“The Nazis didn’t kill the Jews in 1933. They killed them in 1941. They killed them after dehumanizing them.”

       So states Shulamit Enber of the International School of Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem’s Holocaust Memorial Museum, in an interview with Michael Greenspan for the television docu-drama “Against all Odds” which is poised to screen on PBS across the United States.

       Greenspan, an investigative reporter, wanted to know how it was that Hitler’s followers singled out the Jews as the one group to focus everybody’s hatred on.

      Talk about “supporting the troops” or “honoring the dead” is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes. It is like saying “I take full responsibility,” when all that this phrase really means is: “You have caught me red-handed and there is no way to deny it, so I will just use these words to try to dissipate your anger and escape punishment.”

     After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

     The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about “supporting our troops” or “honoring our troops” have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

     Mention Jane Fonda to any 10 Vietnam veterans, and at least seven of them will have some sort of conniption right on the spot. Spread the rumor that Hanoi Jane will be leading the anti-war protest march from the Vietnam Memorial Wall to the Pentagon on Saturday, and a battalion of 60-year-old Vietnam veterans is ready to do battle again.

     Rumors are flying over the Internet. 

    " The Vietnam Wall is sacred ground, how dare they stage their march in front of it? Didn't anti-war protestors recently spray-paint graffiti on the Capitol steps? We'll form a human wall in front of the Wall to protect it."

     Temperature proxy data from the past 1000 years was needed to construct the 'hockeystick" curve. Actual temperature measurements could not be made during much of this time simply because the thermometer wasn't invented until 1709. Such thermometers were not widely used for decades and the concept of heat was unknown (Fourier provided the Laws of Heat Transfer much later) so that actual climate temperature data did not systematically begin for another 200 years. Thus proxies such as core samples and tree rings were used.

     What McKitrick and McIntyre have found in their hockeystick analysis is shattering and profound. It destroys the credibility and integrity of the IPCC, the editors of Nature magazine, and the 2500 hundred or so members of a so-called consensus of climate experts. M&M have once again shown that consensus is not science.

     When are we going to see a rising tide of anger, outrage and denunciation of this collection of these deadly 5th columnists in our midst?

     "Ibrahim" Hooper (Canadian convert to Islam) is particularly odious, and perennially disingenuous, in my opinion. All of his statements as CAIR'S "spokesman" have a serpentine quality about them and are never to be trusted as conciliatory, or for the benefit of "understanding" either the "religion of peace" or CAIR's claim concerning the advancement of "civil rights" of Muslims. Hooper, CAIR and all those who condemn true, sincere ex-Muslims or proponents of a reformation of Islam are in fact working to replace the United States Constitution with Shari'a Law. Why aren’t more Americans waking up to this pernicious, deadly threat to the very existence of our America-the-Beautiful?

    Here is an excerpt from Robert Spencer’s excellent commentary in Human Events.

     “Shouldn’t CAIR endorse a statement calling for protection of “sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence”? Isn’t CAIR dedicated to protecting “civil liberties”? And as for the developing of “an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation,” wouldn’t such a public atmosphere help CAIR “encourage dialogue” and “build coalitions”?

     “Such an endorsement would go a long way toward reassuring people that CAIR is indeed what it presents itself to be, and not a group whose goals are, in fact, quite different from those of the St. Petersburg Declaration.

     “Reporters should be asking CAIR’s Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper this week: do you endorse the St. Petersburg Declaration? And if not, why not? Tell us what you think of the principles expressed and statements made in it. Let the dialogue begin.”

Read the full column RIGHT HERE

For the second time in a week, a media organization has seriously reported on the "evil spirits" that President Bush’s trip to Latin America will bring.

Reporter Chris Cuomo: "President Bush's tour of Latin America stops in Guatemala today. Some angry protestors say President Bush will only bring, quote, 'evil spirits' to the site.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday described past Republican political malfeasance in New Hampshire as evidence of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy."

     Clinton's barbed comments revived a term she coined for the partisan plotting during her husband's presidential tenure and echoed remarks she made last weekend in New Hampshire, which holds the nation's first primary.

     Her rhetorical red meat to a sympathetic audience of Democratic municipal officials comes as Clinton courts New Hampshire voters and squeezes donors for dollars ahead of a March 31 fundraising report deadline.

     The deficiencies reported by the IG are administrative issues. No information was used inappropriately. There were no instances sited where individual rights or liberties were infringed upon. In addition to identifying significant problems, the report discusses the effectiveness of the use of NSLs as a proven and useful tool in protecting the American citizenry from acts of terrorism. The report also concurs with the FBI that NSLs have contributed significantly to the FBI’s counterterrorism and intelligence missions.

     Put into context, if Congress takes steps to limit FBI NSL authority or diminish the PATRIOT Act, the only beneficiaries will be terrorists. Taking away or limiting important counterterrorism investigative tools makes us much more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The responsible and sensible path of action for Congress is to ensure counterterrorism authorities are properly used. It would be inappropriate to diminish mechanisms and capabilities to protect our country.
     [Mark Levin read this excellent analysis on his Monday radio show. Scroll down on the page. The article appears below the first few columns.]

     We all know what the Democrats oppose in the war, but after all this time, do we know what they are for?

     They are against the war in Iraq, and they are opposed to most of the tools the administration has used to prosecute the war on terror. They are against much of the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic surveillance program, the trial of enemy combatants in military tribunals, tough interrogation techniques, Gitmo and Bush's harsh language against the "evildoers."

     They are against "unilateralism" when they mistakenly think Bush has employed it (in the build-up to the Iraq attack) and against multilateralism when Bush is obviously employing it (Iraq and North Korea).

There are no atheists in foxholes, as any dogface soldier could tell you, and neither are there any atheists in presidential politics. Looking death in the face, whether in a foxhole or at the polls, makes a believer of almost everyone. You could ask almost any Democrat. Democratic office-seekers are walking the sawdust trail to the mourner's bench, drenching their campaigns in religiosity if not necessarily authentic religion. Be prepared to hear a lot more about the "Religious Left."

       Hillary Clinton has come a long way from her days as first lady, when she held seances with the long-dead Eleanor Roosevelt and praised the squishy "politics of meaning." She speaks now of her personal faith as a way of connecting with "values" voters. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, might not recognize her "do-good" social gospel nostrums to erase poverty, her call for an energy policy to prevent tinkering with "God's creation," but she invokes her Methodist upbringing in nearly every speech.