! His successor, Anwar Sadat, also had ties to the Reich. SS General Oskar Dirlewanger, who crushed the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, was Nasser’s personal bodyguard.

Johannes von Leers, Goebbels main man, was put in charge of Egypt’s Ministry of Information in 1955. Gestapo man Hans Becher went on to become a police instructor in Egypt. Second Lieutenant Wilhelm Boerner, a guard at Mauthausen concentration camp trained members of the Palestine Liberation Front.And lets not forget that the Socialist nationalist party of Syria had a Furher and their banner donned the swastika as well.So, the next time someone calls bin Laden and co Islamofascists, theres a reason for it.

Politically Incorrect fact of the day Category

Politically Incorrect fact of the day, #1: Stem cells.

Stem cells work. They are used to cure actual diseases RIGHT THIS MOMENT. I mean that, literally. In a May 2005 article in Citizen Magazine, you can see the list of things that stem cells cure. It cures cirrhosis of the liver, paralysis, inernal organs, luekemia. Two women, years before Christopher Reeve died, were cured using stem cells...

However, it only works with ADULT stem cells. Embryonic stem cells only help embryos turn into children. Embryonic stem cell research only helps people who'd like to see fewer children in the world.

ADULT STEMS CELLS Repairs spinal cord injuries with nasal and sinus stem cells-- in fully formed adult.

They reverse type 1 diabetes (at the moment, just in mice) with adult spleen cells. I'd like the FDA to approve THAT before my father dies from diabetes. (You hear me, FDA?)

Crohn's disease, a rather nasty virus, can be put into remission with the patient's own blood stem cells. Lupus can be put into remission in a similar fashion.

Umbilical cord blood, from a fully developed and BORN child, treats sickle cell anemia and puts leukemia into remission.

Stem cells from adult bone marrow can repair heart muscles in cases of congestive heart failure. Skeletal muscle cells restore weak heart muscles. Bone marrow cells heal bone fractures.

Ocular SURFACE cells [ie: epidermal cells from the eye, for you CSI fans] restores sight to the blind. Even stems cells using muscles from the armpit heal urinary incontinence.

Diseases cured by adult stem cells: 80 and counting.

People cured by embronic stem cells: zero, and counting.

People killed by the embryonic stem cell research, 1.3 million children aborted per year since Roe. Vs. Wade. And counting.

And now you know why embronic stem cells require federal funding: if it were a real cure, a true solution to anything, it would be funded by every medical research company on the planet. As it is, governments are the only people stupid enough to even consider it.

Treasonous, slimy behavior. It’s something I would expect out of Cold War communist spies like Alger Hiss, or Harry Hopkins. This is the sort of thing I expect out of the French, or the United Nations.

But then there’s the New York Times. Since 2002, their stock has dropped 55%, and is there any wonder given their behavior?

In December, 2001, the terror-funding Holy Land Foundation was tipped off by "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent …that the FBI was about to raid its office … endangering the lives of federal agents." He was nice enough to tip them off on the day before. I can just see the amount of paper shredded and burned now, can’t you?

That same month, Times reporter Philip Shenon blew a Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation. The much vaunted Patrick Fitzgerald, the man who’s been sent to prosecute on the Valeria Plame affair, said in an Aug. 7, 2002, "It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney wrote letter to the Times' legal department.

And what do my wondering eyes note? The Global Relief Foundation (GRF) was designated a terror-financing organization in October 2002 by the Treasury Department, which reported that GRF "has connections to, has provided support for, and has provided assistance to Usama Bin Ladin, the al Qaida Network, and other known terrorist groups."

The Muslim charity had "received funding from individuals associated with al Qaida. GRF officials have had extensive contacts with a close associate of Usama Bin Ladin, who has been convicted in a U.S. court for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." Moreover, the Treasury Department said, "GRF members have dealt with officials of the Taliban, while the Taliban was subject to international sanctions."

Those would be Clinton sanctions, mind you. It’s not just a Bush problem.
Shenon's then-colleague, Judith Miller, had placed a similar call to another Muslim terrorist-front financier, the Holy Land Foundation, a few weeks before Shenon's call to the GRF. She was supposedly asking for "comment" on an impending freeze of their assets. According to Fitzgerald in court papers, Miller allegedly also warned them that "government action was imminent." The FBI raided the Holy Land Foundation's offices the day after Miller's article was published in the Times.

The Times' reporters -- surprise, surprise -- refuse to cooperate with investigators trying to identify the leakers. The government is appealing a ruling protecting the loose-lipped reporters' phone records.

And that’s just one incident. Let’s get even more recent, shall we?

Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in 9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. That would be a list we would like to follow up on, don’t you think?

We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is half the time. As Liberals constantly remind us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail. But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S. It’s called the SWIFT program. Basically, follow the money.

And then they released an article on June 22nd, saying

“Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.”

The blabbermouths who have just blown the cover on this program don't seem to care that they've sabotaged a successful counterterrorism tool:

“[The program] has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.

Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.”

Now all their careful efforts have been destroyed by Bush-deranged reporters who fashion themselves the true protectors of America. Here's editor Bill Keller,the newspaper's executive editor, explaning why he ignored the Bush administration's argument for keeping the legal program secret: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Did I miss something? These yoyos knew it was a national security SECRET. They used the words “A secret Bush administration program.” But because it’s of public interest, it has to be broadcasted from the halls of Montezuma to the caves of Afghanistan?

But then, suddenly, the Times blinked and apparently thought, “Wait a moment, maybe we could be shot for treason for doing this.” And then started backpedadling like mad.

New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame's belated defense of the Times' expose of the monitoring of the SWIFT banking program contained this revealing passage:

"There was a significant question as to how secret the (monitoring of the SWIFT banking program) was after five years. 'Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this,' (Executive Editor Bill) Keller claimed he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity."

"Hundreds, if not thousands, of people" have known about the program before the Times blabbed about it. Well, there's a scoop. So, why wasn't this reported in the original story and reflected in the original, front-page headline?

There was no printed follow-up from lapdog Calame about Keller's assertion, which goes a good bit further than the claim by Times' apologists Richard Clarke and Roger Cressey.

That mind-reading duo wrote in a Times op-ed that terrorists already assumed their financial transactions were being monitored. Calame curiously neglected to note that Keller's claim contradicted both the tone and facts presented in the Times' initial coverage by reporters Lichtblau and Risen. Which is just as well, since Lichtblau himself is now contradicting his own story, too. On CNN's "Reliable Sources," facing withering criticism from talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, Lichtblau blustered: "When you have senior Treasury Department officials going before Congress, publicly talking about how they are tracing and cutting off money to terrorists, weeks and weeks before our story ran. USA Today, the biggest circulation in the country, the lead story on their front page four days before our story ran was the terrorists know their money is being traced, and they are moving it into -- outside of the banking system into unconventional means. It is by no means a secret." (emphasis added).

Hmm. What was that headline over Lichtblau's story again? Oh, yeah: "Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to block terror." Meanwhile, finance regulators and top government officials in Belgium (who apparently aren't among the "hundreds, if not thousands" who knew about the program) have ordered a probe into SWIFT, which is regulated by the Belgian central bank and answers to Belgian law. Bush-undermining Eurowheedlers are launching a debate in parliament over the program next week, and a private human rights lobbying group has filed formal complaints against the SWIFT banking consortium in 32 countries.

Former September 11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, who was briefed on the terrorist-finance tracking program and asked Times executive editor Bill Keller not to disclose it, called it “a good program, one that was legal, one that was not violating anybody’s civil liberties, and something the U.S. government should be doing to make us safer.” When asked whether publication of details about the program did any damage, Kean answered, “I think it’s over. Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more.” And by the way, the other co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Democrat Lee Hamilton, also asked the Times not to publish.

To quote one particular constitutional lawyer,

“Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason — or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from The New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio — except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.”

So, the Times has no problem splattering national security secrets all over the place. NSA secrets, no problem. Money trails, no problem.

WMDs found in Iraq—whoa, hold up there now, let’s not be hasty.

On December 01, 2005, I noted a few items found in Iraq. I elaborated on the material found.

1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium.

Stockpiles of RDX.

1,500 barrels of miscellaneous bioweapons and chemical crap you really don't want in you backyard, or even the same hemisphere--

VX nerve gas [for full visual effects, see the film "The Rock"].

Henta virus-- a hemorragic virus that's airborn [think airborn Ebola, you have an idea].

Anthrax... I don't think I need to explain anthrax, I hope.

In June, 2004, the United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

And somehow, Syria doesn’t rate a mention on this list. Curious, that. Iraq's western neighbor Syria has its own Baath Party, just like Saddam's, and refused even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence reported the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war.

This should have been the biggest news story of 2004. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

Even Canada's former Prime Minister Paul Martin -- a socialist and no friend of America—addressed a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal in May of 2004. Martin stated terrorists acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.

In April 26th, 2004, Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi – now deceased-- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (and only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

Where does twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from? Wal -Mart? In a July 2003 interview with Larry King, even Bill Clinton said “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.”

At current count, the United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. Including the mustard gas, sarin nerve agent, etc. And not only that, there is evidence that there’s even more out there.

So, just to recap: according to the NYTimes, US government programs that can get civilians, army officers, cops, and FBI agents killed are okay to be broadcast to the general public. Anything that can help terrorists get away with murder, escape detection and prosecution, is also safe to be broadcasted to the world at large. However, doing anything that could be construed as supporting the work of any non-terrorist—like the UNMOVIC, the USArmy, the FBI, the treasury department, etc, is supposed to be buried.

Got that?

Links:
Michelle Malkin · June 24, 2006 10:07 PM
The Editors on Leaks on National Review Online
A syndicated column
Terrorist tiping times
Stephen Spruiell
The NYTimes has in-house produced video showcasing Licthblau as he "reveals a secret Bush administration program to access to financial records."
ABP:
Bryan Preston:
Patterico:
More Michelle Malkin [http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27266841.shtml]
Jeff Goldstein:
GOP Senators speak out on the dangers of classifed leaks. A House GOP resolution is in the works. Howard Kurtz plays the violin for the NYTimes/LATimes. Hugh Hewitt's not having it.
The Los Angeles Times thumbs its nose and national security:

Contact info:
Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.
Snail mail:
Letters to the EditorThe New York Times229 West 43rd StreetNew York, NY 10036

Are terrorists the biggest threat to this country? Seriously, are they? Some days I'm not so certain. Lets say they all die tomorrow, what next? Business as usual? Let me tell you what the problem with that is.

Do you remember Vioxx, the arthritis drug that supposedly killed their patients? Liberals and trial lawyers (redundant, I know) wanted the drug company's head on a stick. Okay, understandable. However, if you asked the arthritis sufferers if they would rather take their chances, and they said yes, Liberals would still be against Vioxx and the drug company.

However, this is also the party that supports Jack Kavorkian, and your right to off yourself. Why is that? Aren't they against Vioxx because it's deadly? No, because big pharmaceutics companies ("Big Druggie"?) would be making money, and we can't have that, can we?

But if your aged mother or grandmother is going to die, then who profits? Not the drug company-- the government doesn't have to pay their social security anymore, and the death tax should take care of anything the decedent left behind.

Liberal legislation in Ohio has made your physician assisted suicide covered under medicare, but not your heart transplant. If you don't believe me, look up Mark W. Smith's "Culture of Death," a book that even Dean Koontz said terrified him.

So, Liberals are pro-choice for abortion, drugs, even whether you live or die.

But only if you choose from the options THEY give you. You can't smoke a pack a day and die of lung cancer, or eat red meat and die from a heart attack. You can't volunteer to die in the military.

To die their way, you have to file for it and sign your own death warrant on a sheet of paper saying you consent to having your doctor kill you.

Either that, or you stroke out and let your adulterous husband and his new wife pull your feeding tube.

Or you can get an STD with political protection. Any other virus as deadly as AIDS would get you locked away in a biohazard cell at the Centers for Disease Control. With AIDS, well, 85% of AIDS victims are gay, so we have to keep that disease a secret, and give it political protection. So, screw your brains out, get and STD and die. NOW, Planned Parenthood, and everyone else have given you that protection, that right, and defends your right to literally screw yourself to death (as I mentioned here).

You have to die the way they want you to die, and live the way they want you to live.

Though, as I mentioned, I think they'd much rather prefer you died.

You might be a liberal if…

Rioters are merely misunderstood.

You moved to Canada in 2005.

You cry over dead seals on your way to a "pro-choice" rally.

Protesting IS your job.

You were so mad at Pat Robertson for demanding the assassination of Hugo Chavez, you spilled latte all over your kill Bush t-shirt.

You noticed no irony in that last statement.

You think SUV's will kill you before Al-Qaeda.

You think the biggest threat to the world is the United States.

Releasing animals from laboratory tests is the right thing to do…

…and you're planning to release animals held in a biohazard level 5 lab.

Osama bin Laden was a threat in 1998, and one day in September, 2001.

Stalin wasn't evil, his economic plan was flawed.

If a big business makes money, they must be corrupt.

Cindy Sheehan isn't anti-Semitic, she just thinks the Iraq war was in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The President's name is Al Gore…

…and the name of "that man" in the Whitehouse is "Bushitler."

Anyone who makes more money than you do deserves to have his money taken…um, "redistributed."

The only true litmus test for a Supreme Court justice is abortion.

…and that a SCOTUS nominee can pass this test only by performing a partial birth abortion, preferably on 60 minutes.

Wal-Mart is the biggest threat to civilization as we know it.

Any money sent to the military can be better spent anywhere else, including the ACLU.

Your favorite Batman villain is Poison Ivy, because she's almost as pro-environmental as you are.

Sean Hannity's radio show going national on September 10th, 2001 MUST have been a signal to Halliburton's crony Dick Chaney to fly the remote controlled airplanes into the 9-11 targets…

…or a signal to Mossad.

…or to the JOOOS in general.

You know that the army corps of engineers condemned the levies in New Orleans ten years ago, and you know that the money to be spent on the dam was pocketed by the local government, and you know that the Governor did nothing for evacuation before Hurricane Katrina hit, and you STILL think everything is Bush's fault.

On the Supreme Court: a letter to the Democrats on the Committee

Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden,

To begin with, what is a Federalist? Do you know? A Federalist is one who believes that the Supreme court has a very narrow focus, that being to follow the Constitution. Does that mean every Federalist is a mindless republican who thinks and decides rulings the same way? I'm sorry, but that is not the case. Not even Justices Thomas and Scalia agree on everything the same way, and they are both considered to be the Rightest of the Right on the court.

Second, Federalists are not necessarily on the Right. Indeed, there are several democrats who are federalists and who disagree with several Court decisions that were decidedly non-Federalist, even if they agree with the conclusions..

Third: Roe Vs. Wade is not the biggest item on any Federalist agenda, or vast Federalist conspiracy theory. Sorry, it really isn't. Do they agree with the ruling, technically, no, but this does not even make any of them anti-Abortion. How can I say that? If you go back to item the second, you notice that democratic federalists can disagree with a court decision, even if they agree with the conclusions: Roe is one of them. Leftist Federalists think that Roe vs. Wade is bad law, logically inconsistent, making up precedence in the constitution that isn't there. Does that mean they are pro-life? Not at all, this just means that the topic of abortion should be left up to the legislative branch and not the judicial. To elaborate: The United States is the ONLY country on the planet that did not have a vote on abortion, it was simply ordained by the court.

Fourth: no one in their correct mind says that Roe. Vs. Wade is decided law. Why? Because Roe is challenged constantly, every year, at least once a year. Brown vs. Board of Education is settled law because no challenges have come to that ruling for over fifty years. Roe will be challenged for the foreseeable future, and asking any justice to decide on it in session is calling for him to have an opinion on a case that may come before his court. You know that it's wrong for any justice to have his mind made up on a case before it appears, and asking anyone to decide is merely a way of trying to nullify a candidate. Any justice candidate who can't talk around those questions doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court. By the way, the federalist has all sorts of wide-ranging hobbies and interests, including restoring power to the states, embracing the framers' ideals, and curbing federal and judicial power. The idea that all federalists are single-mindedly planning the demise of Roe is mistaken. As Harvard law professor and former Clintonista Laurence Tribe reminds us, Roe can be nicely hollowed out without ever being expressly reversed. They've largely moved on. So should you.

There are also several items which made come to you in time, but to save everyone the bother, several obvious items you may have missed. To begin with, Federalists are not you. They are not Michael Moore fans teeming with hate and rage ready to rip apart anyone who disagrees with them. Federalists will not erupt into a hissing, spitting parody of Bill O'Reilly and then try to strangle you with his bow tie on C-SPAN-- thankfully, few people wear bow ties anymore, so you're probably safe. Federalists, like John Roberts, love their families and do not devote their lives to systematically holding back women, persecuting minorities, and stealing wheelchairs from the disabled-- that we leave in the capable hands of terrorists. Attempts to tar the federalist as having dedicated his career to raging misogyny or racism will likely backfire. Most of them have better things to do.
Federalists do not believe in "fairness": While they don't seek to promote the interests of white men, big businesses, and the unborn; he is also wholly unconcerned about "giving a fair shake to the little guy." They simply don't accept the proposition that the courts exist to elevate the interests of the little guy above everyone else. This is a defensible constitutional theory that you might consider debating with a federalist . You may want to ask him pointed questions about the responsibility of the courts when the elected branches of government fail—as they have done on occasion—to protect minorities. You may want to press him on the possibility that the courts should do more than mechanically apply the law as written. Such a conversation might prove enlightening for the American people. But asserting that federalists are inherently not fair or honest, no matter how many times you say it, remains reductive and untrue.

Federalists are human beings. They have hearts, although they may not be able to cough one out onto the Senate floor on demand. Federalists also believe that the heart is not an organ relevant to deciding cases. They believe that the law is the only thing relevant to deciding cases. Nevertheless, federalists do cry. Their spouses cry. But you should not use these hearings to prick them. They will bleed. Just as if you tickle them, they will laugh. Oh … and if you wrong them, they will revenge.

Technically, conservative judges do not "apply the law" while liberal jurists "make it up." As I said, there are democratic federalists. However, that does not matter when the Leftist "we make it up" judges get all the publicity. This is a bad move for you democrats. Conservatives judges read the statutes, study the precedent, and then mechanically deduce what the law is, without regard to their personal preferences. You may want to probe whether there are indeed "moral judgments" at the heart of their decisions. And if you suspect that all judges inevitably make such moral judgments, you might seek to uncover from where such moral judgments come. When your inquiry proves fruitless (i.e., you are stonewalled), you may wish to turn to other sources to refute the notion that nothing in a person's history or ideology is reflected in his (or her) moral judgments.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate judiciary committee, not all federalists are grumpy or hotheaded. Federalists have a view of the Constitution and the allocation of government powers that largely differs from yours. The Court interprets the law, it does not MAKE the law. And remember that Supreme Court workers universally name Clarence Thomas as the kindest and warmest justice on the current court. That is irrelevant to how he decides cases, and you should think on that when asking about the next nominees you look at.

Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

This is an email that is making the rounds. Thanks to Jason of IR for sending it along to me!

***************

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans And Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrat’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Republican’s Answer:

BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Southern Republican’s Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click…..(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?”

And then there are days where the NYTimes acts like a good little boy and takes it's medication. Like so.

November 15, 2005

For New York Officers Felled in the Line of Duty, Recognition at Last
By KAREEM FAHIM

They fell victim to drunken sailors, rioters, and women of abandoned character, adversaries who attacked them with coarse weapons: paving stones, pistols and dirks.

On the meaner streets of a younger New York, the policemen died in ways redolent of the age.

One patrolman was cut down with a sword. Horses or drawn carriages trampled others. A few policemen met their ends after treachery, shot or stabbed by fellow officers in dramas soaked with alcohol. The stabbing of another officer sparked days of riots.

In a memorial ceremony today, the Police Department will unveil plaques with the names of 100 officers who died in the line of duty between 1849 and 1997 and had not been honored. Descendants of eight of the officers will attend the ceremony, the police said.

The presentation of the plaques, which are bolted high on a wall in the lobby of Police Headquarters at 1 Police Plaza, marks the end of a two-year department research project to document the circumstances of the officers' deaths, and to recognize them. Historians and descendants of the police officers were consulted for clues. Researchers mined old newspaper articles, public death records and the department's own history - including more than a century's worth of police orders, bound in tattered red books that sit on an aluminum shelf in Police Headquarters.

The researchers, led by Lt. Michael McGrath, uncovered an absorbing history of policing from another time. Because the bronze plaques list only the names, ranks, and year that the officers died, much of that past will stay largely invisible to the public. More detail, however, can be found in archived newspaper accounts.

On Oct. 19, 1867, Officer Robert S. McChesney, to his great misfortune, ran into Fanny Wright, a woman well known for "intemperate habits" who had been arrested frequently for disorderly conduct and drunkenness, according to an article in The New York Times.

On that day, Ms. Wright was harassing passers-by on Canal Street, and Officer McChesney tried to intervene.

"As soon as he laid his hand upon her arm she swung herself around, and half broke away from the officer's grasp," a reporter wrote. "And as she did so she dealt him a sudden blow in the left side of the neck with a common pearl-handled, three-bladed knife, the blade severing the jugular vein."

In September 1895, using a weapon somewhat more common than a three-bladed knife - but no less deadly - a professional acrobat named William Coleman, who was drunk, beat Officer John T. Delehanty with a sandbag. Officer Delehanty died soon afterward at Bellevue Hospital, and the beating led Theodore Roosevelt, then president of the Board of Police Commissioners, to call for the return of long nightsticks for police officers.

"I love this project," said Lieutenant McGrath, who said the research team's mission was to remember all the department's members. He also relished the idea of stepping back in time: "Once you read the stories, of guys beaten to death in anti-Catholic riots, or in Draft Riots - John Smedick's a good one. This guy ambushes him and fires a pistol at him."

He was referring to the murder of Officer John Smedick on July 23, 1868, by John Real, "a notorious ruffian" on First Avenue near 32nd Street. The Times called it "one of the most unprovoked and reckless murders ever committed."

Mr. Real, who had been arrested twice by Officer Smedick, explained to the police that he was "bound to get square on him."

Of course, not all of the deaths were so dramatic.

In 1851, Sgt. Michael Foster was fatally stabbed outside the Porterhouse Bar by sailors from the Schooner Habana. In 1863, several officers died in the Draft Riots.

In 1898, an officer contracted a fatal case of typhoid while on assignment. In 1905, Patrolman Ira Kinne was accidentally shot in the abdomen by a fellow officer while working as a firearms instructor at the Ninth Regiment Armory.

In 1900, after Patrolman Robert J. Thorpe arrested May Enoch for loitering, her husband, Arthur Harris, fatally stabbed Patrolman Thorpe at 41st Street and Eighth Avenue. Mr. Harris was black, and rioting followed as whites bent on revenge attacked blacks on the West Side.

Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly relaxed department rules in 1993, during his first tenure, so that all officers who died in the line of duty receive a plaque. He said that while the stories illuminated a different era, in many ways the job had not changed.

"Cops put on the blue uniform, and go out, and run into situations that put their lives in risk. It's different in the sense of both technology and perhaps training," he said.

"But it comes down to you being the first person up the stairs. Or the first person in the door. The heart pounds, and the adrenaline rises," he said. "It doesn't change."

Lies told about Iraq, and how to lose a war.



I couldn't say this any better, so I cheated. Enjoy.



HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By RALPH PETERS

November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.

Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.

Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.



Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

*


The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.

As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

And they won't all be conservatives.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

Quick quotes.

FAMILY

"Four years ago, while the nation's eyes were fixed on the
devastation in New York City, California's Democrat-controlled
Legislature attacked marriage by enacting a sweeping domestic
partner bill one day after September 11. Yesterday, while the
nation was still reeling from the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, the
Legislature voted to blow away marriage completely by doing away
with its essential requirement---that a wedding have a bride and a
groom. Perhaps they're hoping that Californians are so distracted
by the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans that they won't notice
their out-of-control politicians in Sacramento. Gov. Schwarzenegger
has the power to terminate this radical plan to create counterfeit
marriage. He can either side with the 61 percent of Californians
who voted to protect marriage in a statewide initiative, or he
can side with the radical Democrats." ---Robert Knight


OPINION IN BRIEF

"We are now reaping the benefits of a welfare state. For more years
than most can remember, we have been told by those holding office
that they will take care of us. We have provided food, clothing
and shelter to the extent that the recipients became entirely
dependent on government resources to live. They have reached the
point that no longer do they have the knowledge to take care of
themselves. They will sit there and drown or go hungry, and curse
the fact that the government has not gotten them out of this
mess. When it is all said and done, there is but one person who
is responsible for me, and that is me. The responsibility falls
to me to take care of my family, not the government. Society,
not government, has an obligation to provide care and sustenance
to those who, because of age or physical impairment cannot take
care of themselves, but able-bodied people who stand around
and complain that no one is doing anything for them deserve
whatever the fates cast in their direction. Life is hard, and you
either get tougher or you get washed away---it is as simple as
that. Politicians will never, ever take care of you---they only
want one thing from you, and that is to stay in power as long as
they can. In a situation like Katrina, they will stand in front
of the cameras and microphones and denigrate everyone above them
in government to take the eye off of their pathetic efforts. This
is a situation that they have created, and now the good citizens
of the area will have to step in and clean up the mess that
has been created by the politicians. It won't happen overnight,
but it will happen---there are too many good people who live in
that area for it not to happen. I love the people of New Orleans
and the surrounding parishes, but I despise the politicians... I
just hope that when the area is rebuilt, they stay away from the
massive welfare system they had before---absolutely no good comes
from welfare. It depletes available resources, making it ever more
difficult for what passes as government to respond to the true
needs of the community."---Robert Johnson, retired NOPD captain

A letter from the troops of the 101st Airborne.

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.
I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?

You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqi’s pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American’s badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi’s. Yes there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.
I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT Walter J. Rausch and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

God bless you guys.

Recently, Michelle Malkin has stated that you can call her stay away from her family.

Or, as she says

During one of countless book-related radio interviews this week, a liberal radio host insultingly asked me whether I write my own column. His question was prompted by vicious anonymous bloggers who portray me as a greedy Asian whore/ dupe/ brainwashing victim who simply parrots what my white slavemasters program into my empty little head. These critics have stepped up attacks on my husband Jesse as a fanatical right-wing puppeteer orchestrating all I do and say.

I assume these tinfoil-hat wearers also think I'm secretly wired during my TV and radio appearances, speeches, and debates-- you know, just like George Bush.

As I've noted in several newspaper profiles and television interviews, I met my husband in college, where he founded a right-of-center student publication that I wrote for and edited. He started off as a Berkeley-born Dukakis liberal; I was a congenital conservative who helped him see the light. We have been each other's best friend, editor, and sounding board for nearly half of our lives. He followed me to Southern California when I took my first newspaper gig in Los Angeles. He followed me up to the Pacific Northwest when I was hired by the Seattle Times. I followed him to Washington D.C. when he got a lucrative health-care consulting job. And when my career took off after I published my first book in 2002, he cut back on his own ambitions to be with our kids.

In his spare time (such as it is with an active kindergartener and an Energizer bunny preschooler), he helps me out when he can. Al Franken needs a dozen, overpaid Harvard-trained research assistants. I have my hubby's help for a few hours a week.

Our partnership has spanned my editing of his Rhodes Scholarship essay to his formatting of my footnotes in Unhinged to the most important project in our lives--our kids. He has done copy-editing on my three books, conducted background research, taken dictation, drafted language for business letters, reviewed contracts, mailed my thank-you notes, helped me with a handful of blog posts out of the estimated 3,000 I've written since June 2004, corrected the math in a few of the estimated 800 newspaper columns I've penned since November 1992, and provided me with emotional support and encouragement through good times and bad. In turn, I've proofread his dissertation, conducted background research, reviewed his grant applications, helped him with speeches and conference presentations, picked out his ties for interviews, corrected his grammar, rewritten ledes for his business-related op-eds, brainstormed and edited some of his research proposals, and tried to provide as much emotional support and encouragement to him as he has to me. Message to crackpots and haters: This is not a right-wing conspiracy. This is marriage.

As for my husband's "influence," why yes, he influences me all the time and vice versa. Spouses tend to do that to each other over the years. When I came up with my idea for Invasion after 9/11, he was skeptical. We don't agree on everything, but I've pulled him to the right on national security, the Second Amendment, and some social issues. He has put up with my insomniac writing habits, investigative obsessions, and workaholism for more than a dozen years, and I have successfully converted him to the conservative cause.

The racist and sexist "yellow woman doing a white man's job" knock is a tiresome old attack from impotent liberals that I've tolerated a long time. It is pathetic that I have to sit here and tell you that my ideas, my politics, and my intellectual capital are mine and mine alone in response to cowardly attacks from misogynistic moonbats with Asian whore fixations. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, and integrity are routinely ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman. As a public figure, I am willing to take these insults, but I cannot tolerate the smearing of my loved ones. Because I have always been open and proud about his support for my career, my husband has taken endless, hate-filled abuse from my critics. His Jewish heritage, his decision to be a stay-at-home dad, and even his looks, are the subject of brutal mockery.

Enough.

If you have a problem with my work and what I stand for, go ahead and take me on. Keep calling me whatever four-letter-word makes you feel better when you can't win your arguments. But leave my family alone.

Have you libs fallen so far, and is the hour so late, that nothing remains but the shrieks of your hate? These cries in the dark that nobody wants to listen to? Is that it? Is that the best you can do to Malkin but insult her and her family?

Wait, I forgot. Based on what you Leftist, Communist sociopaths been doing to Lt. Gov. Steele of Maryland, you have.

Anyway, I've got something better, a list of four-letter-names to call Michelle.

Nice
Sexy
Good
Kind
Hoty [okay, that was a stretch.]

And if you can get four letter synonyms for genious, charming, lovely, knowledgeable, generous and descent human being, let me know... and you belong making NYTimes Crossword puzzles.